Wanda Nelson V Santa Barbara County District Attorneys Office Et Al Dec. 2018

Case 2:18-cv-10218-JFW-PLA Document 1 Filed 12/07/18 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:1
1
Michael J. Curls (SBN 159651)
Nichelle D. Jones (SBN 186308)
2 LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL J. CURLS
4340 Leimert Blvd., Suite 200
3 Los Angeles, CA 90008
4
Telephone: (323) 293-2314
Facsimile: (323) 293-2350
5 Email: michael@mjclawoffice.com
nichelle@mjclawoffice.com
6
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff WANDA NELSON
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
WANDA NELSON,
10
Plaintiff,
11
12 vs.
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR:
13 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHERIFF’S
OFFICE, CHARLIE BOSMA, MATTHEW 1. DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS,
14
FENSKE, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY 42 U.S.C., § 1983, RIGHT TO BE
15 SHERIFF’S OFFICE DOE DEPUTIES 1-10, FREE FROM VIOLATIONS OF
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY DISTRICT DUE PROCESS, SUPPRESSION
16 ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, SANTA BARBRA OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE,
COUNTY DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE,
17
CYNTHIA GRESSER, SANTA BARBARA AND RECKLESS INVESTIGATION;
18 COUNTY DOE DEPUTY DISTRICT 2. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION;
ATTORNEYS 11 - 20, 3. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
19
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; AND
Defendants
20 4. NEGLIGENCE
21
Plaintiff WANDA NELSON, by and through her attorneys of record Michael
22
J. Curls and Nichelle D. Jones of the Law Office of Michael J. Curls, alleges and
23
complains as follows:
24
INTRODUCTION
25
This case arises from the investigation, incarceration, prosecution and conviction
26
of Plaintiff Wanda Nelson for a crime that she did not commit. On or about February 18,
27
2016, Plaintiff was convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter arising from the death of her
28
client, Ms. Heidi Good. Although Ms. Nelson was charged with First and Second
1
____________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
1 Degree murder, she was convicted on the lessor offense of Involuntary Manslaughter.
2 Ms. Nelson’s conviction was subsequently overturned by the California Court of Appeal
3 on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction of
4 Involuntary Manslaughter. Plaintiff received a Determination of Factual Evidence from
5 the Superior Court of California on or about May 10, 2018. At the time of her arrest,
6 Plaintiff was sixty-three (“63”) years old, had no criminal history, and was recovering
7 from Breast Cancer treatment. Plaintiff served almost one year in jail, including a stint
8 at Ryker’s Island Prison, a maximum security facility in the Bronx, New York.
9 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
10 1. Jurisdiction is proper in the United States District Court for the Central District of
11 California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (3) and (4), et seq.
12 2. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims under
13 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
14 3. Venue is proper in the Southern District of California because the acts or
15 omissions which form the basis of the Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the City of Lompoc,
16 California, within the Central District.
17 4. Plaintiff has complied with Government Code §§ 800 et seq.
18 PARTIES
19 5. At all times relevant to this complaint, Plaintiff is an individual residing in
20 Buellton, California.
21 6. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant Charlie Bosma is an individual
22 believed to reside in Santa Barbara County, California.
23 7. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant Matthew Fenske is an individual
25 8. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant Cynthia Gresser is an individual
27 9. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s
28
Office was a municipal corporation operating in Santa Barbara County, California and
2
____________________________________________________________________________________
1 employing the individual defendant deputies, who were acting within the scope of their
2 employment.
3 10. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant Santa Barbara County District
4 Attorney’s Office was a municipal corporation operating in Santa Barbara County,
5 California and employing the individual defendant deputies, who were acting within the
6 scope of their employment.
7 11. Plaintiff is truly ignorant of the true names and capacities of Does 1 through 20,
8 inclusive, and/or is truly ignorant of the facts giving rise to their liability and will am end
9 this complaint once their identities have been ascertained as well as the facts giving rise
10 to their liability.
11 FACTS
12 12. Plaintiff Wanda Nelson, (“Plaintiff”) an African American Female, aged 60 years
13 old at the time of the incidents giving rise to this complaint, was a home health care
14 provider for the decedent, Heidi Good. (“Heidi1”)
15 13. Prior to the incidents giving rise to this complaint. Plaintiff did not have any
16 criminal history, had not ever been arrested, and had never served any jail time.
17 14. Heidi was an Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (“ALS”) patient who was completely
18 physically incapacitated by her illness and one hundred percent (100%) ventilator
19 dependent. Heidi remained cognitively sharp and directed the care she received,
20 including but not limited to decisions regarding the hours her caregivers worked and
21 their responsibilities while on duty.
22 15. Heidi’s ventilator was kept on the nightstand next to her bed. The ventilator had
23 three hoses on one side which formed a “patient circuit.” If there was a leak, or if the
24 hoses became disconnected, the ventilator emitted an 85-decibel alarm. The alarm
25 also sounded if the pressure dropped due to secretion build up. The alarm could be
26
27
28 1
The Decedent Heidi Good and her mother Marjorie Good will be referred to by their first
names to avoid confusion; no disrespect is intended.
3
____________________________________________________________________________________
1 temporarily overridden, but if the condition was not resolved, the alarm resumed after
2 one minute. If the alarm condition was not addressed, the alarm turned off and did not
3 resume.
4 16. Heidi was able to communicate using an Eye Related Interface Computer
5 Assistance “ERICA” on a tablet computer which tracked her eyes to select and type
6 letters allowing Heidi to frequently write emails, manage the family’s finances, and keep
7 a blog about her experiences. The ERICA also allowed Heidi to speak using a
8 synthesized voice. As a result, Heidi communicated directly with her doctors and
9 caregivers and her health care was entirely self-directed.
10 17. In addition to Plaintiff, Heidi also hired two other paid caregivers. Heidi’s mother
11 Marjorie Good (“Marjorie”) and her husband Stephen Swiacki also watched over her.
12 Heidi set the schedule and instructed her caregivers as to their duties.
13 18. Plaintiff cared for Heidi from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
14 Plaintiff’s job duties included but were not limited to administering medications,
15 suctioning Heidi’s lungs, moving Heidi to prevent bedsores, and feeding Heidi through a
16 feeding tube. Plaintiff also took Heidi to doctor’s appointments, on outings and on
17 occasion, Plaintiff would run errands such as picking up prescriptions, grocery shopping
18 and transporting Heidi’s children.
19 19. A.L.S. patients typically have a life expectancy of only three to five years from
20 their initial diagnosis. Heidi survived for more than seven years, which was attributed to
21 the quality of care that she received from her caregivers, and Plaintiff in particular.
22 20. On the afternoon of March 25, 2013, Heidi instructed Plaintiff to go to Rite Aid to
23 pick up a prescription. Before leaving, Plaintiff checked the ventilator and informed
24 Heidi’s son, Christopher and Marjorie that she would be leaving the home because
25 Heidi had asked her to run an errand. Marjorie agreed to look after Heidi as was
26 customary. The ventilator alarm was not signaling at the time that Plaintiff left the Good
27 home.
28
4
____________________________________________________________________________________
1 21. When Plaintiff returned from the pharmacy she heard the alarm on Heidi’s
2 ventilator and immediately ran to Heidi’s room. Plaintiff noticed that one of the tubes on
3 Heidi’s ventilator was loose, and although it appeared as if Heidi was already deceased,
4 Plaintiff reconnected the tube and silenced the alarm.
5 22. Sheriff’s deputies and emergency personnel responded shortly thereafter, and
6 Heidi was pronounced dead.
7 23. After an examination by the Santa Barbara County Coroner’s office, Heidi’s
8 cause of death was determined to be asphyxiation due to lack of ventilator support
9 based upon a suspicion that the ventilator was tampered with.
10 24. Plaintiff and Marjorie were charged with First Degree Murder, Second Degree
11 Murder and Involuntary Manslaughter.
12 25. In support of their charge of murder, the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s
13 Office (“the Prosecution”) alleged that Plaintiff and her co-defendant Marjorie conspired
14 to kill Heidi.
15 26. The prosecution’s theory of liability was that Marjorie and Plaintiff had become
16 very close friends over the years, they both hated Heidi’s husband, Steve Swiacki, that
17 Heidi had been poisoned, the ventilator machine rarely malfunctioned, and that Plaintiff
18 and Heidi were in a dispute over an unknown amount of taxes that Plaintiff thought
19 Heidi should cover. The prosecutor, Defendant Cynthia Gresser claimed that Plaintiff
20 and Marjorie poisoned Heidi, and after Plaintiff left for the store, Marjorie disconnected
21 Heidi’s ventilator.
22 27. Later, the prosecution’s theory changed to say that Heidi was given additional
23 drugs and alcohol to relax her prior to Heidi disconnecting the ventilator.
24 28. Finally, the prosecution’s theory changed again and alleged that if Heidi wasn’t
25 poisoned or drugged, then Plaintiff’s trip to the store leaving Marjorie in charge of
26 Heidi’s care constituted gross criminal negligence and should lead to a conviction or
27 Involuntary Manslaughter.
28
5
____________________________________________________________________________________
1 29. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendants and each of them ignored evidence
2 including but not limited to: Stephen Swiacki and Heidi had disagreements about
3 whether Heidi should continue her medical treatment, or let “life take its course;” it was
4 not uncommon for Marjorie to be left at home alone with Heidi to take care of her; it was
5 not uncommon for the subject ventilator hose to “pop off” without tampering; the
6 toxicology evidence relied upon by the Defendants was tainted and therefore unreliable.
7 30. At all times relevant to Plaintiff’s complaint, Defendant Charlie Bosma (“Bosma”).
8 Defendant Matthew Fenske (“Fenske”), the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office,
9 Defendant Cynthia Gresser (“Gresser”) the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s
10 office knew or had reason to know that there was insufficient evidence to charge
11 Plaintiff with Involuntary Manslaughter, let alone First and/or Second Degree Murder.
12 31. Nevertheless, the Defendants and each of them intentionally and willfully set out
13 on a course to make Plaintiff a scapegoat for the death of Heidi.
14 32. Throughout the course and scope of the investigation and ultimate prosecution of
15 Plaintiff, The Defendants and each of them fabricated evidence, intentionally and
16 willfully ignored exculpatory evidence, and coerced and misrepresented witness
17 statements. The Defendants, and each of them were willfully blind to all the evidence,
18 readily available them demonstrating that Plaintiff had absolutely nothing to do with
19 Heidi’s death.
20 33. Plaintiff maintained her innocence throughout these proceedings and cooperated
21 fully with law enforcement. Throughout the investigation, Deputies Fenske and Bosma
22 repeatedly misrepresented that Plaintiff was not a “person of interest” in the
23 investigation of Heidi’s death.
24 34. The Defendants, and each of them knew and or had reason to know that Plaintiff
25 was diagnosed with Breast Cancer after Heidi’s death and that she was undergoing
26 treatment. The Defendants and each of them knew or had reason to know that Heidi
27 relocated to the Bronx, New York to recover from her treatment. The Defendants and
28
each of them knew and or had reason to know that Plaintiff did not have a criminal
6
____________________________________________________________________________________
1 history and that she had never been arrested. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff was arrested in
2 the Bronx, New York and placed into custody at Ryker’s Island Prison, a maximum
3 security facility, with violent offenders for three days. Plaintiff was subsequently
4 transferred to the Santa Barbara County Jail where she remained for over 11 months,
5 until the conclusion of her trial.
6 35. During her incarceration, Plaintiff was terrified, demeaned, and sustained
7 physical injury at the hands of Santa Barbara County Sheriff Department personnel at
8 the jail. Plaintiff was housed with the general population during her incarceration.
9 36. Plaintiff’s co-defendant, Marjorie, served less than three days in jail, in
10 segregated population, and remained out of custody throughout trial.
11 37. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that throughout the investigation,
12 Defendant Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department and the individual Deputy Defendants
13 failed to provide critical exculpatory evidence that would have aided in Plaintiff’s
14 defense. Moreover, the Defendant Deputies engaged in activities to induce and/or
15 cause false evidence to be introduced against Plaintiff.
16 38. In or about February 2016, Plaintiff was acquitted of First and Second-Degree
17 Murder but charged on the lessor offense of Involuntary Manslaughter.
18 39. A separate jury was impaneled for Plaintiff’s co-defendant, Marjorie, and a
19 mistrial was declared.
20 40. Plaintiff’s co-defendant, Marjorie was never retried. However, the Defendants
21 and each of them continue to persecute Plaintiff to this date.
22 41. Plaintiff’s Involuntary Manslaughter conviction was overturned by the California
23 Court of Appeal based upon insufficient evidence of criminal negligence on the part of
24 Plaintiff on or about November 6, 2017 and remitter was issued on or about January 23,
25 2018.
26 42. The Superior Court of California accepted the decision of the Court of Appeal
27 and dismissed the criminal action against Plaintiff to the zealous objection of Defendant
28
Cynthia Gresser and the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office.
7
____________________________________________________________________________________
1 43. On or about May 10, 2018 the Superior Court of California decided that Plaintiff
2 was factually innocent.
3 44. The Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office has filed an Appeal of the
4 trial court’s determination of factual evidence.
5 45. Plaintiff has no prior criminal history and had never served any jail or prison time
6 prior to these events. As such, Plaintiff was not only demeaned and humiliated by this
7 experience, she also experienced fear and anxiety over being housed in a maximum
8 security prison, as well as the Santa Barbara County jail.
9 46. Most fundamentally, Plaintiff lost crucial time away from her normal life and
10 family at a time when she had just won a battle with Breast Cancer. During her
11 incarceration, Plaintiff was prevented from sharing the daily pleasures of everyday life,
12 including but not limited to inability to attend weddings or other special occasions, and
13 inability to attend church and nurture her spiritual life.
14 47. Plaintiff lost everything as a result of the actions of the Defendants and each of
15 them and now finds herself essentially unemployable and searching for ways to sustain
16 herself when similarly situated individuals of her age are contemplating retirement.
17 48. The actions and inactions of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office were
18 known or should have been known to the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office policy
19 makers and occurred with deliberate indifference to either the recurring constitutional
20 violations elaborated above, and or to the strong likelihood that constitutional rights
21 would be violated as a result of failing to train, supervise or discipline Santa Barbara
22 County Sheriff’s Office Deputies in areas, including but not limited to racial bias,
23 suppression of evidence and using false evidence, where the need for such training was
24 obvious.
25 49. The actions and inactions of the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office
26 were known or should have been known to the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s
27 Office policy makers and occurred with deliberate indifference to either the recurring
28
constitutional violations elaborated above, and or to the strong likelihood that
8
____________________________________________________________________________________
1 constitutional rights would be violated as a result of failing to train, supervise or

2 discipline Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office prosecutors in areas,
3 including but not limited to racial bias, suppression of evidence and using false
4 evidence, where the need for such training was obvious.
5 50. The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office’s and the Santa Barbara County
6 District Attorney’s Office’s actions and omissions as set forth above were a motivating
7 force behind the violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights as set forth in this complaint.
8 51. All Defendants and each of them acted under the color of law.
9 52. Each Defendant participated in the violations allege herein, or directed the
10 violations alleged herein, or knew of the violations alleged herein and failed to act to
11 prevent them. Each Defendant ratified, approved, and acquiesced in the violations
12 alleged herein.
13 53. As joint actors with joint obligations, each defendant was and is responsible for
14 the failures and omission of the other.
15 54. Each Defendant acted individually and in concert with the other Defendants and
16 others not named in violating Plaintiff’s rights.
17 55. Each Defendant acted with a deliberate indifference to or reckless disregard for
18 an accused’s rights for the truth in withholding evidence from prosecutors, for an
19 investigation free of active concealment of material facts, and/or for the Plaintiff’s right to
20 due process of law.
21 56. As a direct and proximate result of these acts, omissions, customs, practices,
22 policies and decisions of the Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered great mental and
23 physical pain, suffering, anguish, fright ,nervousness, anxiety, shock, humiliation,
24 indignity, embarrassment, harm to reputation, and apprehension, which has caused
25 Plaintiff to sustain damages in a sum to be determined at trial.
26 57. Due to the acts of the Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer,
27 and is likely to suffer in the future, extreme and severe mental anguish, as well as
28
9
____________________________________________________________________________________
1 mental and physical pain and injury. For such injuries, Plaintiff will incur significant
2 damages based on psychological and medical care.
3 58. As a further result of the conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff
4 has lost past and future earnings in an amount to be determined according to proof at
5 trial.
6 59. As a further result of the conduct of each of these Defendants, Plaintiff has been
7 deprived of familial relationships.
8 60. Defendants’ acts and omissions, and each of them, were willful, wanton,
9 malicious, oppressive, in bad faith and done with reckless disregard or with deliberate
10 indifference to the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff entitling Plaintiff to exemplary and
11 punitive damages from each individual Defendant in an amount to be proven at the trial
12 of this matter.
13 61. By reason of the above described acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff
14 was required to retain an attorney to institute and prosecute the within action, and to
15 render legal assistance to Plaintiff that she might vindicate the loss and impairment of
16 her rights, and by reason thereof, Plaintiff requests payment by Defendants of a
17 reasonable sum for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
18 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
19 DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS –
20 42 U.S.C. § 2983
21 (Plaintiff against All Defendants)
22 62. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 61, as well as any subsequent
23 paragraphs in the Complaint, as is fully set forth herein.
24 63. Defendants Fenske, Bosma Gresser and Does 1 – 20, while acting under color of
25 law, deprived Plaintiff of her civil rights, by violating her right to be free from violations of
26 due process, suppression of exculpatory evidence, fabrication of evidence and reckless
27 investigation.
28
10
____________________________________________________________________________________
1 64. Each Defendant participated in the violations alleged herein, and/or directed the
2 violations alleged herein, and/or knew or should have known of the violations alleged
3 herein and failed to act to prevent them. Each Defendant ratified, approved or
4 acquiesced in the violations allege herein.
5 65. As joint actors with joint obligations, each Defendant was and is responsible for
6 the failures and omissions of the other.
7 66. Each Defendant acted individually and in concert with the other Defendants and
8 others not named in violating Plaintiff’s rights.
9 67. Each Defendant acted deliberately, purposefully, knowingly and/or with a
10 deliberate indifference to, or reckless disregard for accused’s rights, or for the truth, in
11 engaging in the conduct alleged herein.
12 68. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts, omissions, customs,
13 practices, policies and decisions of Defendants Fenske, Bosma, Gresser and Does 1-
14 10, Plaintiff was wrongfully incarcerated for a crime that she did not commit.
15 69. On information and belief, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office and the
16 Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office are responsible for the supervising all
17 Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office and Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s
18 Office deputies, attorneys and investigators.
19 70. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of Defendants Fenske, Bosma,
20 Gresser and Does 1 – 10 in being deliberately indifferent to violating Plaintiff’s civil
21 rights were the direct and proximate result of customs, practices and policies of the
22 Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office and Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s
23 Office.
24 71. Defendants Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office and Santa Barbara County
25 District Attorney’s Office and its policymakers tacitly encouraged, ratified and/or
26 approved of the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, and knew that such conduct was
27 unjustified and would result in violations of constitutional rights.
28
11
____________________________________________________________________________________
1 72. The customs, policies and/or practices of Defendants Santa Barbara County
2 Sheriff’s Office and Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office were a direct and
3 proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries in that Defendants Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s
4 Office and Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office failed to adequately train and
5 supervise its employees and/or agents to prevent the occurrence of the constitutional
6 violations suffered by Plaintiff.
7 73. Due to the acts of the Defendants and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered, and
8 continues to suffer, and is likely to suffer in the future, extreme and severe mental
9 anguish, mental and physical pain and injury, suffering, anguish, fright, nervousness,
10 anxiety, shock, humiliation, indignity, embarrassment, harm to reputation, and
11 apprehension. For such injury, she has incurred and will continue to incur significant
12 damages.
13 74. As a further result of the conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff
14 has lost past and future earnings in an amount to be determined according to proof at
15 trial.
16 75. As a further result of the conduct of each of these Defendants, Plaintiff has been
17 deprived of familial relationships.
18 76. Defendants’ acts and omissions, and each of them, were willful, wanton,
19 malicious, oppressive, in bad faith and done with reckless disregard or with deliberate
20 indifference to the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff entitling Plaintiff to exemplary and
21 punitive damages from each individual Defendant in an amount to be proven at the trial
22 of this matter.
23 77. By reason of the above described acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff
24 was required to retain an attorney to institute and prosecute the within action, and to
25 render legal assistance to Plaintiff that she might vindicate the loss and impairment of
26 her rights, and by reason thereof, Plaintiff requests payment by Defendants of a
27 reasonable sum for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
28
///
12
____________________________________________________________________________________
1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

2 MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
6 79. Defendants Fenske, Bosma and Gresser and Does 1 -10 intentionally and
7 maliciously instituted a legal action against Plaintiff without probable cause.
8 80. The criminal case against Plaintiff was dismissed, resulting in the terminating of
9 charges in her favor.
10 81. Defendants acted with reckless disregard of the law and of the legal rights of
11 Plaintiff in causing and continuing the criminal action against Plaintiff.
12 82. Plaintiff was subjected to humiliation, fear, and pain and suffering by the illegal
13 acts of Defendants and each of them and suffered injuries as a result of Defendants’
14 actions.
15 83. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees
16 and such additional relief as the Court deems just.
17 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
18 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
22 85. By engaging in the acts alleged herein, Defendants Fenske, Bosma, Gresser and
23 Does 1 – 10 engaged in outrageous conduct with an intent to or a reckless disregard of
24 the probability of causing Plaintiff to suffer emotional distress.
25 86. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional
26 distress and the outrageous conduct was the cause of the emotional distress suffered
27 by Plaintiffs.
28
13
____________________________________________________________________________________
1 87. The conduct of Defendants also amounts to oppression, fraud or malice within
2 the meaning of California Civil Code §3294 et seq. and punitive damages should be
3 assessed against the Individual Defendants for the purpose of punishment and for the
4 sake of example.
5 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
6 NEGLIGENCE
10 89. Defendants had a duty to Plaintiff to act with ordinary care and prudence so as
11 not to cause harm or injury to Plaintiff.
12 90. By engaging in the acts alleged herein, Defendants Fenske, Bosma, Gresser and
13 Does 1-10 failed to act with ordinary care and breached their duty of care owed to
14 Plaintiffs.
15 91. Defendants Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office and Santa Barbara District Attorney’s
16 Office failed to act with ordinary care in failing to properly train and supervise their
17 officers, investigator and attorneys with respect to the proper procedures and policies
18 necessary to prevent the harm sustained by Plaintiff.
19 92. As a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of Defendants’ breach of their duty
20 of care, Plaintiff suffered damages in an amount according to proof at the time of trial.
21 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendants and each of them
22 as follows:
23 1. For general damages in an amount to be determined according to
24 proof at trial;
25 2. For medical and related expenses according to proof at trial;
26 3. For costs of suit incurred herein;
27 4. For punitive damages against the individual Defendants in an amount
28
to be determined according to proof at trial;
14
____________________________________________________________________________________
1 5. For attorneys’ fees, investigation fees, and expert witness fees incurred
2 herein; and
3 6. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
4
DATED: December 7, 2018 LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL J. CURLS
5
7 /s/ Nichelle D. Jones

By: Nichelle D. Jones, Attorneys for
8
Plaintiff WANDA NELSON
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
____________________________________________________________________________________

Wanda Nelson V Santa Barbara County District Attorneys Office Et Al Dec. 2018

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Wanda Nelson V Santa Barbara County District Attorneys Office Et Al Dec. 2018

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case 2:18-cv-10218-JFW-PLA Document 1 Filed 12/07/18 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:1

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14 3. Venue is proper in the Southern District of California because the acts or

16 California, within the Central District.

17 4. Plaintiff has complied with Government Code §§ 800 et seq.

19 5. At all times relevant to this complaint, Plaintiff is an individual residing in

21 6. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant Charlie Bosma is an individual

22 believed to reside in Santa Barbara County, California.

23 7. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant Matthew Fenske is an individual

24 believed to reside in Santa Barbara County, California.

25 8. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant Cynthia Gresser is an individual

26 believed to reside in Santa Barbara County, California.

14 provider for the decedent, Heidi Good. (“Heidi1”)

21 their responsibilities while on duty.

18 and transporting Heidi’s children.

13 on a course to make Plaintiff a scapegoat for the death of Heidi.

16 willfully ignored exculpatory evidence, and coerced and misrepresented witness

22 repeatedly misrepresented that Plaintiff was not a “person of interest” in the

23 investigation of Heidi’s death.

14 defense. Moreover, the Defendant Deputies engaged in activities to induce and/or

15 cause false evidence to be introduced against Plaintiff.

17 Murder but charged on the lessor offense of Involuntary Manslaughter.

19 mistrial was declared.

21 and each of them continue to persecute Plaintiff to this date.

22 41. Plaintiff’s Involuntary Manslaughter conviction was overturned by the California

13 inability to attend church and nurture her spiritual life.

21 would be violated as a result of failing to train, supervise or discipline Santa Barbara

1 constitutional rights would be violated as a result of failing to train, supervise or

14 the failures and omission of the other.

16 others not named in violating Plaintiff’s rights.

20 due process of law.

23 physical pain, suffering, anguish, fright ,nervousness, anxiety, shock, humiliation,

24 indignity, embarrassment, harm to reputation, and apprehension, which has caused

25 Plaintiff to sustain damages in a sum to be determined at trial.

16 her rights, and by reason thereof, Plaintiff requests payment by Defendants of a

17 reasonable sum for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

18 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

19 DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS –

21 (Plaintiff against All Defendants)

22 62. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 61, as well as any subsequent

23 paragraphs in the Complaint, as is fully set forth herein.

26 due process, suppression of exculpatory evidence, fabrication of evidence and reckless

18 Office deputies, attorneys and investigators.

19 70. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of Defendants Fenske, Bosma,

20 Gresser and Does 1 – 10 in being deliberately indifferent to violating Plaintiff’s civil

27 unjustified and would result in violations of constitutional rights.

17 deprived of familial relationships.

26 her rights, and by reason thereof, Plaintiff requests payment by Defendants of a

27 reasonable sum for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

15 83. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees

16 and such additional relief as the Court deems just.

17 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

18 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

19 (Plaintiff against All Defendants)

20 84. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 83, as well as any subsequent

21 paragraphs in the Complaint, as is fully set forth herein.

23 Does 1 – 10 engaged in outrageous conduct with an intent to or a reckless disregard of

24 the probability of causing Plaintiff to suffer emotional distress.

18 necessary to prevent the harm sustained by Plaintiff.

23 1. For general damages in an amount to be determined according to

25 2. For medical and related expenses according to proof at trial;

26 3. For costs of suit incurred herein;