Federal Complaint

1 Brian E.
XXXXX
935 Sunrise Drive
2 Red Bluff, CA 96080
(714) 613-
3 xxxxxxxxx@gmail.com
4 Pro-Se
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 SACRAMENTO DIVISION
11
12 BRIAN E. XXXXXX, No.

13 Plaintiff,
14 vs. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
15
COUNTY OF TEHAMA, DAVE 1. Fourth Amendment-Detention and Arrest
16 HENCRATT SHERIFF OF TEHAMA (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
COUNTY, CITY OF RED BLUFF, 2. Substantive Due Process (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
17 DANIELLE EYESTONE MAYOR OF 3. Municipal Liability-Ratification
RED BLUFF, REDBLUFF POLICE (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
18 DEPARTMENT, KYLE SANDERS 4. Municipal Liability-Inadequate Training
19 CHIEF OF POLICE, CAPTAIN (42 U.S.C § 1983)
QUINTAN ORTEGA, SERGEANT 5. Municipal Liability-Unconstitutional
20 RUBEN MURGIA, OFFICER HEIDI Custom, Practice, or Policy (42 U.S.C. §
CURTIS, JENNIFER BOWMAN, DAVID 1983)
21 BOWMAN, 6. False Arrest/False Imprisonment
22 7. Conspiracy Against Rights (18 U.S.C. §
Defendants. 241)
23 8. Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
(18 U.S.C. § 242)
24 , 9. Malicious Prosecution (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
10. Respondeat Superior
25 Defendant.
26 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
27
28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1
1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
2 COMES NOW, Plaintiff Brian E. XXXX individually for his Complaint against
3 Defendants County of Tehama, Dave Hencratt Sheriff of Tehama County, City of Red Bluff,
4 Danielle Eyestone Mayor of Red Bluff, Red Bluff Police Department, Kyle Sanders Chief of
5 Police, Captain Quintan Ortega, Sergeant Ruben Murgia, Officer Heidi Curtis, Jennifer Bowman
6 and David Bowman, inclusive, and alleges as follows:
7 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8 This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3)-(4)
9 because Plaintiff asserts claims arising under the laws of the United States including 42 U.S.C. §
10 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. This Court
11 has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims arising under state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
12 § 1367(a), because those claims are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same
13 or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
14 Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because Defendants reside in this
15 district and all incidents, events and occurrences giving rise to this action occurred in this district.
16 INTRODUCTION
17 1. This civil rights and state tort action seeks compensatory and punitive damages from
18 Defendants for violating various rights under the United States Constitution and state law in
19 connection with the Plaintiff being falsely arrested and falsely imprisoned on December 03, 2019.
20 PARTIES
21 2. At all relevant times, Plaintiff Brian XXXXX was an individual residing in the City of
22 Red Bluff, County of Tehama, California.
23 3. At all relevant times, Defendant Jennifer Bowman was an individual residing in the
24 City of Red Bluff, County of Tehama, California.
25 4. At all relevant times, Defendant David Bowman was an individual residing in the City
26 of Red Bluff, County of Tehama, California.

27 5. At all relevant times, Defendant COUNTY of TEHAMA is a charter county and has
28 the ability to sue and be sued.

1 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Dave Hencratt, Sheriff of Tehama County was an
2 individual residing in the County of Tehama.
3 7. At all relevant times, Defendant CITY of RED BLUFF (“CITY”) is and was a
4 municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of California. CITY is a general law
5 subdivision of the State of California with the capacity to be sued. CITY is responsible for the
6 actions, omissions, policies, procedures, practices, and customs of its various agents and agencies,
7 including the Red Bluff Police Department and its agents and employees. At all relevant times,
8 Defendant CITY was responsible for assuring that the actions, omissions, policies, procedures,
9 practices, and customs of the Red Bluff Police Department and its employees and agents
10 complied with the laws of the United States and of the State of California. At all relevant times,
11 CITY was the employer of Defendants Danielle Eyestone Mayor of Red Bluff, Red Bluff Police
12 Department, Kyle Sanders Chief of Police, Captain Quintan Ortega, Sergeant Ruben Murgia,
13 Officer Heidi Curtis.
14 8. At all relevant times, Defendant Danielle Eyestone Mayor of CITY is responsible for
15 the actions, omissions, policies, procedures, practices, and customs of its various agents and
16 agencies, including the Red Bluff Police Department and its agents and employees. At all
17 relevant times, Defendant Danielle Eyestone Mayor of CITY was responsible for assuring that the
18 actions, omissions, policies, procedures, practices, and customs of the Red Bluff Police
19 Department and its employees and agents complied with the laws of the United States and of the
20 State of California.
21 9. At all relevant times, Defendant Red Bluff Police Department was responsible for
22 Assuring that the actions, omissions, policies, procedures, practices, and customs of the Red Bluff
23 Police Department and its employees and agents complied with the laws of the United States and
24 of the State of California.
25 10. Defendants Kyle Sanders Chief of Police, Captain Quintan Ortega, Sergeant Ruben
26 Murgia, Officer Heidi Curtis are police officers for the Red Bluff Police Department. Kyle
27 Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Ruben Murgia and Heidi Curtis were acting under color of law within
28 the course and scope of their duties as officers for the Red Bluff Police Department at all relevant
1 times. Also at all relevant times, Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Ruben Murgia and Heidi Curtis
2 were acting with the complete authority and ratification of their principal, Defendants CITY and
3 Red Bluff Police Department.
4 11. Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Ruben Murgia are supervisory officers for
5 Red Bluff Police Department who were acting under the color of law within the course and scope
6 of their duties as officers for the Red Bluff Police Department. Defendants Kyle Sanders,
7 Quintan Ortega, Ruben Murgia were acting with the complete authority and ratification of their
8 principal, Defendants CITY and Red Bluff Police Department.
9 12. Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega are managerial, supervisorial, and
10 policymaking employees of the Red Bluff Police Department, who were acting under the color of
11 law within the course of their duties as managerial, supervisorial and policymaking employees for
12 the Red Bluff Police Department. Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega were acting with the
13 complete authority and ratification of their principal Defendants CITY and Red Bluff Police
14 Department.
15 13. In doing the acts and failing and omitting to act as hereinafter described, Defendants
16 Kyle Sanders Chief of Police, Captain Quintan Ortega, Sergeant Ruben Murgia, Officer Heidi
17 Curtis were acting on the implied and actual permission and consent of Defendants Tehama
18 County, CITY, Danielle Eyestone Mayor of CITY, and Red Bluff Police Department.
19 14. At all times mentioned herein, each and every defendant was the agent of each and
20 every other defendant (with the exception of Defendant Jennifer Bowman, and David Bowman)
21 and had the legal duty to oversee and supervise hiring, conduct and employment of each and
22 every defendant.
23 15. All of the acts complained of herein by Plaintiff against Defendants were done and
24 performed by said Defendants by and through their authorized agents, servants, and/or
25 employees, all of whom at all relevant times herein were acting within the course, purpose, and
26 scope of said agency, service, and/or employment capacity. Moreover, Defendants and their
27 agents ratified all of the acts complained of herein.
28 16. Defendants Dave Hencratt, Sheriff of Tehama County, Danielle Eyestone, Mayor of
1 CITY, Defendants Kyle Sanders Chief of Police, Captain Quintan Ortega, Sergeant Ruben
2 Murgia, Officer Heidi Curtis, Jennifer Bowman, David Bowman are sued jointly and severally.
3 NOTICE OF CLAIM
4 17. Within six months of the incident, Plaintiff filed written Notice of Claim with the Red
5 Bluff Police Department. Over thirty days have elapsed since filing of that notice, and this matter
6 has not been settled or otherwise disposed of. Plaintiff filed written Notice of Claim with the
7 County of Tehama, Dave Hencratt Sheriff, City of Red Bluff, Danielle Eyestone Mayor. Over
8 thirty days have elapsed since filing of that notice, and this matter has not been settled or
9 otherwise disposed of.
10 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
11 18. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 17
12 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
13 19. In early 2019, Defendant David Bowman asked Plaintiff if he would return to Red
14 Buff California to attend his wedding in August of 2019.
15 20. Plaintiff agreed and returned to Red Bluff California for the wedding on
16 approximately August 9, 2019.
17 21. After the wedding, Plaintiff decided to stay in Red Bluff California and get
18 reacquainted with his family members since he previously joined the military, left California and
19 had not returned in some time.
20 22. While getting reacquainted with Defendants David and Jennifer Bowman and their
21 children, Plaintiff spent considerable time with them.
22 23. Plaintiff witnessed several occasions where Defendant Jennifer Bowman (in Plaintiff’s
23 opinion) would be “abusive” towards the children by making the children kneel on hardwood
24 floors staring at the wall with their hands behind their backs for unreasonable amounts of time.
25 Plaintiff also witnessed on several occasions Defendant Jennifer Bowman call the children “dirty
26 little fuckers and nasty humans”.

27 24. Plaintiff confronted Defendant Jennifer Bowman about her actions to which she
28 became enraged with the Plaintiff telling him to leave the residence.
1 25. Plaintiff informed Defendant David Bowman of the incidences and Defendant David
2 Bowman condoned Defendant Jennifer Bowmans’ actions.
3 26. Plaintiff’s concern for the safety and well being of the children caused disdain with
4 Defendants Jennifer Bowman and David Bowman, thus setting the stage for retaliation against
5 Plaintiff in any way shape or form.
6 27. At some time prior to December 2, 2019, Defendant Jennifer Bowman asked the
7 principal at Metteer Elementary School in Red Bluff California to remove Plaintiff from the
8 emergency contact list for her children.
9 28. On December 03, 2019, Defendant Jennifer Bowman called the Red Bluff Police
10 Department to respond to Metteer Elementary School reporting a male trespassing on school
11 grounds and refusing to leave.
12 29. Defendants Chief Kyle Sanders, Capt Quintan Ortega and Officer Heidi Curtis
13 responded. Defendant Kyle Sanders initially made contact with Plaintiff and detained him.
14 Plaintiff was not on school property when he was detained.
15 30. Defendant Heidi Curtis made contact with Defendant Jennifer Bowman who falsely
16 accused Plaintiff of “stalking” her children at the elementary school. Defendant Jennifer
17 Bowman falsely accused Plaintiff of being “psychotic”
18 31. Defendant Heidi Curtis continued to talk with Defendant David Bowman who
19 basically confirmed all of Defendant Jennifer Bowmans’ allegations.
20 32. While talking with Defendant Jennifer Bowman, it is with information and belief that
21 Defendant Heidi Curtis decide to arrest Plaintiff prior to continuing the investigation and/or
22 talking with Plaintiff.
23 33. Defendant Heidi Curtis instructed Defendant Kyle Sanders that she was going to talk
24 to the principal and that if Plaintiff tried to leave to “10-15” him. “10-15” is police code for
25 “prisoner in custody”.
26 34. Defendant Heidi Curtis talked to the principal who stated that Plaintiff was taking off
27 of the emergency contact list and she told him he could not be on school property.
28 35. Plaintiff asked why he had to leave and when explained, Plaintiff left the property
1 without incident.
2 36. Defendant Heidi Curtis exited the elementary school to talk with Plaintiff. Upon
3 exiting the school, Defendant Heidi Curtis turned off her body camera prior to talking to Plaintiff.
4 37. Defendant Heid Curtis arrested Plaintiff based on false allegations and information
5 from Defendants Jennifer Bowman and David Bowman.
6 38. Defendant Heidi Curtis willfully, wantonly, and maliciously arrested Plaintiff and
7 imprisoned Plaintiff without probable cause. It is with information and belief, that is why she
8 turned her body camera off before talking with Plaintiff and it was miraculously turned on after
9 the arrest when Plaintiff was in custody in the back of her patrol car.
10 39. Plaintiff was falsely arrested, imprisoned and charged with California Penal Code §
11 646.9 Stalking (felony), California Penal Code § 626.8 Remain on School Property
12 (misdemeanor) and California Penal Code § 647.6(a)(1) Annoy/Molest Child (misdemeanor).
13 40. Plaintiffs’ bail was set at $160,000.00 and he was unlawfully imprisoned for three
14 days.
15 40. All original charges were eventually dismissed and Plaintiff plead guilty to trespass of
16 a business.
17 DAMAGES
18 41. As a direct and proximate result of all Defendants, Plaintiff suffered the following
19 injuries and damages:
20 (a) Violation of his rights to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
21 States Constitution to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure of their
22 person;
23 (b) Violation of his right to Due Process of Law under the Fourteenth Amendment to
24 the United States Constitution;
25 (c) Violation of his California Constitutional rights under Article I, Section 12 to be
26 free from an unreasonable search and seizure;

27 (d) Violation of his California Constitutional rights under Article I, Section 7 to due
28 process;
1 (e) Emotional trauma and suffering, including fear, embarrassment, humiliation,
2 emotional distress, frustration, extreme inconvenience, anxiety;
3 (f) Loss of Liberty.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
4
Fourth Amendment-Detention and Arrest (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
5 (Against Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Ruben Murgia, Heidi Curtis, Jennifer
Bowman & David Bowman)
6
42. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 41
7
of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
8
43. Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega and Heidi Curtis detained Plaintiff without
9
reasonable suspicion and arrested him without probable cause.
10
44. Defendants Jennifer Bowman and David Bowman knowingly, willfully and wantonly
11
provided false information and statements against Plaintiff.
12
45. When Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega and Heidi Curtis placed Plaintiff in
13
handcuffs, they violated Plaintiff’s right to be secure in his person against unreasonable searches
14
and seizures as guaranteed to Plaintiff under the Fourth Amendment to the United States
15
Constitution and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment.
16
46. The conduct of Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis, Jennifer
17
Bowman and David Bowman was willful, wanton, malicious and done with reckless disregard for
18
the rights and safety of Plaintiff and therefore warrants the imposition of exemplary and punitive
19
damages as to Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis, Jennifer Bowman and
20
David Bowman.
21
47. As a result of their misconduct, Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi
22
Curtis, Jennifer Bowman and David Bowman are liable for Plaintiff’s loss of liberties either
23
because they were integral participants in the wrongful detention and arrest, or because they
24
failed to intervene to prevent these violations.
25
26 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
27 Substantive Due Process (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

(Against Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Ruben Murgia, Heidi Curtis, Jennifer
28 Bowman & David Bowman)
1
4 48. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 47 of this
5 Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
6 49. Plaintiff had a cognizable interest under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
7 Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from state actions that deprive him of
8 life, liberty or property in such a manner as to shock the conscience, including but not limited to
9 unwarranted state interference in Plaintiff’s liberties.
10 50. Plaintiff had a cognizable interest under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
11 Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from state actions that deprive him of
12 life, liberty or property in such a manner as to shock the conscience.
13 51. The aforementioned actions of Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi
14 Curtis, Ruben Murgia, Jennifer Bowman and David Bowman, along with other undiscovered
15 conduct, shock the conscience, in that they acted with indifference to the constitutional rights of
16 Plaintiff and with purpose to harm unrelated to any legitimate law enforcement objective.
17 52. As a direct and proximate cause of the acts of Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan
18 Ortega, Ruben Murgia, Heidi Curtis, Jennifer Bowman and David Bowman, Plaintiff suffered
19 emotional distress, mental anguish and pain.
20 53. The conduct of Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis, Ruben
21 Murgia, Jennifer Bowman and David Bowman was willful, wanton, malicious, and done with
22 reckless disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiff and therefore warrants the imposition of
23 exemplary and punitive damages as to Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis,
24 Jennifer Bowman and David Bowman.
25 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

26 Municipal Liability-Ratification (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
(Against Defendants CITY, Danielle Eyestone, Red Bluff Police Department, Kyle Sanders,
27 Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis and Ruben Murgia)
28
1 54. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 53 of
2 this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
3 55. Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis and Ruben Murgia acted
4 under the color of law;
5 56. The acts of Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis and Ruben Murgia
6 deprived Plaintiff of his particular rights under the United States Constitution.
7 57. Upon information and belief, a final policymaker, acting under color of law, who had
8 final policymaking authority concerning the acts of Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega,
9 Heidi Curtis and Ruben Murgia, ratified Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis
10 and Ruben Murgia’s acts and basis for them. Upon information and belief, the final policymaker
11 knew of and specifically approved of Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis and
12 Ruben Murgia’s acts.
13 58. Upon information and belief, a final policymaker has determined (or will determine)
14 that the acts of Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis and Ruben Murgia were
15 “within policy.”
16 59. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions, Plaintiff has suffered loss of
17 liberties. The aforementioned acts and omissions also caused Plaintiff’s pain and suffering and
18 mental anguish.
19 60. CITY and Danielle Eyestone are vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of Defendants
20 Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis and Ruben Murgia pursuant to § 815.2(a) of the
21 California Government Code, which provides that a public entity is liable for the injuries caused
22 by its employees within the scope of the employment if the employee’s acts would subject him or
23 her to liability.
24 61. Accordingly Defendants CITY, Danielle Eyestone, Red Bluff Police Department,
25 Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis and Ruben Murgia each are liable to Plaintiff for
26 compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983.

27 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
28 Municipal Liability-Failure to Train (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

1 (Against Defendants CITY, Danielle Eyestone, Red Bluff Police Department, Kyle Sanders,
Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis and Ruben Murgia)
2
6 under color of law.
7 64. The acts of Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis and Ruben Murgia
8 deprived Plaintiff of his particular rights under the United States Constitution.
9 65. The training policies of Defendants CITY, Danielle Eyestone and Red Bluff Police
10 Department were not adequate to train its officers to handle the usual and recurring situations
11 with which they must deal.
12 66. Defendants CITY, Danielle Eyestone and Red Bluff Police Department were
13 deliberately indifferent to the obvious consequences of their failure to train their officers
14 adequately.
15 67. The failure of Defendants CITY, Danielle Eyestone and Red Bluff Police Department
16 to provide adequate training caused the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights by Defendants Kyle
17 Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis and Ruben Murgia; that is, Defendant’s failure to train is
18 so closely related to the deprivation of the Plaintiff’s rights as to the moving force that caused the
19 restriction of free liberties.
20 68. On information and belief, Defendants CITY, Danielle Eyestone and Red Bluff Police
21 Department failed to train Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis and Ruben
22 Murgia properly and adequately.
27 her to liability
28
1 70. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions, Plaintiff has suffered loss of
2 liberties. The aforementioned acts and omissions also caused Plaintiff’s pain and suffering and
3 mental anguish.
8 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
9 Municipal Liability-Unconstitutional Custom or Policy (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

10 Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis and Ruben Murgia)
14 under color of law.
16 pursuant to an expressly adopted official policy or a longstanding practice or custom of
17 Defendants CITY, Danielle Eyestone, Red Bluff Police Department.
18 75. On information and belief, Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis
19 and Ruben Murgia were not disciplined, reprimanded, retrained, suspended, or otherwise
20 penalized in connection with Plaintiff’s false arrest and imprisonment.
21 76. Defendants CITY, Danielle Eyestone, Red Bluff Police Department and Defendants
22 Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis and Ruben Murgia, together with other CITY
23 policymakers and supervisors, maintained, inter alia, the following unconstitutional customs,
24 practices, and policies:
25 (a) Providing inadequate training regarding false arrest and imprisonment
26 Employing and retaining as police officers individuals such as Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan
27 Ortega, Heidi Curtis and Ruben Murgia whom Defendants CITY, Danielle Eyestone, Red Bluff
28 Police Department at all times material herein knew or reasonably should have known had
1 dangerous propensities for abusing their authority;
2 (b) Inadequately supervising, training, controlling, assigning, and disciplining CITY
3 officers, and other personnel, including Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis
4 and Ruben Murgia, whom Defendants CITY, Danielle Eyestone, Red Bluff Police Department
5 knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known had aforementioned propensities
6 and character traits;
7 (c) Maintaining grossly inadequate procedures for reporting, supervising,
8 investigating, reviewing, disciplining, and controlling misconduct by CITY officers and
9 Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis and Ruben Murgia;
10 (d) Failing to adequately discipline CITY police officers, including Defendants Kyle
11 Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis and Ruben Murgia, for the above referenced categories of
12 misconduct, including “slaps on the wrist,” discipline that is so slight as to be out of proportion to
13 the magnitude of misconduct, and other inadequate discipline that is tantamount to encouraging
14 misconduct;
15 (e) Encouraging, accommodating, or facilitating a “blue code of silence,” “blue
16 shield,” “blue wall,” “blue curtain,” “blue veil,” or simply “code of silence,” pursuant to which
17 police officers do not report other officers’ errors, misconduct, or crimes. Pursuant to this code of
18 silene, if questioned about an incident of misconduct involving another officer, while following
19 the code, the officer being questioned will claim ignorance of the other officers’ wrongdoing.
20 77. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions, Plaintiff has suffered the loss of
21 liberties due to false arrest and false imprisonment. The aforementioned acts and omissions also
22 caused Plaintiff’s pain and suffering and mental anguish.
23 78. Defendants CITY, Danielle Eyestone, Red Bluff Police Department and Defendants
24 Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis and Ruben Murgia, together with various other
25 officials, whether named or unnamed, had either actual or constructive knowledge of the deficient
26 policies, practices ad customs alleged in the paragraphs above. Despite having knowledge as
27 stated above, these defendants condoned, tolerated, and through actions and inactions thereby
28 ratified such policies. Said defendants also acted with deliberate indifference to the foreseeable
1 effects and consequences of these policies with respect to the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff.
2 79. By perpetrating, sanctioning, tolerating and ratifying the outrageous conduct and other
3 wrongful acts, Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis and Ruben Murgia acted
4 with intentional, reckless, and callous disregard for Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Furthernore,
5 the policies, practices, and customs implemented, maintained, and still tolerated by Defendants
6 CITY, Danielle Eyestone, Red Bluff Police Department and Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan
7 Ortega, Heidi Curtis and Ruben Murgia were affirmatively linked to wand were a significantly
8 influential force behind the false arrest and false imprisonment of Plaintiff.
17
18 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
19 False Arrest/False Imprisonment

20 Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis and Ruben Murgia, Dave Hencratt)
21
24 83. Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis and Ruben Murgia, while
25 working as officers for Red Bluff Police Department and acting within the course and scope of
26 their duties, intentionally deprived Plaintiff of his freedom of movement by menace, fraud, deceit
27 and unreasonable duress. Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis and Ruben
28 Murgia detained Plaintiff without reasonable suspicion and arrested him without probable cause.
1 84. Plaintiff did not knowingly or voluntarily consent.
2 85. Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis and Ruben Murgia detained
3 Plaintiff for an appreciable amount of time.
4 86. The conduct of Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis and Ruben
5
Murgia was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff.
6
87. CITY and Danielle Eyestone are vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of Defendants
7
Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis and Ruben Murgia pursuant to § 815.2(a) of the
8
12 88. The conduct of Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis and Ruben
13
Murgia was malicious, wanton, oppressive, and accomplished with a conscious disregard for the
14
rights of Plaintiff, entitling Plaintiff to an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
15
89. As a result of their misconduct, Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi
16
17 Curtis and Ruben Murgia are liable for Plaintiff’s injuries, either because they were integral
18 participants in the wrongful detention and arrest, or because they failed to intervene to prevent
19 these violations.
20
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
21
Conspiracy Against Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241)
22
(Against Defendants CITY, Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis, Ruben Murgia, Jennifer
23 Bowman and David Bowman)
24
90. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 89 of
25
this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
26
91. Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis, Ruben Murgia while working
27
as officers for Red Bluff Police Department in concert with Defendants Jennifer Bowman and
28
1 David Bowman conspired to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate Plaintiff in his free exercise
2 or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United
3 States.
4 92. Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis, Ruben Murgia, Jennifer
5 Bowman and David Bowman conspired to falsely arrest and falsely imprison Plaintiff based false
6 allegations provided by Defendants Jennifer Bowman and David Bowman.
8 Murgia, Jennifer Bowman and David Bowman was a substantial factor in causing the harm to
9 Plaintiff.
16 Murgia, Jennifer Bowman and David Bowman was malicious, wanton, oppressive, intimidating
17 and accomplished with a conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff, entitling Plaintiff to an
18 award of exemplary and punitive damages.
19 96. As a result of their misconduct, Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi
20 Curtis, Ruben Murgia, Jennifer Bowman and David Bowman are liable for Plaintiff’s injuries,
21 either because they were integral participants in the conspiracy against rights, or because they
22 failed to intervene to prevent these violations.
23 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
24 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law (18 U.S.C. § 242)

(Against Defendants County of Tehama, CITY, Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis,
25 Ruben Murgia, Dave Hencratt)
28 98. Defendants, Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis, Ruben Murgia, Dave
1 Hencratt acted under the color of law.
2 99. Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis, Ruben Murgia while working
3 as officers for Red Bluff Police Department in concert with Dave Hencratt deprived Plaintiff of
4 his right to be free from false arrest and false imprisonment which is a right secured to him by the
5 Constitution or laws of the United States.
6 100. The conduct of Defendants County of Tehama, CITY, Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega,
7 Heidi Curtis, Ruben Murgia, Dave Hencratt was a substantial factor in causing the harm to
8 Plaintiff.
9 101. County of Tehama, CITY and Danielle Eyestone are vicariously liable for the
10 wrongful acts of Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis, Ruben Murgia and
11 Dave Hencratt pursuant to § 815.2(a) of the California Government Code, which provides that a
12 public entity is liable for the injuries caused by its employees within the scope of the employment
13 if the employee’s acts would subject him or her to liability.
15 Murgia, Dave Hencratt was malicious, wanton, oppressive, intimidating and accomplished with a
16 conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff, entitling Plaintiff to an award of exemplary and
17 punitive damages.
18 103. As a result of their misconduct, Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi
19 Curtis, Ruben Murgia, Dave Hencratt are liable for Plaintiff’s injuries, either because they were
20 integral participants in the conspiracy against rights, or because they failed to intervene to prevent
21 these violations.
22
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
23
Malicious Prosecution (42 U.S.C § 1983)
24 (Against Defendants County of Tehama, CITY, Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis,
Ruben Murgia, Dave Hencratt, Jennifer Bowman, David Bowman)
25
26 Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062, 1066 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In order to prevail
on a § 1983 claim of malicious prosecution, a plaintiff “must show that the defendants
27 prosecuted [him] with malice and without probable cause, and that they did so for the
purpose of denying [him] equal protection or another specific constitutional right.”
28 Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180, 1189 (9th Cir. 1995). Malicious prosecution
1 actions are not limited to suits against prosecutors but may be brought, as here, against
other persons who have wrongfully caused the charges to be filed. Galbraith v. County
2 of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2002). ”)
4 104. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 103
5 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
6 105. Defendants County of Tehama, CITY, Red Bluff Police Department, Danielle
7 Eyestone, Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis, Ruben Murgia, Dave Hencratt, Jennifer
8 Bowman, David Bowman prosecuted and/or caused charges to be wrongfully filed against
9 Plaintiff with malice and without probable cause for the purpose of denying Plaintiff equal
10 protection under the law.
12 Heidi Curtis, Ruben Murgia, Dave Hencratt, Jennifer Bowman, David Bowman was a substantial
13 factor in causing the harm to Plaintiff.
15 Heidi Curtis, Ruben Murgia, Dave Hencratt, Jennifer Bowman, David Bowman was malicious,
16 wanton, oppressive, intimidating and accomplished with a conscious disregard for the rights of
17 Plaintiff, entitling Plaintiff to an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
18 108. As a result of their misconduct, Defendants County of Tehama, CITY, Kyle Sanders,
19 Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis, Ruben Murgia, Dave Hencratt, Jennifer Bowman, David Bowman
20 are liable for Plaintiff’s injuries, either because they were integral participants in the conspiracy
21 against rights, or because they failed to intervene to prevent these violations.
22 109. County of Tehama, CITY and Danielle Eyestone are vicariously liable for the
23 wrongful acts of Defendants Kyle Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis, Ruben Murgia and
24 Dave Hencratt pursuant to § 815.2(a) of the California Government Code, which provides that a
25 public entity is liable for the injuries caused by its employees within the scope of the employment
26 if the employee’s acts would subject him or her to liability.
27
28
1 TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Respondeat Superior
2 (Against All Defendants)
3 110. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through
4 109 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
5 111. Defendant’s intentional tortious acts were undertaken within the scope of their
6 employment.
7 112. As a result of Defendant’s tortious conduct in the course of their employment
8 Plaintiff was damaged.
10 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

11 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Brian Bowman, requests entry of judgment in his favor against
12 Defendants County of Tehama, CITY, Daniell Eyestone, Red Bluff Police Department, Kyle
13 Sanders, Quintan Ortega, Heidi Curtis, Ruben Murgia, Dave Hencratt, Jennifer Bowman and
14 David Bowman inclusive as follows:
15 A. For compensatory damages in whatever amount may be proven at trial.
16 B. For punitive damages against individual defendants in an amount to be proven
17 at trial;
18 C. For statutory damages;
19 D. For interest
20 E. For litigation expenses;
21 F. For costs of suit; and
22 G. For such further other relief as the Court may deem just , proper and
23 appropriate.
24
25
26
27
28
1 Respectfully Submitted,
2
3
_________________________
4 Brian E. XXXXX
935 Sunrise Drive
5 Red Bluff, CA 96080
(714) 613-
6 XXXXX@gmail.com
7 Pro-Se
8
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
9
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.
10
11
12
13
14
15
Respectfully Submitted,
16
17
_________________________
18
Brian E. XXXX
19 935 Sunrise Drive
Red Bluff, CA 96080
20 (714) 613-
mobilebeb@gmail.com
21 Pro-Se
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Federal Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Federal Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Federal Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Brian E.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12 BRIAN E. XXXXXX, No.

6 and David Bowman, inclusive, and alleges as follows:

7 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13 or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.

22 Red Bluff, County of Tehama, California.

24 City of Red Bluff, County of Tehama, California.

26 of Red Bluff, County of Tehama, California.

28 the ability to sue and be sued.

2 individual residing in the County of Tehama.

13 Officer Heidi Curtis.

24 of the State of California.

3 Red Bluff Police Department.

8 principal, Defendants CITY and Red Bluff Police Department.

9 otherwise disposed of.

10 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

14 Buff California to attend his wedding in August of 2019.

16 approximately August 9, 2019.

19 had not returned in some time.

26 little fuckers and nasty humans”.

2 Bowman condoned Defendant Jennifer Bowmans’ actions.

5 Plaintiff in any way shape or form.

8 emergency contact list for her children.

10 Department to respond to Metteer Elementary School reporting a male trespassing on school

11 grounds and refusing to leave.

14 Plaintiff was not on school property when he was detained.

17 Bowman falsely accused Plaintiff of being “psychotic”

19 basically confirmed all of Defendant Jennifer Bowmans’ allegations.

22 talking with Plaintiff.

5 from Defendants Jennifer Bowman and David Bowman.

12 (misdemeanor) and California Penal Code § 647.6(a)(1) Annoy/Molest Child (misdemeanor).

19 injuries and damages:

24 the United States Constitution;

25 (c) Violation of his California Constitutional rights under Article I, Section 12 to be

26 free from an unreasonable search and seizure;

2 emotional distress, frustration, extreme inconvenience, anxiety;

3 (f) Loss of Liberty.

26 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

27 Substantive Due Process (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

9 unwarranted state interference in Plaintiff’s liberties.

12 life, liberty or property in such a manner as to shock the conscience.

19 emotional distress, mental anguish and pain.

24 Jennifer Bowman and David Bowman.

25 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

4 under the color of law;

12 Ruben Murgia’s acts.

26 compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983.

28 Municipal Liability-Failure to Train (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

6 compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983.

8 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

9 Municipal Liability-Unconstitutional Custom or Policy (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

14 under color of law.

16 pursuant to an expressly adopted official policy or a longstanding practice or custom of

17 Defendants CITY, Danielle Eyestone, Red Bluff Police Department.

20 penalized in connection with Plaintiff’s false arrest and imprisonment.

24 practices, and policies:

25 (a) Providing inadequate training regarding false arrest and imprisonment