Escamilla v. Santa Ana Second Amended Complaint For Damages Final

Daniel Escamilla
1 1679 E. Orangethorpe Ave. #117

Atwood, CA 92811
2 Tel: (714) 210-3500
3 Fax: (714) 210-3505
dan@escamilla.com
4
Plaintiff in Pro Se
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 DANIEL ESCAMILLA, ) Case No. SACV19-2229-JAK-ADS
11 )
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
12 Plaintiff. )
FOR DAMAGES AND FOR
v. )
13 DECLARATORY AND
)
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
14 CITY OF SANTA ANA, a municipality; )
POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE )
15 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
CITY OF SANTA ANA (a local unit of )
16 government); POLICE CHIEF DAVID )
VALENTIN, OFFICER M. )
17
GUTIERREZ and OFFICER )
18 RODRIGUEZ as individuals and )
19 employees of CITY OF SANTA ANA )
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive. )
20 )
21 Defendants. )
)
22
23 Table of Contents
24 I. NATURE OF ACTION ................................................................................ 4
25
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ................................................................... 5
26
27 III. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES .............................. 5
28 IV. PARTIES ...................................................................................................... 6
1
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 V. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS ....................................................................... 7
2 VI. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ....................................................................... 8

3
VII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF .............................................................................. 15
4
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Dangerous Condition of Public
5
Property ............................................................................................... 15
6
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Maintaining a Public Nuisance ....... 20
7
8 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION First Amendment Retaliation.............. 22
9 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Conspiracy (42 U.S.C. §
10 1985(3)) ................................................................................................ 26
11
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Civil Rights (42 U.S.C.
12 §1983) ................................................................................................... 29
13
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of California Constitution
14 – Declaratory Relief (Article I, sec. 28 – Marsy’s Law, Code of
15 Civ. Proc. § 1060) ................................................................................. 30
16 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Denial of Equal Protection –
17 Enforcement of Laws (Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to
18 the U.S. Constitution:Actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) ................. 31
19 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Denial of Equal Protection –

20 Victim’s Bill of Rights (Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution:Actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) ............. 33
21
22 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION Procedural Due Process (Violation
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
23
Actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) .................................................... 34
24
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Substantive Due Process
25
(Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
26 Actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) .................................................... 39
27
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Action for Neglect to Prevent
28 (42. U.S.C. § 1986) ............................................................................... 41
2
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Monell Violation (42 U.S.C. §
1983) ..................................................................................................... 42
2
3 THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Hiring,
Retention, Supervision and Training (42 U.S.C. § 1983) .................... 44
4
5 FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment and Fifth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983) .. ..47
6
7 PRAYER FOR RELIEF ...................................................................................... 47
8 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ........................................................................... 48
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
2 FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
3 Plaintiff, DANIEL ESCAMILLA, (“Plaintiff”) is informed and believes,
4 and on that basis alleges, as follows:
5 I. NATURE OF ACTION
6 1. This is a civil rights action with supplemental state law claims arising
7 from multiple violations of Plaintiff Daniel Escamilla’s (hereinafter “Plaintiff”)
8 rights under the United States Constitution, California Constitution and laws of
9 the United States and the State of California. All claims alleged herein flow
10 directly from a confluence of actions, all attributable to Defendant City of Santa
11 Ana (“the City”) and its employees.
12 2. Plaintiff was attacked by a homeless, drug addicted two-strike felon
13 living homeless in the area of the Santa Ana Civic Center. This attack was the
14 direct and proximate result of a dangerous condition of violent homeless
15 miscreants concentrated in and near the Civic Center, created by Defendant City
16 of Santa Ana. Plaintiff’s reasonable and good faith effort to defend himself with a
17 firearm, which he was lawfully carrying pursuant to concealed weapons permit
18 issued by the Orange County Sheriff Department’s (“OCSD”), and the subsequent
19 falsification and/or revision of facts in the police report generated by the Santa
20 Ana Police Department and part of a policy, custom or practice of the Santa Ana
21 Police Department falsifying, revising or superseding police reports, led to the
22 revocation of Plaintiff’s CCW permit and the concomitant loss of Plaintiff’s
23 ability to work as an independent bail fugitive recovery agent. This effectively
24 ended Plaintiff’s thriving 10-year career as an on-call independent fugitive
25 recovery agent and forced the closing of Plaintiff’s office location at the corner of
26 Santa Ana Boulevard and Flower, which he had occupied for seventeen (17) years.
27 3. Plaintiff’s claim for damages is brought under state and federal law
28 against THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY
4
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 OF SANTA ANA, POLICE CHIEF DAVID VALENTIN, OFFICER M.
2 GUTIERREZ AND OFFICER RODRIGUEZ, and DOES 1 through 50, their
3 officials, and employees, for state, and federal law violations including violations
4 of civil rights (42 USC § 1983), conspiracy to violate civil rights (42 USC § 1985)
5 and neglect to prevent violation (42 USC § 1986). Plaintiff alleges that
6 defendants are jointly and severally liable for the damages inuring to Plaintiff as a
7 result of the incident on January 17, 2018 and the for damages resulting from the
8 subsequent acts of the Santa Ana Police Department and DOES 1-50.
9 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10 4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
11 §§1331 and 1343(a), over Plaintiffs’ causes of action arising under 42 U.S.C. §
12 1983, 1985(3), 1986, and 1988) and due to the deprivation of rights, privileges,
13 and immunities secured to Plaintiff under the First, Second, and Fourteenth
14 Amendments to the United States Constitution. This Court has supplemental
15 jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ causes of action arising under California state law
16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
17 5. Venue lies in the United States District Court for the Central District
18 of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)
19 because one or more Defendants is a political subdivision of the State of
20 California, and because the underlying acts, omissions, events, injuries and related
21 facts, upon which the present action is based, occurred in Orange County,
22 California.
23 III. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
24 6. Pursuant to section 910 of the California Government Code, Plaintiff
25 timely filed an administrative claim with the City on July 16, 2018. The City
26 denied the claim by letter dated May 22, 2019,
27 7. Pursuant to Government Code § 913, the City, acting through its
28 contract claims administrator AdminSure, rejected Plaintiff’s claims in writing by
5
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 letter dated May 22, 2019. This rejection allowed Plaintiff six (6) months from
2 that date to file this action. (Gov. Code § 945.6.) This action has been filed prior
3 to the expiration of the six (6) months period, ending on November 20, 2019.
4 8. Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies as required under
5 the CA Government Code before filing this action.
6 IV. PARTIES
7 9. Plaintiff DANIEL ESCAMILLA is a natural person, citizen,
8 domiciliary and a permanent resident of the State of California.
9 10. Plaintiff brings this action as an individual on his own behalf under
10 both federal and California law.
11 11. Defendant CITY OF SANTA ANA (“the City”) is a municipality
12 within the State of California and is the employer of Defendants CHIEF OF
13 POLICE DAVID VALENTIN, (“Chief Valentin”) OFFICER M. GUTIERREZ
14 (“Officer Gutierrez”) and OFFICER RODRIGUEZ (“Officer Rodriguez”) and
15 other unidentified police officers or persons, DOES 1 through 50. The POLICE
16 DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA (“SAPD”) is a local
17 government unit. The individual defendants performed all of the herein alleged
18 acts for, and in the name of Defendants, the City and the SAPD.
19 12. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Chief Valentin, Officer
20 Gutierrez and Officer Rodriguez and DOES 1 through 50 were, and still are,
21 residents of the County of Orange, State of California, and were duly appointed
22 and acting police officers working in and for the SAPD and the City. They are
23 each sued individually and in their official capacities as employees of the City.
24 13. Defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are sued under fictitious
25 names. Their true names and capacities are unknown to plaintiff. Plaintiff will
26 amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.
27 Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each of the
28 fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences
6
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 alleged in this complaint, and that Plaintiff’s claims alleged in this complaint were
2 proximately caused by such defendants.
3 14. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each
4 named defendant, including DOES 1 through 50, was the agent, servant,
5 employee, or partner of each other defendant, and that each defendant was acting
6 within the course and scope of such agency, employment, partnership, or other
7 business relationship and with the consent or the ratification of each other in doing
8 the things alleged herein.
9 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that at all
10 times herein mentioned, DOES 1 through 50, and each of them, were residents
11 and/or doing business within the County of Orange, State of California, within this
12 judicial district, and that the defendants, and each of them, are responsible to
13 plaintiff pursuant to the causes of action set forth herein.
14 V. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
15 16. Plaintiff is currently ignorant of the true names and capacities,
16 whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of the defendants sued
17 herein under the fictitious names DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore,
18 sues such defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint
19 to allege the true names and capacities of said fictitiously named defendants when
20 their true names and capacities have been ascertained.
21 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the
22 fictitiously named DOE defendants is legally responsible in some manner for the
23 events and occurrences alleged herein, and for the damages suffered by plaintiff.
24 Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that all defendants, including
25 the fictitious DOE defendants, were at all relevant times acting as actual agents,
26 conspirators, ostensible agents, partners and/or joint venturers and employees of
27 all other defendants, and that all acts alleged herein occurred within the course and
28 scope of said agency, employment, partnership, joint venture, conspiracy and/or
7
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 enterprise, and with the express and/or implied permission, knowledge, consent,
2 authorization and ratification of their co-defendants; however, this allegation is
3 pleaded as an "alternative" theory wherever not doing so would result in a
4 contradiction with other allegations.
5 18. All allegations in this complaint are based on information and belief
6 and/or are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
7 further investigation or discovery. Whenever allegations in this complaint are
8 contrary or inconsistent, such allegations shall be deemed alternative.
9 VI. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
10 19. At the time of this incident and for a period of over fifteen (15) years
11 prior to that date, Plaintiff, who is a graduate of the Chapman School of Law and
12 the Orange County Sheriff’s Academy, was employed as an independent
13 California bail fugitive recovery agent and, for approximately the same period of
14 time, held a concealed weapons permit (CCW), a permit which is required to
15 lawfully carry a firearm concealed in the State of California1 and necessary to
16 safely and effectively handle the routine tasks associated with the work of an
17 independent bail fugitive recovery agent.2
18 20. While exiting his office parking lot at 888 W. Santa Ana Blvd, Santa
19 Ana, California, on the late afternoon of January 17, 2018, Plaintiff observed an
20 unkempt Hispanic male, apparently homeless, first yelling at and then violently
21 striking or stabbing at torso level, a female Hispanic who had been walking on a
22 city sidewalk on the 800 block of W. 3rd Street, directly behind the parking lot
23 exit of Plaintiff’s office. The attack on the victim caused her to fall to the ground
24 and begin screaming while the attacker kicked her.
25
1
26 In California, it is unlawful for a person to carry a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place. (Penal Code § 12031(a)(1).)
27
2
The basic duties of a bail fugitive recovery agent are to apprehend, detain, or arrest a bail
28
fugitive. Only certified law enforcement officers and certified bail fugitive recovery agents may
engage in these activities. See Penal Code § 1299.02
8
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 21. Plaintiff picked up his cell phone to dial 911 but then observed others
2 watching the incident, who appeared to be calling the police, so he exited his
3 vehicle and approached the female victim who was on the ground screaming
4 loudly and who, from Plaintiff’s distance, appeared to have been either repeatedly
5 punched or repeatedly stabbed in the torso by the assailant due to his violent
6 pumping arm movements during the attack. As Plaintiff approached the victim,
7 the assailant began fleeing the scene. Plaintiff made no effort to follow the
8 assailant and focused his efforts solely on assessing the physical condition of the
9 assailant’s victim.
10 22. Plaintiff, who has received training and certification and worked as
11 an emergency medical technician (EMT) in the past, approached the victim with
12 the intention of determining whether she was seriously injured and to determine
13 whether she was suffering from any life-threatening injuries.
14 23. When Plaintiff was approximately twenty (20) feet from the victim,
15 the male attacker, who had initially fled, returned and charged at Plaintiff while
16 swinging a metal compressor, the size of a scuba tank, toward Plaintiff and
17 directing the long metal nozzle attached to the tank, toward Plaintiff’s face as if
18 getting ready to spray a caustic substance on Plaintiff or use the long steel nozzle
19 as a weapon to impale or to hurl the tank at Plaintiff. Plaintiff first backpedaled,
20 but then when the attacker continued to advance toward him and just before the
21 assailant came into striking range, fearing for his life, Plaintiff drew his concealed
22 firearm and ordered the attacker onto the ground and held the attacker at gunpoint
23 until the police arrived.
24 24. As Plaintiff was holding assailant at gunpoint, the assailant grabbed
25 the female victim and attempted to use her as a human shield, placing her between
26 himself and Plaintiff, until she pulled him down onto the curb and pleaded for him
27 to wait for the police.
28 ///
9
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 25. While Plaintiff was holding the assailant (later identified as Robert
2 Alvarez Figueroa (“Figueroa”)) at gunpoint, waiting for the police to arrive and
3 after exposing his fugitive recovery badge, Figueroa repeatedly asked for Officer
4 Rodriguez by name, stating “I’m friends with Officer Rodriguez and he will tell
5 you.” He went on to say, “He will take care of things.” Figueroa also stated
6 “Everything will be fine once my friend Officer Rodriguez gets here.” The female
7 victim (who was later identified as Maria Juarez Hernandez (“Hernandez”)) while
8 sobbing and holding her injured torso, stated, “Please don’t shoot him, he is the
9 father of my children.”
10 26. When the first SAPD officer arrived at the scene, Plaintiff re-
11 holstered his weapon and waited on the opposite sidewalk to give a statement
12 while the assailant was handcuffed. Plaintiff was then approached by SAPD
13 Officer M. Campi, badge #3525, who advised Plaintiff that he would be writing
14 the report. Plaintiff gave Officer Campi a detailed statement and after this officer
15 had interviewed other witnesses, he told Plaintiff that he was free to go and
16 provided Plaintiff with his business card showing Report # 18-01446 and
17 indicating that the crime of “PC 245” would be charged against the assailant,
18 information which was also communicated verbally to Plaintiff by Officer Campi:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 27. Ultimately, the crime of CA Penal Code § 245 was never charged,
27 the police report written by Officer Campi was relegated to a “supplemental
28 report,” and this supplemental report, with others, never provided to
10
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 Plaintiff. Officer Campi’s report was apparently superseded by the police
2 report which was written by newly-hired Officer M. Gutierrez (SAPD #1997),
3 apparently under the direct supervision of a senior officer (Rodriguez) who
4 had a close personal friendship or familial relationship with the assailant,
5 Figueroa.
6 28. The second police report written by Officer Gutierrez omitted the
7 material facts relating to the assault against Plaintiff by Figueroa and charged only
8 possession of narcotics violations (27 cc’s of heroin in a syringe and 0.4 grams of
9 black tar heroin) against Figueroa who was released on his own recognizance
10 without being taken into custody due to only misdemeanor violations being
11 charged.
12 29. The police report by Gutierrez also failed to disclose the statement of
13 independent witness David Pena which, based on information and belief, provided
14 evidence that Figueroa attacked another male bystander who fled after Figueroa
15 brandished a knife, prior to attacking Hernandez and then Escamilla, before
16 Escamilla finally stopped the assaultive rampage by Figueroa by drawing his
17 lawfully held firearm in self-defense. Officer Gutierrez’s report also concluded his
18 police report with a false and misleading statements as follows:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 The police report by Gutierrez is misleading because:
27 a.) Video evidence shows Figueroa violently assaulting Hernandez;
28 ///
11
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 b.) The witness statement by David Pena recounted that he observed
2 Figueroa violently assaulting Hernandez;
3 c.) Plaintiff is not a peace officer and, nonetheless, although had no duty
4 to “identify himself,” exposed his fugitive recovery agent badge after
5 drawing his firearm to defend himself from a violent physical attack
6 from a drug-addicted homeless person;
7 d.) The report fails to discuss the statement of the independent witness,
8 David Pena, who observed the knife attack by Figueroa on an
9 unknown male, and then witnessed the subsequent attacks upon
10 Hernandez and Plaintiff by Figueroa. Plaintiff contends that this
11 witnesses’ statement would eliminate any notion of Figueroa being a
12 crime victim rather than a criminal assailant.
13 30. The reporting officer or senior office who reviewed the report knew
14 or should have known that Hernandez’s statement that “Figueroa did not touch
15 her,” was false based on the following facts:
16 a.) Office Gutierrez provided Hernandez with a domestic violence
17 victim’s resource card;
18 b.) Because Hernandez, who has children with Figueroa, was a domestic
19 violence victim, Gutierrez knew or should have known that victims
20 often lie to protect their abuser in domestic violence situations; and
21 c.) At least two (2) independent witnesses, including witness Pena and
22 Plaintiff, contradicted the statement by Hernandez that Figueroa “did
23 not touch her.”
24 d.) There was video evidence from Plaintiff’s dash cam of Hernandez
25 being violently struck by Figueroa.
26 31. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Figueroa:
27 a.) Is a documented gang member according to Orange County Superior
28 Court records;
12
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 b.) Had two (2) prior felony convictions at the time of this incident;
2 c.) Was addicted to narcotics at the time of his arrest and a beneficiary of
3 the illegal Mobile Needle Exchange Program which was allowed to
4 be operated by the City of Santa Ana;
5 d.) Had narcotics (black tar heroin) in his possession at the time of the
6 incident;
7 e.) Was living as a homeless person in the Civic Center area of Santa
8 Ana, within 1 block of Plaintiff’s office at the time of the incident.
9 32. The fact that Figueroa, a two-striker, gang-member, referred to
10 Officer Rodriguez his “good friend” who would “take care of things” after he
11 violently assaulted the mother of his children and then attacked Plaintiff would be
12 enough for a reasonable officer to recuse himself from the handling of the case.
13 Instead, Officer Rodriguez elevated his involvement in the case, took over the
14 supervision of the case and directed the subordinate officer writing of the police
15 report to write it such a way that could avoid charging his “good friend” Figueroa
16 with the more serious crimes of CA Penal Code §§ 243 and 245. Not only did the
17 report omit these serious crimes, the report even went so far as to suggest that
18 Plaintiff committed the crime of CA Penal Code § 245 against Figueroa when he
19 lawfully defended himself from Figueroa’s violent attack by drawing his
20 concealed firearm to stop Figueroa.
21 33. While the charge of CA Penal Code § 243 was later added to the
22 charges against Figueroa by the Orange County District Attorney’s Office3, had
23 Officer Rodriguez not escalated his involvement in the case, Figueroa would have
24 been arrested and taken into custody for the crimes of Penal Code §§ 243 and 245,
25 ///
26
3
27 After reviewing a dash cam video of the battery by Figueroa upon Hernandez provided to
SAPD by Plaintiff the day following the incident, the Orange County District Attorney’s Office
28 added the felony charge of CA Penal Code § 243(e)(1) (battery on co-habitant) to the criminal
case against Figueroa.
13
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 rather than just being cited and released for the narcotics violation, making it
2 much more likely that Figueroa would not have failed to appear for his charges
3 and become a fugitive.
4 34. Figueroa subsequently failed to appear for his arraignment on the
5 charges brought against him as a result of the January 17, 2018 incident, and
6 became a fugitive from justice according to the OCSD Warrant Search webpage,
7 generated after Figueroa failed to appear in court for arraignment:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 35. Subsequent to the incident, Plaintiff was informed by the OCSD that,
20 as a result of this incident and, specifically, based on the information contained in
21 the police report suggesting that Plaintiff may have committed a violation of
22 Penal Code § 245, his concealed weapons permit (CCW) was revoked.
23 36. Plaintiff has no administrative remedy to challenge the revocation of
24 his CCW based on the false police report because a sheriff in California is not
25 required to hold a “due process hearing” when a CCW is revoked. Robert Nichols
26 v. County of Santa Clara 223 Cal.App.3d 1236, 273 Cal.Rptr. 84 (1990). This
27 summary revocation process, without a right to a hearing to challenge the grounds
28 for revocation, even prevents retired police officers from challenging a sheriff’s
14
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 unreviewable CCW revocation. See Ass'n of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs v.
2 Gates, 716 F.2d 733 (9th Cir. 1983); San Jose Police Officers v. City of San Jose
3 199 Cal.App.3d 1471, 245 Cal.Rptr. 728 (1988).
4 37. As an actual and proximate cause of Defendants’ wrongful conduct,
5 Plaintiff has suffered damages including, but not limited to, loss of his CCW
6 permit, loss of reputation, loss of employment as a fugitive recovery agent, loss of
7 career, loss of business opportunity, loss of earnings, moving expenses, and
8 general damages to be proven at trial.
9 38. As set forth with great specificity herein, each cause of action which
10 alleges a constitutional violation as against the Defendant City of Santa Ana or the
11 SAPD, was caused by a policy statement, ordinance, regulation or decision
12 officially adopted or promulgated or for the deprivations alleged, pursuant to a
13 governmental custom or practice.
14 VII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
15 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
16 Dangerous Condition of Public Property
17 (Against Defendants CITY OF SANTA ANA, POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE
18 CITY OF SANTA ANA and DOES 1 through 50)
19 39. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations
20 contained in the preceding paragraphs 1-38 of this complaint, as though fully set
21 forth herein.
22 40. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
23 Defendant City owns, controls, operates, and/or maintains public sidewalks and
24 public parks, including but not limited to Angels Community Park and Birch Park
25 each of which are within several hundred feet of Plaintiff’s office location as it
26 existed on January 17, 2018 at 888 W. Santa Ana Blvd, Suite 100, Santa Ana,
27 California 92701.
28 ///
15
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 41. In this map, Plaintiff’s former office, Legal Service Bureau, is
2 labeled in red and Angels Community Park is depicted below and to the left of
3 Plaintiff’s office. Birch Park is depicted to the right of Plaintiff’s office):
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 42. Defendant City of Santa Ana and the SAPD breached its duty of care
17 to the Plaintiff and maintained and allowed dangerous conditions to take root,
18 flourish and multiply, changing the physical characteristics and features of the
19 public sidewalks, at public parks, and in other city-owned and operated areas
20 neighborhood and areas adjacent to Plaintiff’s office at 888 W. Santa Ana Blvd.,
21 significantly deteriorating the safety of the area and foreseeably endangering those
22 using the property by maintaining public property in a manner, which, due to the
23 changed physical features and characteristics, increases the risk of a criminal
24 assault. These physical features and characteristics of the public property which
25 have ‘increased or intensified’ the danger to users from third party conduct are as
26 follows:
27 a.) The crude construction, maintenance and existence of homeless tents
28 and makeshift shelters on its property throughout the Civic Center
16
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 vicinity and surrounding areas, including but not limited to Angels
2 Community Park and Birch Park rendering the parks defective and
3 unfit for their intended recreational use and providing a safe haven
4 for the urban campers to conceal themselves and their weapons and
5 allowing a place for the campers to abscond after committing crimes;
6 b.) Converting parking lots to illegal food distribution sites and for
7 distribution of other supplies intended to provide comfort for the
8 drug-addicted, mentally unstable and potentially violent and
9 dangerous persons and convicted felons such as the assailant and
10 later fugitive Robert Figueroa, and creating crowds of homeless
11 persons rendering the public parking lots defective and unsafe for
12 their intended purpose of parking cars;
13 c.) The operation and maintenance of an illegal Mobile Needle
14 Exchange Program4 which had the effect of attracting to the area and
15 converting the area from what was once a safe urban neighborhood
16 with good citizens walking their dogs and pushing their children in
17 strollers to a neighborhood filled with ruckus, mentally unstable and
18 potentially violent drug users and pushers such as the assailant,
19 Robert Figueroa, forcing families and children off the city sidewalks
20 and indoors for their own safety and rendering the public sidewalks
21 defective and unsafe for their intended purpose of allowing local
22 residence to safely walk in their neighborhoods;
23 d.) The fact that the sidewalks have become littered with feces and other
24 human excrement, as well as used hypodermic needles and drug
25
26
4
Judicial Notice will be requested of the ruling of the Honorable Joel R. Wohlfeil in Orange
27 County et al. v. California Dept of Health et al., San Diego Superior Court Case No 37-2018-
00039176-CU-MC-CTL, wherein the Court found that a city’s approval of application to
28
operate a mobile needle exchange program violated the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”) and was thus, unlawful.
17
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 paraphernalia all due to the deliberate indifference and refusal of
2 Defendants to enforce criminal laws relating to drug use and drug
3 possession and other laws holding persons accountable for their
4 civilized personal conduct, including but not limited to the Santa Ana
5 Municipal Code prohibiting public urination and defecation (SAMC
6 §10-34) despite ongoing complaints from residents and business
7 owners, including Plaintiff;
8 43. Defendants had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous
9 conditions and features of the property as it had received numerous complaints
10 from Plaintiff and other members of the public, of the dangerous conductions of
11 the property as set forth in the preceding paragraph, combined with the violent
12 acts being committed by the drug-addicted, mentally unstable and potentially
13 violent and dangerous persons and convicted felons who comprise a major
14 component of the homeless population in Santa Ana living in and loitering in the
15 area of the Civic Center which, themselves, have become physical features of the
16 public property which have ‘increased or intensified’ the danger to users from
17 third party conduct. Further, government workers from the City, including but not
18 limited to city inspectors, park rangers, SAPD police officers, graffiti removal
19 teams and city council members have been to the location to observe the
20 dangerous conditions in and around Angels Community Park and Birch Park prior
21 to Figueroa’s attack upon Hernandez, Plaintiff and another member of the
22 community on January 17, 2018.
23 44. For years these city parks, have been altered in their physical
24 characteristics and features by the homeless persons as well as their tents and
25 shelters erected by these urban campers whose tents and shelters serve as a haven
26 for violence-prone, drug-addicted felons are easily able to take advantage of their
27 nearby tents and shelters to conceal their drugs and weapons and to hide after
28 committing crimes against persons. Plaintiff’s January 17, 2018 encounter with a
18
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 violent homeless narcotic addict brandishing a steel tank and spear-like device
2 which the assailant likely retrieved from his nearby makeshift shelter, occurred
3 directly behind an office which Plaintiff had leased and occupied since 2001, and
4 just 200 feet from Angeles Community Park. The criminal assault was the actual
5 and proximate consequence of the physical features of the public property under
6 the control of Defendants, as these physical features have ‘increased or
7 intensified’ the danger to users from third party conduct. The dangerous
8 conditions were created and/or maintained by public employees, including the
9 Defendant SAPD and/or the Defendant City had actual or constructive notice of
10 these dangerous conditions extending back until at least 2010.
11 45. Well in advance of January 17, 2018 incident, the City had actual and
12 constructive notice of the aforementioned dangerous conditions caused by the
13 inviting sanctuary environment and homeless campgrounds created by actions and
14 conduct of the City and the SAPD, consistent with policies of soft-on-crime and
15 tolerance of drug-users, urban campsites, urban campers and the homeless and
16 which invited, encouraged and facilitated the drug-addicted, mentally unstable and
17 potentially violent and dangerous persons, as well as convicted felons, to make the
18 public areas, including Angeles Community Park, their home by erecting tents and
19 building crude shelters where they can conceal and partake in their recreational
20 drug habits, store their weapons and other tools to commit crimes, and allow
21 themselves to be in close proximity to potential crime victims in Santa Ana’s
22 residential neighborhoods and business communities, thereby increasing the
23 reasonably foreseeable risk that criminal activity by these urban campers will
24 injure persons such as Plaintiff who live and/or work in the area.
25 46. As a direct and proximate result of the dangerous conditions
26 maintained by Defendants, an incident occurred, as alleged herein, proximately
27 causing Plaintiff to suffer losses, as alleged herein.
28 ///
19
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
2 Maintaining a Public Nuisance
4 CITY OF SANTA ANA and DOES 1 through 50)
7 forth herein.
8 48. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that
9 Defendant the City and the SAPD by acting, or failing to act with regard to the
10 crude construction, maintenance and existence of homeless tents, shelters and
11 encampments on its property throughout the Civic Center vicinity and surrounding
12 areas, including but not limited to Angels Community Park and Birch Park,
13 created and/or maintained a public and private nuisance, in Angels Community
14 Park and Birch Park, and other city-owned and operated areas, including
15 sidewalks in the vicinity of 888 W. Santa Ana Blvd., that was:
16 a.) harmful to health in that the violent mentally ill and/or drug-addicted
17 urban campers, and the squalor and disease in which they live, all pose a
18 substantial risk of danger to persons coming in contact with them;
19 b.) obstructed the free use of the property (including but not limited to the
20 sidewalks and parks) so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment
21 of life or property as described in Paragraph 42 of this Complaint;
22 49. The condition described in Paragraph 42 affected a substantial
23 number of people at the same time in that the sidewalks and parks were unable to
24 be used for their intended recreational purposes and were obstructed by the tents
25 and crude shelters erected by the homeless and the mere presence of
26 unpredictable, violent and mentally ill and/or drug-addicted urban campers.
27 50. An ordinary person would be reasonably annoyed or disturbed by the
28 conditions described in Paragraph 42 of this Complaint.
20
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 51. The seriousness of the harm caused by the urban campgrounds and
2 the unpredictable, violent and mentally ill and/or drug-addicted urban campers
3 which inhabit them, outweighs the social utility of the conduct.
4 52. Plaintiff did not consent to the conduct described in Paragraphs 42 or
5 48 of this Complaint.
6 53. Plaintiff suffered harm, as described in this complaint, that was
7 different from the type of harm suffered by the general public
8 54. Defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs
9 harm.
10 55. “Anything which is injurious to health, including, but not limited to,
11 the illegal sale of controlled substances, or is indecent or offensive to the senses,
12 or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable
13 enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in
14 the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin,
15 or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a nuisance.” (Civil Code § 3479.)
16 56. CA Civil Code section 3479 provides an adequate statutory basis for
17 a nuisance claim against a public entity. (See Vedder v. County of Imperial (1974)
18 36 Cal.App.3d 654, 661, (permitting a nuisance theory against a public entity for
19 re hazard pursuant to Civil Code section 3479); see also Mikkelsen v. State of
20 California (1976) 59 Cal. App. 3d 621, 626-27 (“our Supreme Court concluded
21 that section 815 of the Government Code does not bar nuisance actions against
22 public entities to the extent such actions are founded on section 3479 of the Civil
23 Code or other statutory provision that may be applicable.”).)
24 57. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on information and
25 belief alleges, that Defendants’ inadequate inspection, operation, control, and/or
26 maintenance of its property, including but not limited to Angels Community Park
27 and Birch Park, public parks, as alleged herein, as well as its action in authorizing
28 the Mobile Needle Exchange Program, each constitutes a nuisance within the
21
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 meaning of CA Civil Code section 3479 in that the conditions are injurious to the
2 health and welfare of the persons using this property, and the adjacent properties,
3 and causes an obstruction to the free use of Plaintiff’s property and an interference
4 with the quiet use and enjoyment thereof.
5 58. Defendant the City knew or should have known that its inadequate
6 inspection, operation, control and/or maintenance of its property as alleged herein,
7 constitutes a nuisance within the meaning of CA Civil Code § 3479, in that the
8 condition was one which affects at the same time, an entire community or
9 neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, placing those that live and
10 work in the area at risk of injury.
11 59. Defendant City also knew or should have known that Angels
12 Community Park and Birch Park, and areas authorized for the illegal Mobile
13 Needle Exchange Program, were places used for the purpose of unlawfully
14 selling, serving, storing, keeping, manufacturing, or giving away any controlled
15 substances, creating a nuisance as defined in CA Health & Safety Code § 11570.
16 60. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based on that information and
17 belief alleges, that Defendant City’s inadequate inspection, operation, control
18 and/or maintenance of its property as alleged herein, including the maintenance of
19 an illegal Mobile Needle Exchange Program, proximately caused Plaintiff to
20 suffer losses, as alleged herein.
21 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
22 First Amendment Retaliation
24 CITY OF SANTA ANA, POLICE CHIEF DAVID VALENTIN, OFFICER
25 RODRIGUEZ, OFFICER GUTIERREZ and DOES 1 through 50)
28 forth herein.
22
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 62. Some time after Plaintiff sent an e-mail to mcampi@santa-ana.org at
2 10:24pm on January 17, 2018, requesting his Marsy’s Law right to be heard at the
3 bail setting hearing of Figueroa, the police report was materially changed or
4 superseded by another police report by Defendants for the retaliatory purpose of
5 altering Plaintiff’s status from that of a crime victim to a potential suspect based
6 on the improper opinion statement from Officer Gutierrez contained in the report,
7 that “[i]t could be argued that Figueroa was a victim of a PC245 [by Escamilla]”
8 63. Every person has the fundamental right to self-defense and defense of
9 others in the event of a violent confrontation and a Second Amendment right to
10 brandish a firearm for this purpose. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S.
11 570 (2008) (“Heller”); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) and Caetano v.
12 Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 1027 (2016) and subject to regulation as to the manner of
13 carrying arms. (See Heller, 554 U.S. at 627.)
14 64. Every person has a First Amendment right to make a police report
15 alleging criminal conduct against him by another. There is a concomitant right to
16 receive those benefits which inure to the victims of crimes, such as the rights
17 under Marsy's Law, including but not limited to notification of the criminal
18 defendant’s release and the right to address the judge at the time of the setting of
19 determining of the terms of pretrial release and at the time of sentencing. By
20 making the police report and then requesting Marsy’s Law notifications, Plaintiff
21 was engaged in constitutionally protected First Amendment Activity.
22 65. By issuing a police report containing the officer’s own opinion
23 statement, suggesting that Plaintiff could be charged with the crime of CA Penal
24 Code § 245 (assault with a deadly weapon) for exercising his fundamental right of
25 self-defense against the assailant, Figueroa, and/or by omitting the crime of
26 assault against Plaintiff of CA Penal Code § 245 in one or more of the police
27 reports relating to SAPD Case No. 18-01446, and/or in amending or superseding
28 the police reports after Plaintiff communicated his request for observance of his
23
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 rights under Marsy’s Law, the reporting Officer Gutierrez, supervising officer(s),
2 the City, SAPD and DOES 1 through 50, knowingly concealed, covered up,
3 falsified and made false entries to one or more police reports with the intent to
4 impede, obstruct and influence the investigation and proper administration of the
5 matter by the Orange County District Attorney’s office, in potential violation of
6 CA Penal Code § 118.1.
7 66. But for Plaintiff’s exercise of Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected
8 activities under the First and Second Amendments (as defined in Paragraphs 63
9 and 64) Defendants would not have taken the adverse actions described in
10 Paragraphs 62 and 65. These adverse actions taken by Defendants substantially
11 motivated against Plaintiff’s exercise of constitutionally protected conduct and in
12 retaliation for this protected conduct.
13 67. Defendants’ conduct had the direct effect of depriving Plaintiff of the
14 rights, privileges and immunities secured and protected by the Constitution and
15 the laws of the United States and State of California by:
16 a.) causing the OCSD to, without any type of due process hearing and in
17 reliance only on the false police report, revoke Plaintiff’s permit to
18 carry a concealed weapon, summarily, and without Plaintiff’s ability
19 to challenge the false statements contained in police report written by
20 Officer Gutierrez;
21 b.) causing Plaintiff to lose his “victim” status for purposes of obtaining
22 the benefits which would otherwise be available to him as the victim
23 of a crime under Marsy’s Law.
24 68. By brandishing his firearm in self-defense to communicate a strong
25 message to deter Figueroa from continuing his violent attack upon Plaintiff and
26 others, Plaintiff engaged in conduct protected by, inter alia, the First and Second
27 Amendments. The responsive conduct by the reporting officer, supervising
28 officer(s), the City, SAPD and DOES 1 through 50, taken against Plaintiff, and in
24
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 the matter described in the preceding paragraphs, would deter a person of ordinary
2 firmness from continuing to engage in that type of protected speech or conduct
3 which Plaintiff was engaging in by communicating a strong message to deter
4 Figueroa from continuing his violent attack upon Plaintiff and others. Such
5 adverse actions by Defendants were substantially motived against Plaintiff’s
6 exercise of constitutionally protected conduct and taken in an effort by Defendants
7 to chill Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected speech or conduct.
8 69. By making a police report of the assault against him and others,
9 Plaintiff engaged in conduct protected by, inter alia, the First Amendment. Such
10 adverse actions by the reporting officer, supervising officer(s), the City and DOES
11 1 through 50 as described in Paragraphs 62 and 65, taken against a citizen in the
12 manner described, would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to
13 engage in that type of protected speech or conduct which Plaintiff was engaging in
14 by making the police report. Such adverse actions by Defendants were
15 substantially motived against Plaintiff’s exercise of constitutionally protected
16 conduct and taken in an effort by Defendants to chill Plaintiff’s constitutionally
17 protected speech or conduct.
18 70. The adverse action taken by the reporting officer(s), supervising
19 officer(s), the City, SAPD and DOES 1 through 50, as set forth in Paragraphs 62
20 and 65, was motivated, at least in part, by Plaintiff’s conduct protected by the First
21 and Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and taken in an effort
22 by Defendants to chill Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected speech or conduct of
23 making a police report and/or asserting his right to notifications under Marsy’s
24 Law.
25 71. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken by
26 Defendants, and each of them, with malice, willfulness, and reckless indifference
27 to the rights of others, including Plaintiff.
28 ///
25
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 Conspiracy (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))
8 forth herein.
9 73. As described in the preceding paragraphs, Defendant officers and
10 DOES 1-50 conspired with each other to deprive Plaintiff of the free exercise and
11 enjoyment of the rights and privileges secured to Plaintiff by the Constitution and
12 laws of the United States and State of California, by reaching a “meeting of the
13 minds” between various members of the SAPD, as shown by the following acts by
14 members of the SAPD:
15 a.) Reaching an agreement among themselves to violate Plaintiff’s civil
16 rights by allowing a close friend or family member of Figueroa
17 oversee the criminal investigation against Figueroa;
18 b.) Reaching an agreement among themselves to violate Plaintiff’s civil
19 rights by generating police reports and other documents which
20 contained false and misleading statements;
21 c.) Reaching an agreement among themselves to violate Plaintiff’s civil
22 rights by generating police reports and other documents which omit
23 material facts including the statement of the independent witness,
24 David Pena, who provided police responding to the scene with a
25 statement that he witnessed Figueroa brandish a knife upon an
26 unknown male victim and then subsequently attacked Hernandez and
27 then Plaintiff;
28
26
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 d.) Reaching an agreement among themselves to violate Plaintiff’s civil
2 rights by including in the police report(s) unfounded opinion
3 statements on matters which were extrinsic to the elements of the
4 crime and which were calculated by Defendants to, and did, deprive
5 Plaintiff of his right or privilege to carry a concealed weapon issued
6 by the OCSD and which deprived Plaintiff of his rights as a victim
7 under Marsy’s Law;
8 e.) Reaching an agreement among themselves to violate Plaintiff’s civil
9 rights by omitting from the police report(s) statements of witnesses
10 and other facts which would justify Plaintiff’s use of his firearm in
11 self-defense. More specifically, agreeing to generate police report(s)
12 which falsely depict Plaintiff as an assailant with a deadly weapon,
13 rather than properly depicting Plaintiff as a responsible and law-
14 abiding citizen lawfully exercising his fundamental right of self-
15 defense when faced with a potentially deadly attack by a dangerous
16 homeless drug addict and felon who had violently attacked two (2)
17 other persons immediately before attacking Plaintiff.
18 f.) Reaching an agreement among themselves to violate Plaintiff’s civil
19 rights by hiding, destroying, and/or preventing the discovery of
20 evidence of the Constitutional violations described above.
21 74. In furtherance of the conspiracy, and in connection with the “meeting
22 of the minds” referenced in the preceding paragraph, Defendants committed overt
23 acts and were otherwise willful participants in joint activity with other state actors
24 under color of law.
25 75. The aforementioned actions of Defendant Officers, Chief Valentin,
26 and SAPD were the direct and proximate cause of the violation of Plaintiff’s civil
27 rights under the United States Constitution and the proximate cause of the
28 attendant injury and resulting damages.
27
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 76. Plaintiff alleges that while 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) allows a claim by
2 “any person or class of persons” who have be deprived of “equal privileges and
3 immunities under the laws…,” the conspiracy by the Defendants was motivated
4 by class-based, invidious discriminatory animus.” Plaintiff is part of a class of
5 persons “against whom a crime has been committed [defined in] Cal. Penal Code
6 § 679.01(b)” (FAC ¶ 103.) Such a class of persons (“crime victims”) is recognized
7 as being protected under Marsy’s Law and establishes the class-based animus
8 required for a conspiracy claim against Defendants under § 1985(3).
9 77. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that he is part of a class of persons who,
10 by virtue of not being homeless and living on the streets of Santa Ana, receives
11 treatment by the police which is vastly different when it comes to enforcement of
12 laws. In other words, Plaintiff has been denied equal privileges and immunities as
13 to the enforcement of the City’s municipal codes and the state’s penal code. Upon
14 information and belief, Defendant City of Santa Ana, the SAPD, Chief Valentin,
15 and police officers of the SAPD, including Officer Rodriguez, Officer Gutierrez
16 and DOES 1 through 50, maintain a policy of treating persons located within the
17 city limits of Santa Ana different, based on whether or not they are homeless.
18 Homeless persons, such as Figueroa, enjoy the Defendants’ non-enforcement of
19 The City’s municipal codes and the state’s penal codes while those who are not
20 homeless are the subject of aggressive law enforcement action by Defendants.”
21 78. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that for 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) purposes, he is a
22 “class of one” and entitled to protection under this section in that he was (1)
23 intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated; and (2) that there is
24 no rational basis for the difference in treatment. See Village of Willowbrook v.
25 Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000). Plaintiff alleges that with regard to he was
26 treated differently by Defendants without a rational reason for the difference in
27 treatment. "When those who appear similarly situated are nevertheless treated
28 differently, the Equal Protection Clause requires at least a rational reason for the
28
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 difference, to assure that all persons subject to legislation or regulation are indeed
2 being `treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions.'" See Engquist v.
3 Oregon Dep't of Agric., 553 U.S. 591, 602 (2008).
4 79. As a result of the aforementioned deprivation of federal rights,
5 Plaintiff suffered and will likely continue to suffer grievous harm including,
6 without limitation, substantial loss of income and benefits, loss of earnings
7 potential, loss of enjoyment of life, and severe emotional distress.
8 80. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of said Defendants were
9 willful, intentional, wanton, reckless and/or accomplished with a conscious
10 disregard of Plaintiff’s rights entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages.
11 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
12 Violation of Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. §1983)
16 81. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every
17 allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs 1-38 as if fully set forth herein.
18 82. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendants were acting under
19 color of the law in violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights as herein alleged under
20 the First, Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United
21 States. The First, Second and Fourteenth Amendments are made applicable to the
22 States pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.
23 83. Plaintiff has a constitutional right to due process of law under the
24 United States Constitution and the California Constitution.
25 84. Defendants City of Santa Ana, SAPD, Chief Valentin, Officer
26 Rodriguez, Officer Gutierrez and DOES 1 through 50, by engaging in the specific
27 conduct described in the Paragraphs 62, 65 and 73 of this Complaint, Defendants
28 deprived Plaintiff of rights, privileges, and immunities secured to him by the
29
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and
2 by Article 1, Section 28 of the California Constitution.
3 85. Due to the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has
4 suffered general damages and special damages, all in a sum to be proved at trial.
5 86. Due to the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has
6 been required to incur [consulting] attorneys' fees and will continue to incur
7 attorneys' fees, all to Plaintiff’s damage in a sum to be proved at trial and
8 recoverable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.
9 87. The individual Defendants acted with a conscious disregard of
10 Plaintiff’s rights conferred upon them by Section 1983, Title 42 of the United
11 States Code, the First, Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
12 Constitution and California Civil Code Section 3333, by intentionally causing
13 Plaintiff injury and damage. Such conduct constitutes malice, oppression and/or
14 fraud under California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling Plaintiff to punitive
15 damages against the individual Defendants in an amount suitable to punish and
16 make an example of said Defendants.
17 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
18 Violation of California Constitution – Declaratory Relief (Article I, sec. 28 –
19 Marsy’s Law, Code of Civ. Proc. § 1060)
23 [This claim for declaratory relief under Marsy’s Law has been converted in this
24 Second Amended Complaint to a remedy under Claim 9 as suggested by the Court
25 in the September 29, 2020 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss with Leave to
26 Amend]
27 ///
28 ///
30
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 Denial of Equal Protection – Enforcement of Laws
3 (Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
4 Actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
10 forth herein.
12 Rodriguez, Officer Gutierrez and DOES 1 through 50 are bound by the equal
13 protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which has the purpose of securing
14 every person within the State’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary
15 discrimination whether occasioned by express terms of a statute or by its improper
16 execution through duly constituted agents.
17 90. For purposes of this equal protection claim, individuals similarly
18 situated to Plaintiff are members of the public located within the City of Santa
19 Ana and subject to the jurisdiction and authority of its police department.
20 91. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, with regard to the conduct set forth
21 in this Complaint, Defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate
22 against this Plaintiff based on membership in a protected class.
23 92. Upon information and belief, Defendant City of Santa Ana, the
24 SAPD, Chief Valentin, and police officers of the SAPD, including Officer
25 Rodriguez, Officer Gutierrez and DOES 1 through 50, maintain a policy of
26 treating persons located within the city limits of Santa Ana different, based on
27 whether or not they are homeless. Homeless persons, such as Figueroa, enjoy the
28 Defendants’ non-enforcement of The City’s municipal codes and the state’s penal
31
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 codes while those who are not homeless are the subject of aggressive law
2 enforcement action by Defendants.
3 93. Plaintiff also alleges that Plaintiff is part of a class of persons
4 “against whom a crime has been committed [defined in] Cal. Penal Code §
5 679.01(b).” Such a class of persons (“crime victims”) is recognized as being
6 protected under Calif. Const. Art. I, sec 28, “Marsy’s Law.”
7 94. The facts of this case are a good example of the policy maintained by
8 Defendants the City, the SAPD, Chief Valentin, Officer Rodriguez, Officer
9 Gutierrez and DOES 1 through 50. While Figueroa committed several violent
10 assaults against other members of the public, he was not charged by Defendants,
11 yet Plaintiff, who was forced to defend himself from a violent assault by
12 brandishing his lawfully-carried firearm, was alleged in the police report to have
13 committed a felony assault and suffered the catastrophic loss of his career as a
14 result of the orchestrated efforts of Defendants to punish Plaintiff for lawfully
15 exercising his right to defend himself from an attack by a violent homeless drug
16 addict and then seeking his rights to notification under Marsy’s Law.
17 95. There exists no rational basis for the difference, by Defendants, in
18 treatment between Plaintiff and the similarly situated individuals identified and
19 described herein.
20 96. The actions of Office Gutierrez and/or DOES 1-20, as set forth in
21 Paragraph 73, and the falsification of the police report(s) generated in connection
22 with the January 17, 2018 incident, demonstrate conduct which was irrational and
23 wholly arbitrary and a departure from a clear standard articulated in California
24 Penal Code § 118.1 that “every peace officer who files any report with the agency
25 which employs him or her regarding the commission of any crime or any
26 investigation of any crime, if he or she knowingly and intentionally makes any
27 statement regarding any material matter in the report which the officer knows to
28 be false, whether or not the statement is certified or otherwise expressly reported
32
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 as true, is guilty of filing a false report punishable by imprisonment in the county
2 jail for up to one year, or in the state prison for one, two, or three years.”
3 97. The actions of Defendants as alleged herein, demonstrate the
4 intentional interference with the exercise and enjoyment of Plaintiff’s equal
5 protection rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
6 Constitution.
10 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11 Denial of Equal Protection – Victim’s Bill of Rights
19 forth herein.
21 Rodriguez, Officer Gutierrez and DOES 1 through 50 are bound by the equal
22 protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which has the purpose of securing
23 every person within the State’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary
24 discrimination whether occasioned by express terms of a statute or by its improper
25 execution through duly constituted agents.
26 101. For purposes of this equal protection claim, individuals similarly
27 situated to Plaintiff are persons against whom a crime has been committed (Penal
28
33
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 Code § 679.01(b) and who are located within the city limits of Santa Ana and
2 subject to the jurisdiction and authority of its police department.
3 102. Upon information and belief, Defendant City of Santa Ana, the
4 SAPD, Chief Valentin, and police officers of the SAPD, including Officer
5 Rodriguez, Officer Gutierrez and DOES 1 through 50, maintain a policy of
6 treating persons located within the city limits of Santa Ana different, based on
7 whether or not they are homeless. Homeless persons, such as Figueroa, enjoy the
8 Defendants’ non-enforcement of The City’s municipal codes and the state’s penal
9 codes while those who are not homeless are the subject of aggressive law
10 enforcement action by Defendants.
11 103. Plaintiff also alleges that Plaintiff is part of a class of persons
12 “against whom a crime has been committed [defined in] Cal. Penal Code §
13 679.01(b).” Such a class of persons (“crime victims”) is recognized as being
14 protected under Calif. Const. Art. I, sec 28, “Marsy’s Law.”
15 104. There exists no rational basis for the difference in treatment between
16 Plaintiff and the similarly situated individuals identified and described herein.
17 105. The actions of Defendants the City, the SAPD, Chief Valentin,
18 Officer Rodriguez, Officer Gutierrez and DOES 1 through 50, as alleged herein,
19 interfered with the exercise and enjoyment of Plaintiff’s equal protection rights as
20 guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
24 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
25 Procedural Due Process
27 Actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for Declaratory Relief under Marsy’s
28 Law)
34
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
6 forth herein.
7 108. As a member of the public, Plaintiff had a legitimate claim of
8 entitlement and a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, under
9 California law to be protected from crime and violence through not being
10 penalized for being a victim and/or for cooperating with the criminal justice
11 system pursuant to California Penal Code § 679.015(a).
13 Officer Rodriguez, Officer Gutierrez and DOES 1 through 50, in the manner
14 described herein, deprived Plaintiff of his liberty or property interest, under
15 California law to be protected from crime and violence through not being
16 penalized, in this case by a false accusation of a crime in the police report, his loss
17 of status as a “victim” after the crime committed against him by Figueroa, and his
18 ultimate loss of his CCW permit directly resulting from the false and incomplete
19 police reports provided to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, all without
20 adequate process of law and in violation of his due process right to those rights
21 afforded to crime victims in accordance with Marsy’s Law and constituted a
22 violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process.
23 110. Calif. Const. Art. I, sec 28, “Marsy’s Law”, was enacted through the
24 California Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008 as an amendment to the State
25 Constitution. California voters, through initiative process, added Marsy’s Law to
26 their State Constitution in the November 2008 general election. Enabling statutes
27 were also enacted as changes and additions to the Penal Code.
28 ///
35
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 111. Marsy’s Law constitutional provision, Art. I, sec. 28, (a)(2) states:
2 Victims of crime are entitled to have the criminal justice system view
3 criminal acts as serious threats to the safety and welfare of the people of
California. The enactment of comprehensive provisions and laws ensuring a
4 bill of rights for victims of crime, including safeguards in the criminal
5 justice system fully protecting those rights and ensuring that crime victims
6 are treated with respect and dignity, is a matter of high public importance.
California's victims of crime are largely dependent upon the proper
7 functioning of government, upon the criminal justice system and upon the
8 expeditious enforcement of the rights of victims of crime described herein,
in order to protect the public safety and to secure justice when the public
9 safety has been compromised by criminal activity.
10
11 112. The constitutionally based Marsy’s Law also declares:
12 (3) The rights of victims pervade the criminal justice system. These rights
13 include personally held and enforceable rights described in paragraphs (1)
through (17) of subdivision (b). (4) The rights of victims also include
14 broader shared collective rights that are held in common with all of the
15 People of the State of California and that are enforceable through the
enactment of laws and through good-faith efforts and actions of California's
16 elected, appointed, and publicly employed officials. These rights encompass
17 the expectation shared with all of the people of California that persons who
18 commit felonious acts causing injury to innocent victims will be
appropriately and thoroughly investigated, appropriately detained in
19 custody, brought before the courts of California
20 Calif. Const. Art. I, sec. 28 (a)(3) and (4).
21 113. In further relevant part, Marsy’s Law, as set forth in the constitution,
22 declares:
23
(8) To accomplish the goals it is necessary that the laws of California
24 relating to the criminal justice process be amended in order to protect the
25 legitimate rights of victims of crime. (b) In order to preserve and protect a
victim's rights to justice and due process, a victim shall be entitled to the
26 following rights: (1) To be treated with fairness and respect for his or her
27 privacy and dignity, and to be free from intimidation, harassment, and
28 abuse, throughout the criminal or juvenile justice process.
Id. sec. 28, (8).
36
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 To carry out the constitutional Marsy’s Law mandate, the legislature
2 enacted enabling legislation, principally CA Penal Code §§ 679-680. (Hereinafter
3 the constitutional provisions and enabling laws may be referred to collectively as
4 the “Marsy’s Law.”)
5 114. Plaintiff contends and alleges, on information and belief, that by
6 being attacked by Figueroa, he became a “victim” of a “crime” within the
7 meaning and protection of Marsy’s Law. (Art. I, sec. 28 (e); CA Penal Code §
8 679.01(b))
9 115. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that by the
10 acts alleged herein against Defendants City of Santa Ana, the SAPD, Chief
11 Valentin, Officer Rodriguez, Officer Gutierrez and DOES 1 through 50, which
12 culminated in the loss of his CCW permit and career as a fugitive recovery agent,
13 Plaintiff was denied the right to be treated with fairness and respect for his privacy
14 and dignity, and to be free from intimidation, harassment, and abuse, throughout
15 the criminal or juvenile justice process, in violation of his rights under Marsy's
16 Law.
17 116. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that by the
18 acts alleged herein against Defendants City of Santa Ana, SAPD, Chief Valentin,
19 Officer Rodriguez, Officer Gutierrez and DOES 1 through 50, which culminated
20 in the loss of his CCW permit and career as a fugitive recovery agent, Plaintiff
21 was also denied the right to “reasonably confer with the prosecuting agency” by
22 being repeatedly denied a copy of the police report and by the Santa Ana Police
23 Department’s refusal to acknowledge the dash cam video evidence provided to
24 them by Plaintiff. Such video evidence was only recognized after the case was
25 transferred to the District Attorney’s Office and a Deputy District Attorney viewed
26 the video and added the charges of Penal Code §243(e)(1) [battery on a spouse or
27 cohabitant] to those charges pending against Figueroa.
28 ///
37
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 117. Plaintiff also alleges, on information and belief, that Defendants City
2 of Santa Ana, SAPD, Chief Valentin, Officer Rodriguez, Officer Gutierrez and
3 DOES 1 through 50, deprived Plaintiff of his Marsy’s Law right “to have the
4 criminal justice system view criminal acts as serious threats …” [Art. I, sec. 28
5 (a)(2)] by refusing to properly document and charge the assault by Figueroa
6 against Plaintiff, against Figueroa's spouse and against another bystander who was
7 threatened by Figueroa with a knife, further depicting Plaintiff as something other
8 than a responsible and law-abiding citizen defending himself and others from a
9 potentially deadly attack by a dangerous drug-addicted homeless felon who had
10 violently attacked two other persons before attacking Plaintiff.
11 118. Plaintiff contends that the policy, custom or practice of the City and
12 the SAPD, and Chief Valentin, of violating Marsy’s Law, and the consequences
13 suffered by Plaintiff proximately caused by such policy, custom or practice, are
14 the proper target of declaratory or injunctive relieve from the City, the SAPD and
15 Chief Valentin.
16 119. The Declaratory Judgment Act provides: "In a case of actual
17 controversy within its jurisdiction, any court of the United States may declare the
18 rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration,
19 whether or not further relief is or could be sought." 28 U.S.C. 2201(a).
20 120. Plaintiff also seeks declaratory relief by this Court under CA Code of
21 Civil Procedure § 1060 based on the following:
22 a.) Absent a declaratory judgment, there is a substantial likelihood that
23 Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury in the future.
24 b.) There is an actual controversy between the parties of sufficient
25 immediacy and reality to warrant issuance of a declaratory judgment.
26 c.) This Court possesses an independent basis for jurisdiction over the
27 parties.
28
38
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 121. Plaintiff seeks a judgment declaring that the City, the SAPD and
2 Chief Valentin, acted in violation of Marsy’s Law by including false and
3 misleading information in the police reports depicting Plaintiff as something other
4 than a law-abiding victim of a crime by Figueroa.
5 122. Plaintiff seeks a judgment declaring that Plaintiff engaged in the
6 proper and lawful use of his firearm in exercising his right to self-defense when
7 confronted and threatened with potentially deadly force by a violent drug-addicted
8 assailant living on the streets of Santa Ana. Such a declaration will serve a useful
9 purpose in clarifying the lawful conduct of Plaintiff in this matter.
10 123. In order to assist with restoring his CCW Permit and restore his
11 business reputation as a professional fugitive recovery agent, Plaintiff additionally
12 seeks declaratory relief by this Court through a declaratory order stating that on
13 January 18, 2018, Plaintiff was the victim of a violent crime by Figueroa, a drug-
14 addicted two-strike felon living homeless on the streets of Santa Ana and, as a
15 consequence, lawfully exercised his right to self-defense by drawing his lawfully
16 possessed firearm to defend himself from a potentially deadly attack by the
17 assailant who had been previously observed by Plaintiff and others committing a
18 violent assault of a female on a Santa Ana city sidewalk.
19 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20 Substantive Due Process
28 forth herein.
39
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 125. "The substantive due process guarantee functions to protect
2 individuals from particularly offensive actions on the part of government officials,
3 even when the government employs facially neutral procedures in carrying out
4 those actions.” Pagan v. Calderon, 448 F.3d 16, 32 Cir. 2006) (citing Daniels v.
5 Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331, 106 S.Ct. 662, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986)).
6 126. The action of the reporting OFFICER GUTIERREZ, his supervising
7 officer(s), the SAPD, the City and Chief Valentin, of issuing a police report
8 containing a misleading opinion statement suggesting that Plaintiff be charged
9 with the crime of CA Penal Code § 245 (assault with a deadly weapon) after
10 clearly exercising his fundamental right of self-defense against the assailant,
11 Figueroa, was a particularly offensive action on the part of Defendants, depriving
12 Plaintiff of several constitutionally protected life, liberty or property interests.
13 127. The Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right
14 to keep and carry arms for self-defense and defense of others in the event of a
15 violent confrontation. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
16 (“Heller”); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) and Caetano v.
17 Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 1027 (2016). Under Heller, the government retains the
18 ability presumptively to regulate the manner of carrying arms. See Heller, 554
19 U.S. at 627.
20 128. As set forth with specificity in paragraphs 35-37 of this Second
21 Amended Complaint, Defendants’ wrongful conduct was the actual and proximate
22 cause of Plaintiff’s damages including, but not limited to, the loss of his CCW
23 permit, the loss of reputation, the loss of employment as a fugitive recovery agent,
24 the loss of his career as an on-call fugitive recovery agent, the loss of business
25 opportunity as an on-call fugitive recovery agent, the loss of earnings as an on-call
26 fugitive recovery agent, the moving expenses in downsizing his office and moving
27 out of Santa Ana after 17 years, and other general damages to be proven at trial.
28 ///
40
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
2 Officer Rodriguez, Officer Gutierrez and DOES 1 through 50, as described herein,
3 culminated in the summary deprivation of Plaintiff’s Second Amendment right to
4 keep and carry a firearm, by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department’s revocation
5 of Plaintiff’s CCW permit. Plaintiff alleges that it was foreseeable that the false
6 information contained in the police reports would result in the revocation of
7 Plaintiff’s CCW permit and concomitant damages. But for the actions of the
8 Defendants, Plaintiff would not have had his CCW permit revoked and would not
9 have suffered the concomitant damages.
10 130. The actions of Defendants as described herein, and specifically
11 alleged in paragraphs 35 through 37 of this Second Amended Complaint, were the
12 actual and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s career as an independent, on-call bail
13 fugitive recovery agent being terminated. The actions of Defendant effectively
14 ended Plaintiff’s thriving 10-year career as an on-call independent fugitive
15 recovery agent and of forcing the closing of Plaintiff’s office location at the corner
16 of Santa Ana Boulevard and Flower, which he had occupied for seventeen (17)
17 years.
21 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22 Action for Neglect to Prevent (42. U.S.C. § 1986)
24 CITY OF SANTA ANA, POLICE CHIEF DAVID VALENTIN and DOES 1 through
25 50)
28 forth herein.
41
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 133. Defendants the City, the SAPD, Chief Valentin, and DOES 1 through
2 50, violated 42 U.S.C. 1986 by failing to exercise control or oversight over the
3 Police Department with respect to its assignment of report-writing duties,
4 allowing an un-trained police officer (Officer Gutierrez) to write a police report
5 which contained false and misleading “opinion” statements which should not have
6 been a part of the police report.
7 134. Defendants the City, the SAPD, Chief Valentin, and DOES 1 through
8 50, violated 42 U.S.C. 1986, by failing to exercise control or oversight over the
9 Police Department with respect to its assignment of report-writing oversight
10 duties, allowing a dishonest friend or family member of the assailant Figueroa
11 (that is, Officer Rodriguez) to oversee the writing of the police report(s) which
12 contained false and misleading “opinion” statements which should not have been
13 a part of the police report.
14 135. The conduct of Defendants, as set forth in the two (2) preceding
15 causes of action, and more specifically alleged in paragraphs 35 through 37 of this
16 Second Amended Complaint, were the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s
17 damages as alleged herein.
18 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19 Monell Violation
20 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
21 (Against Defendants CITY OF SANTA ANA and
22 the POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, POLICE CHIEF
23 DAVID VALENTIN)
26 forth herein.
27 137. With regard to the constitutional violations of Defendants the City,
28 the SAPD, Chief Valentin, and DOES 1 through 50, as fully described in the
42
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 preceding paragraphs of this complaint, each of these constitutional violations
2 occurred pursuant to an expressly adopted official policy or pursuant to a
3 widespread practice or custom that was the ‘moving force’ behind each of the
4 constitutional violations suffered by Plaintiff, including but not limited to:
5 a.) The conduct of the supervising SAPD officer overseeing a crime
6 report involving, as a potential criminal defendant, a close friend or family
7 member which creates a conflict of interest and potential for bias in favor of
8 the potential criminal defendant;
9 b.) The falsification of the police report(s) by Office Gutierrez and
10 DOES 1-50, generated in connection with the January 17, 2018 incident, in
11 violation of California Penal Code § 118.1. The public record, including a
12 press release from the Department of Justice, provides evidence that the
13 falsification of police reports by members of the Santa Ana Police
14 Department may constitute the custom and practice of this police
15 department.5
16 c.) The false depiction of Plaintiff in one or more of the various SAPD
17 police reports as something other than a responsible, law-abiding citizen
18 who lawfully exercised his right of self-defense. Allowing police reports
19 and other documents to omit material facts including the statement of the
20 independent witness, David Pena, who provided police responding to the
21 scene with a statement that he witnessed Figueroa brandish a knife upon an
22 unknown male victim and then subsequently attacked Plaintiff prior to
23 Plaintiff drawing his firearm in self-defense;
24 d.) The hiding, destroying and/or concealing of evidence of by members
25 of the Santa Ana Police Department, including the generating of reports
26
27 5
Judicial Notice is requested of the Department of Justice Press Release dated July 31, 2019,
entitled Former Santa Ana Police Officer Criminally Charged with Using Unreasonable Force,
28
Filing False Reports in Connection with Beating. https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/former-
santa-ana-police-officer-criminally-charged-using-unreasonable-force-filing
43
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 which falsely depicted Plaintiff as having engaged in conduct which would
2 justify a revocation of his CCW. More specifically, allowing the creation
3 and dissemination of one or more police reports which falsely depicted
4 Plaintiff as an assailant with a deadly weapon rather than a responsible and
5 law-abiding citizen defending himself from a potentially deadly attack by a
6 violent drug-addicted homeless person who had violently attacked two
7 other persons before attacking Plaintiff.
8 e.) The conduct of Officer Gutierrez, Officer Rodriguez and/or DOES 1
9 through 50, of removing Plaintiff as a victim in the police reports soon after
10 Plaintiff asserted his notification rights under Marsy’s Law; and
11 f.) The conduct of Officer Gutierrez, Officer Rodriguez, and/or DOES 1
12 through 50, denying Plaintiff status as a “crime victim” as that term is used
13 in Marsy’s Law;
14 138. As set forth in this complaint, and as evidenced by the public record
15 which contains evidence that the commission of constitutional violations is a
16 widespread practice by the members of the Santa Ana Police Department, rather
17 than sporadic incidents.
18 139. Through these widespread constitutional violations, which are so
19 well-settled as to constitute a custom, the City and the SAPD, and Chief Valentin
20 have demonstrated a deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the
21 members of the public.
22 THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23 Negligent Hiring, Retention, Supervision and Training (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
25 CITY OF SANTA ANA, POLICE CHIEF DAVID VALENTIN and DOES 1 through
26 50)
27 ///
28 ///
44
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
3 forth herein.
4 141. Defendants the City, SAPD and Chief Valentin, owe a duty to
5 citizens, such as Plaintiff, to exercise care in the hiring, training, and supervision
6 of its police officers, so as to protect citizens from injuries and damages, such as
7 those suffered by Plaintiff, at the hands of poorly trained, poorly supervised,
8 imprudently hired or inappropriately retained police officers.
9 142. Prior to January 17, 2018, the City, SAPD and Chief Valentin
10 developed and maintained policies or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to
11 the constitutional rights of persons within the City of Santa Ana, which caused the
12 violation of Plaintiff’s rights.
13 143. It was the policy and/or custom of the City, SAPD and Chief Valentin
14 to inadequately supervise and train its police officers, including Defendant police
15 officers, M. Gutierrez and Rodriguez, thereby failing to adequately discourage
16 constitutional violations on the part of its police officers.
17 144. As a result of the above described policies and customs, police
18 officers of the City, including Defendants Officer Gutierrez and Officer Rodriguez
19 believed that their actions would not be properly monitored by supervisory
20 officers and that misconduct would not be investigated or sanctioned, but would
21 be tolerated and protected.
22 145. The above described policies and customs demonstrate a deliberate
23 indifference on the part of the City, the SAPD and Chief Valentin to the
24 constitutional rights of persons who come into contact with officers of the SAPD,
25 and were the cause of the violations of Plaintiff’s rights alleged herein.
26 146. The conduct which emanated from the City, the SAPD, the SAPD
27 Supervisor, and Chief Valentin as a result of these policies and customs, include
28 but are not limited to:
45
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 a.) Condoning and/or ratifying the practice of allowing senior officers to
2 oversee the reporting of incidents involving their close friends or
3 family members;
4 b.) Condoning and/or ratifying the practice or policy of their police
5 officers who provide false accountings of incidents for the purpose of
6 concealing the wrongdoing of persons who are close friends or
7 family members in the Santa Ana Police Department;
8 c.) Condoning and/or ratifying the practice or policy of their police
9 officers who fail to properly document, and refer to the District
10 Attorney's office, evidence of the wrongdoing of persons, including
11 witness statements, where the subject of the criminal conduct has a
12 close friend or family member in the Santa Ana Police Department;
13 d.) Condoning and/or ratifying changes to police reports to remove a
14 person’s label as a “victim” to avoid having to comply with Marsy’s
15 Law;
16 e.) Failing to properly screen individuals who apply to become police
17 officers; and
18 f.) Failing to remove poorly trained or dishonest officers, including the
19 officers named herein.
20 147. Plaintiff also alleges that supervisory liability is properly imposed
21 against Chief Valentin, Gutierrez and/or DOES 1-50, a supervisory official, in his
22 individual capacity for his own culpable action or inaction in the training,
23 supervision, or control of his subordinates as set forth in Paragraph 137 and 146 of
24 this Second Amended Complaint;
25 148. Plaintiff also alleges that supervisory liability is properly imposed
26 against Chief Valentin, Gutierrez and/or DOES 1-50, a supervisory official, in his
27 individual capacity for his own culpable action or inaction in the constitutional
28 deprivations of which the complaint is made; or for conduct that showed a
46
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 reckless or callous indifference to the rights of others as set forth in Paragraphs
2 137 and 146 of this Second Amended Complaint
3 149. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants City
4 of Santa Ana, SAPD, and Chief Valentin, and DOES 1 through 50, Plaintiff
5 suffered injuries at the hands of Defendants and its employees in the manners and
6 ways previously alleged.
7 150. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be
8 proven at trial.
9 FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
10 Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and
11 Fifth Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
15 [This Claim Has Been Withdrawn by Plaintiff]
16 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
17 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court enter a judgment in favor of
18 Plaintiff and against Defendants, and each of them jointly and severally, and
19 award to Plaintiff:
20 1. Special damages in an amount to be proven at trial as to each and
21 every claim herein with prejudgment interest thereon at the legal rate
22 from the date of the damages;
23 2. General damages;
24 3. Punitive and/or exemplary damages against all defendants, except the
25 municipality;
26 4. Declaratory relief declaring Defendants’ conduct to be
27 unconstitutional;
28 ///
47
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 5. Declaratory relief declaring Plaintiff’s conduct on January 17, 2018
2 not to be in violation of CA Penal Code § 245;
3 6. Declaratory relief declaring that Plaintiff acted as a responsible and
4 law-abiding citizen when he exercised his right to use reasonable
5 force to defend himself from an attack;
6 7. Declaratory relief declaring that Plaintiff’s conduct on January 17,
7 2018 should not have resulted in the revocation of his concealed
8 weapons permit;
9 8. Following a proper motion, a permanent injunction requiring
10 Defendants CITY OF SANTA ANA, SAPD and POLICE CHIEF
11 DAVID VALENTIN to adopt appropriate policies prohibiting the
12 falsification of police reports;
15 DAVID VALENTIN to adopt appropriate policies regarding the
16 hiring, training and supervision of their police officers;
19 DAVID VALENTIN to adopt appropriate policies regarding the
20 SAPD’s compliance with Marsy’s Law;
21 11. Reasonable consulting attorneys’ fees6 and costs pursuant to all
22 applicable statutes, codes, and rules, including 42 U.S.C. §1988; and
23 12. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
24 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
25 Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues in this action to the
26 extent authorized by law.
27
28 6
Blazy v. Tenet, 194 F.3d 90, 92 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (“pro se status does not by itself preclude the
recovery of fees for consultations with outside counsel”).
48
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1 Dated this 29th day of October, 2020.
2
3 _________________________
Daniel Escamilla
4 Plaintiff in Pro Se
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
49
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Escamilla v. Santa Ana Second Amended Complaint For Damages Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Escamilla v. Santa Ana Second Amended Complaint For Damages Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Daniel Escamilla

1 1679 E. Orangethorpe Ave. #117

2 VI. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ....................................................................... 8

19 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Denial of Equal Protection –

You might also like