UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EXTRA SHEET PERSUANT TO 42 U.S.A.1983§
This action brought to 42 U.S.C. 1983§ to redress the depravation of rights secured by the constitution
of the United States all defendants named in this document is being sued in there official capacity for
their part taking in violation of rights while under color of state law exercising there unlawful
unethical misconduct. I plaintiff (VICTOR MANUEL MENDOZA) along with my wife (Jessica Hissner
Mendoza) are asking the court to file a jointly civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C §1983 of the
United States Code. I believe our rights have been violated against us and our kids by state actors in
the course of an ongoing civil dependency trial.

§ JURISDICTION AND VENUE §

This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28U.S.C.§ 1343(a)(3), as this action seeks to
redress the depravation of our rights under color of state law. The events giving rise to this claim
occurred within the jurisdiction of this court, making venue proper under 28 U.S.C.§ 1391(b).

PARTIES:

PLAINTIFF: Victor Mendoza/Jessica Mendoza

V.
Department of human resources
Children and Family services

§ Federal constitutional right (s) §

1. FOURTH AMENDMENT: The fourth amendment was violated by (Mary Payette) a social
worker under color of law conducted a “search and seizure” without any probable cause or
exigent circumstances in violation of the 4th amendment rights.
2.Fifth AMENDMENT: Was violated when on or about 3/30/2022 to 10/2/2023 under color of
law (the agency) city attorney (DIANA KARBAJAL STRATE) suppressed evidence that was
exculpatory evidence to the plaintiff until it was released on 10/2/2023 in violation of the 5 th
amendment.
3.FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: The defendants (MARIA OROPEZA) and (KRISTINA POCK)
under color of state law knowingly submitted fabricated evidence to a legal proceeding on or
about 8/25/2023 and 8/25/2023 to use against plaintiff, violating his right to a fair trial which
constitutes a violation of the 14th amendment rights.
4.FIFTH AMENDMENT: On the very day of the 25th of march of 2022 plaintiff’s child
GXM’s classroom was disturbed by the presence of (MARIE PAYETTE) to interrogate,
GXM without a warrant and revising GXM about his rights to self-incrimination. Unaware to
his parents there are many concerns about what really happened that morning since both
parents were not present to observe what questions were asked and the sincerity of the
Statements that were made? The actions by the social worker substantiates a violation of
The 4th and 5th amendments to the United States Constitution.
 § CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT (S) §
th
On or about March 25 2022 at approximately 8:00 am (Marie Payette) conducted an interview with
plaintiff’s son without a (warrant) probable cause, properly notifying parents, absent of (Exigent
Circumstances) that would justify a warrantless seizure. During encounter (Marie Payette) seized
plaintiff’s child again without a court order absent any exigent circumstances, these actions were in
violation of the 4th and 14th amendments rights which protect against unreasonable search and
seizures.
On or about between March 30th 2022 and October 2nd the agency did suppress evidence that was
exculpatory to the plaintiff’s defense until it was finally released to the plaintiff on October 2 nd 2023 in
violation of the 5th amendment of the United States constitution. The delay of the detention report
caused a serious injury to the plaintiff in promptly addressing the unlawful seizure and the further
causing of harm to the plaintiff’s child. This constitutes a serious injury as it impeded the plaintiff’s
ability to seek timely redress for the violation of their rights. The actions of the agency were in
violation of the plaintiff’s 4th and 5th amendments rights which protect against the suppression of
exculpatory evidence.

STATE LAW PROVIDING IMMUNITY FROM SUITS FOR CHILD ABUSE,

INVESTIGATORS HAVE NO APPLICATION TO SUIT UNDER 1983 WALLIS V. SPENSOR.
ALSO, A DEFENDANT IN A CIVIL RIGHTS CASE IS NOT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY IF HE OR SHE GAVE FALSE
INFORMATION EITHER IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLKICATION FOR A SEARCH WARRANT OR IN
PRESENTING EVIDENCE TO A PROSECUTOR ON WHICH THE PROSECUTOR BASED HIS OR HER
CHARGES AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF. YOUNG V. BIGGENS. (5TH CIR 1991)

On 4/9/2022 plaintiff was informed about the seizure of GMX. Since the plaintiff was
Not properly notified about the unlawful detention warrant on the 28th of march
Resulted in plaintiff’s inability to attend and defend his rights. This did violate plaintiff’s
Constitutional rights to be properly notified served with the documents.

On or about July 29th and august 2nd defendants (MARIAOROPEZA- KRISTINA POCK) violated plaintiff’s
Constitutional rights when they attacked GMX’s sibling (ASIANA HARVEY) implicating her in a
scandal, and making false statements about her inability to provide and care for GMX
having no boundaries between plaintiff and his wife, deeming her unfit to provide a safe environment
for GXM. Based on these facts the actions of the social worker have infringed upon
these rights, causing undue distress and harm to plaintiff’s family. False allegations and the
subsequent restrictions placed on plaintiff’s son are a clear violation of our rights.

On or about August 2nd 24th 25th of 2023 defendants (MARIA OROPEZA – KRISTINA POCK) did
knowingly with wrongful intentions commit perjury under oath when they made false statements in a
report during an investigation that was submitted in a legal proceeding violating plaintiff’s due process
rights which defends from unfair trials.

On or about August 25th defendants (MARIA OROPEZA) did knowingly fabricate false SEXUAL ABUSE
“allegations toward the plaintiff, implicating (ASIANA HARVEY) in the plot to secure and finalize GXM’s
Removal from both parents and siblings. SFPD lodged an investigation concluding no evidence could
be traced to the allegations since plaintiff’s daughter denied any such accusations. The deprivation,
the deception, of the social worker raises concerning questions, about her sincerity and why has the
court let this still be ongoing if there’s grounds for a new trial? Violating all 4 of both parents and
children’s constitutional rights that protects from familial infringement, from the right to a fair trial.

§ COLOR OF LAW §
On or about between March 25 and March 30th 2023 (MARIE PAYETTE) under color of state law
th

In his/her duty, there/then, now in her capacity, performing her duties, employed by state’s Child
Protective Services conducted a seizure without due process of law, absent of any danger, disrupt
GXM’

of his rights and without corroboration. Plaintiff never had the chance to challenge these allegations
due to suppression of evidence. The unlawful seizure of a child without conducting a reasonable
investigation, or without reasonable cause to believe that the child is in imminent danger of serious
bodily injury, constitutes a serious unlawful seizure thus a violation of procedural due process.

On or about between March 30th 2022 until 10/2/2023 under color of law did (DIANA KARBAJAL) in
her active duty’s employed by the state as a city attorney in his/her, then/there, now, suppress a
document that was exculpatory to plaintiff’s defense, weakening his ability to strategize a defense in
his case violating rights to due process to a fair trial.

§ STATEMENT OF CLAIMS §
Plaintiff and his wife Jessica Hissner Mendoza both residents of San Francisco CA Came into contact
with (Child protective services) on March 22, 2022 after a call was made to the San Francisco police
department for unknown reasons. The first to arrive was (officer Hoang unit # 3B14A ref # 220811281)
who upon arrival carefully assessed the situation finding no concern to the call that was made then
peacefully let the plaintiff take his child to school. Despite the fact the shelter staff in their denial of
service and the report to cps told otherwise with inconsistencies, raising questions about their true
motivations that particular day. Around 5:00 pm plaintiff upon arriving back from his 8hr shift the
plaintiff was restricted from entering the premises then served a “DENIAL OF SERVICE” document
executed by (Johnathon Blackman). In his report he stated the following reasons for the denial of
services which were (disrupting the peace, making threats of violence, acts of terrorism and bombing
the building) in the presence of officer “Hoang”. The cad number is # (220811281) which plaintiff later
found that the police were called for an alleged verbal dispute that was made by the reporter
(Johnathon Blackman) in order to initiate a “CPS” case. As a result (Marie Pyette) without
corroboration, probable cause, “exigent circumstances” interviewed plaintiff’s 7-year-old son on
3/25/2022 GXM was seized from plaintiff then on 3/28/2022 a court order was issued to remove from
mother then on 3/30/2022 a petition for detention was filed which was unconstitutional for several
reasons including not notifying plaintiff of the detention hearing, also the “CPS” investigation. Father
was notified by mother on 4/9/2022, by that time father was unable to attend both “shelter, and
detention “hearings due to attending the family shelter hearing which I appealed but later found out
the same person (Johnathon Blackman) had misled plaintiff to the wrong location where the hearing
took place. Mislead to the “shelter advocates office” on Turk St. the staff there said it took place at
the shelter the shelter there said it was held there on 3/23/2022 wasting plaintiff’s time. Both agency
and family shelter never properly notified plaintiff about “CPS” plaintiff was restricted from picking his
child up from school on 3/25/2023 The Defendants could not seize a child without a warrant or
existence of probable cause to believe the child was in imminent danger of harm. Where police were not
informed of any abuse to the child upon arriving at the caretaker’s home and found no evidence of abuse
while there was not objectively reasonable seizure of the child and violated the 4th amendment of the
child (Wooley v. City of Baton Rouge 5th Cir (2000). A phone call alone does not constitute probable
cause.
On or about March 25Th 2022 the defendant (Marie Payette) conducted an unlawful “Search and
Seizure” with out probable cause HR. v. State Department Human Resources Center 612 so.2d 477 Ca la.
CT.APP. (1992). Without a warrant. SEE THE DECISION IN The case of Doe et al, v. Heck et al, (No 01-36
48, 2003 US COA. LEXIS 7144) will affect the manner in which cps investigations of alleged child abuse or
neglect are conducted. The decision of the 7th CIR C.O.A found that this practice that has no prior
consent”” interviewing “a child will ordinarily constitute a clear violation of the constitutional rights of
parents under the 4th and 14th amendments to the United States constitution. According to the C.O.A the
investigative interview of the child constitutes a “ SEARCH AND SEIZURE” and when conducted on private
property without consent , a warrant probable cause or exigent circumstances , such an interview is an
unreasonable “ Search and Seizure” the social would have to come with corroboration and probable
cause with exigent circumstances to conduct such an interview , it is unconstitutional for a state actor to
remove your children based on the mere possibility of being exposed to danger, it’s just not enough
therefore it’s unlawful in violation of parental rights, the child’s, also to the property owner. The agency
failed to properly notify the plaintiff about the” SEIZURE” and the (Detention hearing) that was set on
March 30th 2022 resulting in plaintiff’s inability to attend and defend their rights. Consequently, the
agency after numerous requests to release both the discovery/detention reports were ignored,
suppressed by the agency. The delay in the detention report prevented the plaintiff from promptly
addressing the unlawful seizure. This delay constituted an injury as it impeded the plaintiff’s ability to
seek timely redress for the violations of their rights. Both plaintiff and wife were coerced into
accepting a case plan without fully understanding what the allegations were and how they came into
contact with “CPS”. Wherefore The actions of the defendants, constitutes a violation of the right to
due process and a fair trial. I respectfully request that the court issue a declaratory judgment that the
actions of the defendant violated my rights under the constitution and laws of the United States.
(Maria Oropeza) (Kristina Pock) did unlawfully commit perjury under oath when false allegations of
“sexual abuse” were submitted to the court to use against plaintiff as evidence to secure and finalize
the removal of his child. The 5th circuit held that; A defendant in a civil rights case is not entitled to
immunity if he or she gives false statements or information either in support of an application for a
search warrant or in presenting evidence to a prosecutor based on history her charge against the
plaintiff. YOUNGV. BIGGENS (5TH CIR 1991). With the intentions of making sure the child was removed
from the custody and care of both parent’s long-term placement, a police investigation was lodged by
the San Francisco Police Department when plaintiff complained about his frustrations he was having
with the “agency” investigators first started with the alleged victim (Asiana Harvey) who was
interviewed and denied any “sexual abuse “as the social worker reported. The alleged victim agreed
to testify on plaintiff’s behalf and to lift the restriction placed on her little brother’s overnights which
he enjoyed every weekend. HERVEY V. ESTES 65 F 3d784788 ( 9TH CIR 1995 ) HOLDING IN GREEN WITH
1983 10TH CIRCUIT SNELL V. TUNNELL 920.F. 2d673 ( 10TH CIR 1990 ) THE KNOWING SUBMISSION OF
FALSE REPORTS TO A COURT SUBMITTED UNDER OATH WOULD BE THE SAME AS TESTIFYING TO A COURT
UNDER OATH 18 U.S.C.§ 1621; CAL PENAL CODE 118: There were delays on addressing the issue then
when the social worker took the stand on 10/27/23 a purposeful erroneous legal error was exercised
by plaintiff’s attorney (Amanda Inocencio) as a result it ignited a dispute between plaintiff and
attorney so a hearing was set on 11/6/2023 for relief from the case filed by attorney. This issue should
have been addressed when it first occurred in august but plaintiff believes the delays were purposely
set for the very purpose of timely filing complaints also to keep my son in foster care as long as
possible to make it harder for plaintiff to be reunited back with their child. State law cannot provide
immunity from suits for federal civil rights violations. State law providing immunity from suits
for child abuse investigations has no applications to suits under 1983 Wallis v. Spencer. On
the 27th of October plaintiff’s attorney was ineffective when she committed an erroneous legal
malpractice when she failed to properly challenge the social workers sincerity about the allegations
she fabricated in her reports? As a result, it ruined plaintiff’s opportunity to designate the record for
appeal also question how sincere her testimony was. Plaintiff argues the case should be reconsidered
due to false testimony. Plaintiff wants the court to take a closer look at his case and decide if plaintiff
is entitled to a new trial, for the damage the “agency “has inflicted on his family “his child is now going
on 20 months In foster care but wants to come home. On 9/13/2023 GXM’S sibling (ASIANA HARVEY)
filed a jv180 for GXM to be placed in her care due to the nature of the way things were going in the
court room then on 10/02/2023 plaintiff finally got to see what happened in the beginning of the case
and how it all started which plaintiff concluded it was exculpatory to his case. So as of 11/17/2023 it
still has to be addressed including the fabricated sexual abuse allegations. Plaintiff has supporting
evidence that all court documents are being sent to an old address being that plaintiff has a home also
has updated his mailing address on December 23rd of 2022 due despite this the court continues to
send court documents to an old mailing address. Plaintiff receives his documents late as a result to the
error that is being done maliciously due to on 10/27/2023 at the status review hearing HONARABLE
(JUDGE BRADEN C WOODS) said out loud on the record that he didn’t know nothing about the jv180
motion that was filed almost 8 weeks ago before he allegedly realized one was filed. On 10/27/2023
during the same hearing after (Kristina Pock) testified (MARIA OROPEZA) took the stand and
(AMANDA INOCENCIO) ineffectively misrepresented her representation when she missed plaintiff’s
opportunity to challenge their credibility by asking questions that were harmful to plaintiff’s case. She
devastated the only chance to crumble her testimony including (KRISTINA POCK’S) so they unleashed 6
months of devastating testimony that should’ve been questioned went out the door. Plaintiff couldn’t
believe the malpractice plaintiff’s attorney inflicted so on 10/31/ 2023 plaintiff did not want (AMANDA
INOCENCIO) representing him any longer due to profanity being unleashed through emails that on
11/06/23 a motion was set for withdraw from representation and plaintiff was sick that day he didn’t
attend.

RELIEF
PLAINTIFF” Victor Mendoza is with all due respect is asking the court here today to that the court
declare that the actions of the, defendants violated the 4th and 14th amendments to the United States
Constitution. I , also ask the court to issue an injunction ordering defendants to cease their unlawful
practices. I, also ask the court to compensate damages in the amount to be determined at trial to
compensate plaintiff for the emotional and physical harm suffered as a result of defendant’s actions. I
also am asking the court for punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial to deter
defendants and others from engaging in similar conduct in the future. I am also asking the court to
consider a new fair trial by jury and grant such other and further relief as the court deems just and
proper thank you.