4.22.20 Complaint

Case 2:20-at-00400 Document 1 Filed 04/22/20 Page 1 of 28
Dale K. Galipo, Esq. (Bar No. 144074)

1 dalekgalipo@yahoo.com
Hang D. Le, Esq. (Bar No. 293450)
2 hlee@galipolaw.com
LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO
3 21800 Burbank Boulevard, Suite 310
Woodland Hills, California 91367
4 Telephone: (818) 347-3333
Facsimile: (818) 347-4118
5
Mark T. Harris (Bar No. 111213)
6 mark@bencrump.com
BEN CRUMP LAW
7 1215 K Street, Suite 1700
Sacramento, California 95814
8 Telephone: (866) 600-3742
9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
I.B., S.J., and LATOYA DOWNS
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14 I.B., an minor, by and through his Case No. 2:20-cv-400
15 guardian ad litem LATOYA DOWNS;
S.J., a minor by and through her COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16 guardian ad litem LATOYA DOWNS; 1. Fourth Amendment—Detention
and LATOYA DOWNS, individually, and Arrest (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
17
2. Fourth Amendment—Excessive
18 Plaintiffs, Force (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
vs. 3. Municipal Liability—Ratification
19
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
20 CITY OF SACRAMENTO; DANIEL 4. Municipal Liability—Inadequate
HAHN; OFFICER LINCOLN (Badge
21 #691); OFFICER J. LENEHAN (Badge Training (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
#929) PALADIN PRIVATE 5. False Arrest/False Imprisonment
22 6. Battery
SECURITY, INC.; VALTIERRA
23 (Badge #291); GALARDI GROUP, 7. Negligence
INC., dba WIENERSCHNITZEL; and 8. Violation of Cal. Civil Code § 52.1
24 DOES 1-10, inclusive, 9. Intentional Infliction of Emotional
25 Distress
Defendants. 10.Negligent Infliction of Emotional
26 Distress (Direct Victim and
27 Bystander Negligence)
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

2 Plaintiffs I.B., a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem LATOYA
3 DOWNS, S.J., a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem LATOYA DOWNS,
4 and LATOYA DOWNS, individually, for their Complaint against Defendants CITY
5 OF SACRAMENTO, DANIEL HAHN, OFFICER LINCOLN, OFFICER J.
6 LENEHAN, PALADIN PRIVATE SECURITY, INC., VALTIERRA, GALARDI
7 GROUP, INC., dba WIENERSCHNITZEL, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, allege as
8 follows:
9 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10 1. This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
11 and 1343(a)(3)-(4) because Plaintiffs assert claims arising under the laws of the
12 United States including 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth
13 Amendments of the United States Constitution. This Court has supplemental
14 jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims arising under state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
15 1367(a), because those claims are so related to the federal claims that they form part
16 of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
17 2. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because

18 Defendants reside in this district and all incidents, events, and occurrences giving
19 rise to this action occurred in this district.
20 INTRODUCTION
21 3. This civil rights and state tort action seeks compensatory and punitive
22 damages from Defendants for violating various rights under the United States
23 Constitution and state law in connection with the detention of I.B. on April 21,
24 2019.
25 PARTIES
26 4. Plaintiff I.B. is a minor individual residing in the City of Sacramento,
27 County of Sacramento, California. Plaintiff I.B. sues by and through his natural
-1-
1 mother and guardian ad litem LATOYA DOWNS. Plaintiff I.B. seeks compensatory
2 damages and punitive damages under federal and state law.
3 5. Plaintiff S.J. is a minor individual residing in the City of Sacramento,

4 County of Sacramento, California. Plaintiff S.J. sues by and through her natural
5 mother and guardian ad litem LATOYA DOWNS. Plaintiff S.J. seeks compensatory
6 damages and punitive damages under federal and state law.
7 6. Plaintiff LATOYA DOWNS (“DOWNS”) is an individual residing in

8 the City of Sacramento, County of Sacramento, California. Plaintiff LATOYA
9 BROWN sues as guardian ad litem for Plaintiffs I.B. and S.J., and in her individual
10 capacity. Plaintiff LATOYA DOWNS seeks compensatory damages and punitive
11 damages under federal and state law.
12 7. At all relevant times, Defendant CITY OF SACRAMENTO (“CITY”)

13 is and was a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of California.
14 CITY is a chartered subdivision of the State of California with the capacity to be
15 sued. CITY is responsible for the actions, omissions, policies, procedures, practices,
16 and customs of its various agents and agencies, including the Sacramento Police
17 Department (“SPD”) and its agents and employees. At all relevant times, Defendant
18 CITY was responsible for assuring that the actions, omissions, policies, procedures,
19 practices, and customs of the and its employees and agents complied with the laws
20 of the United States and of the State of California. At all relevant times, CITY was
21 the employer of Defendants DANIEL HAHN, OFFICER LINCOLN, OFFFICER J.
22 LENEHAN, and DOES 1-10.
23 8. At all relevant times, Defendant DANIEL HAHN (hereinafter

24 “HAHN”) is and was the chief of police for the City of Sacramento Police
25 Department. As police chief, HAHN is and was responsible for the hiring,
26 screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, and counseling of SPD

27 officers. Defendant HAHN was responsible for the promulgation of policies,
-2-
1 procedures, and training, including policies and training on the use of force by SPD
2 deputies. At all relevant times, Defendant HAHN was acting under color of law and
3 within the course and scope of his duties as police chief for SPD. HAHN was acting
4 with the complete authority and ratification of his principal, Defendant CITY.
5 9. At all relevant times, Defendant OFFICER LINCOLN (Badge #691)

6 (hereinafter “LINCOLN”) is and was a police officer working for the City of
7 Sacramento Police Department. LINCOLN was acting under color of law and within
8 the course and scope of her duties as an officer for the City of Sacramento Police
9 Department. LINCOLN was acting with the complete authority and ratification of
10 her principal, Defendant CITY.
11 10. At all relevant times, Defendant OFFICER J. LENEHAN (Badge #929)

12 (hereinafter “LENEHAN”) is and was a police officer working for the City of
13 Sacramento Police Department. LENEHAN was acting under color of law and
14 within the course and scope of her duties as an officer for the City of Sacramento
15 Police Department. LENEHAN was acting with the complete authority and
16 ratification of her principal, Defendant CITY.
17 11. At all relevant times, Defendants DOES 2-5 (“DOE OFFICERS”) are
18 police officers for the City of Sacramento Police Department. DOE OFFICERS
19 were acting under color of law and within the course and scope of their duties as
20 officers for the City of Sacramento Police Department. DOE OFFICERS were
21 acting with the complete authority and ratification of their principal, Defendant
22 CITY.
23 12. At all relevant times, Defendants DOES 6-10 are managerial,

24 supervisorial, and policymaking employees of the City of Sacramento Police
25 Department, who were acting under color of law within the course and scope of
26 their duties as managerial, supervisorial, and policymaking employees for the SPD.
27 DOES 6-10 were acting with the complete authority and ratification of their
-3-
1 principal, Defendant CITY.
2 13. On information and belief, DOES 1-10 were residents of the City of
3 Sacramento, County of Sacramento, California.
4 14. At all relevant times, Defendant PALADIN PRIVATE SECURITY,

5 INC. (“PALADIN”) is and was a corporation existing under the laws of the State of
6 California with the capacity to be sued. PALADIN is responsible for the actions,
7 omissions, policies, procedures, practices, and customs of its various agents and
8 employees. At all relevant times, Defendant PALADIN was responsible for
9 assuring that the actions, omissions, policies, procedures, practices, and customs of
10 the and its employees and agents complied with the laws of the United States and of
11 the State of California. At all relevant times, PALADIN was the employer of
12 Defendant VALTIERRA (Badge #291).
13 15. At all relevant times, Defendant VALTIERRA (Badge #291)

14 (hereinafter “VALTIERRA”) is and was an employee working for the Defendant
15 PALADIN. VALTIERRA was acting under color of law and within the course and
16 scope of his employment as a security guard for Paladin Private Security, Inc.
17 VALTIERRA was acting with the complete authority and ratification of his
18 principal, Defendant PALADIN.

19 16. At all relevant times, Galardi Group, Inc., dba Wienerschnitzel,
20 (hereinafter “WIENERSCHNITZEL”) is and was a duly organized business,
21 association, or corporation duly authorized to exist and operate within the State of
22 California and County of Sacramento. WIENERSCHNITZEL is and was the owner,
23 lesee, or tenant of the premises located at 845 East El Camino Ave, Sacramento, CA
24 95815.
25 17. At all relevant times, Defendant DOE 1 is and was an employee

26 working for Defendant WIENERSCHNITZEL. DOE 1 was acting within the course
27 and scope of his employment as an employee for WIENERSCHNITZEL. DOE 1
-4-
1 was acting with the complete authority and ratification of his principal, Defendant
2 WIENERSCHNITZEL.
3 18. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate,

4 association or otherwise of Defendants DOES 1-10, inclusive, are unknown to
5 Plaintiffs, who otherwise sue these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs
6 will seek leave to amend this complaint to show the true names and capacity of
7 these Defendants when they have been ascertained. Each of the fictitiously-named
8 Defendants is responsible in some manner for the conduct or liabilities alleged
9 herein.
10 19. At all times mentioned herein, each and every defendant was the agent
11 of each and every other defendant and had the legal duty to oversee and supervise
12 the hiring, conduct, and employment of each and every defendant.
13 20. All of the acts complained of herein by Plaintiffs against Defendants

14 were done and performed by said Defendants by and through their authorized
15 agents, servants, and/or employees, all of whom at all relevant times herein were
16 acting within the course, purpose, and scope of said agency, service, and/or
17 employment capacity. Moreover, Defendants and their agents ratified all of the acts
18 complained of herein.
19 21. DOES 1-10 are sued in their individual capacity.
20 22. On or around October 18, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a comprehensive and
21 timely claim for damages with the City of Sacramento in substantial compliance
22 with §910 of the California Government Code. Said claim was rejected on October
23 23, 2019.
24 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

25 23. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation in paragraphs 1
26 through 22 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth
27 herein.
-5-
1 24. This incident occurred on April 21, 2019. Plaintiff I.B., a 12-year-old
2 African American boy, was spotted running away from Paladin private security
3 guard VALTIERRA by Sacramento Police Department Officers LINCOLN and
4 LENEHAN, who had been patrolling the area of Del Paso Boulevard and El Camino
5 Avenue. As I.B. was running, he was stopped and detained by Wienerschnitzel
6 employee DOE 1 until Defendant VALTIERRA caught up to him.
7 25. Defendants LINCOLN and VALTIERRA decided to stop and assist the
8 Defendant VALTIERRA and DOE 1 in detaining and arresting I.B. without
9 reasonable suspicion or probable cause by placing handcuffs on I.B. While being
10 placed in handcuffs, I.B. repeatedly asked why he was being arrested.
11 26. After I.B. had been handcuffed, LINCOLN and VALTIERRA inquired
12 as to what I.B. had done and VALTIERRA alleged that I.B. had been panhandling
13 and asking people to buy things for him, which I.B. disputed.
14 27. After bystanders questioned why I.B. was in handcuffs and why his
15 parents had not been called, LINCOLN, LENEHAN, and VALTIERRA moved I.B.
16 against his will to LINCOLN and LENEHAN’s marked patrol vehicle in an attempt
17 to place him in the vehicle. During the move, I.B. repeatedly asked for his parents to
18 be called while VALTIERRA had his arm against I.B.’s neck and was choking I.B.
19 28. I.B. was subsequently placed on his stomach on the ground while
20 LENEHAN placed a knee on I.B’s back and LINCOLN placed a knee on I.B.’s right
21 thigh in a prone restraint position. I.B. was held in this position for over two
22 minutes.
23 29. DOE OFFICERS subsequently responded to the scene. I.B.’s 15-year-

24 old sister Plaintiff S.J. also arrived at the scene.
25 30. After being told that I.B. had allegedly spit at one of the officers, DOE
26 OFFICERS placed a spit bag over I.B.’s head. At the time the spit bag was placed
27 over I.B.’s head, I.B. was calm and was being held down in a prone position with
-6-
1 his hands cuffed behind his back.
2 31. I.B. repeatedly asked to be let up and informed the officers that he
3 could not breathe. I.B. also repeatedly asked for the spit bag to be taken off of him.
4 32. Throughout the encounter, Defendants failed to contact I.B.’s mother

5 regarding the arrest. Ultimately, it was left to S.J. to contact I.B.’s mother about the
6 detention and arrest.
7 33. Thereafter, I.B.’s mother Plaintiff DOWNS arrived on scene and saw
8 her son in handcuffs and with what appeared to be a bag over his head. DOWNS
9 panicked because I.B. suffers from an upper respiratory disease and she worried that
10 he could enter into an asthma-like fit of breathing difficulties. DOWNS pled with
11 Defendants to remove the spit bag from her son’s head but her pleas were ignored.
12 34. At all relevant times, I.B. did not pose a threat to anyone.
13 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
14 Fourth Amendment—Detention and Arrest (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
15 (By Plaintiff I.B. against Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS, and
16 VALTIERRA)
17 35. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in
18 paragraphs 1 through 34 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully
19 set forth herein.
20 36. Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS, and

21 VALTIERRA had no objectively reasonable or specifically articulable factual basis
22 to suspect that Plaintiff I.B. was involved in the commission of any crime, nor did
23 Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS, and VALTIERRA have any
24 confirmation that Plaintiff I.B. had committed any crime, posed any threat to
25 anyone, and did not see Plaintiff I.B. in possession of any illegal objects,
26 contraband, or weapons.
-7-
1 VALTIERRA detained Plaintiff I.B. without reasonable suspicion and arrested him
2 without probable cause. The scope and manner of Defendant LINCOLN,
3 LENEHAN, and DOE OFFICERS’ detention of Plaintiff I.B. was unreasonable.
4 38. The conduct of Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS,

5 and VALTIERRA violated Plaintiff I.B.’s right to be secure in his person against
6 unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed to Plaintiff I.B. under the Fourth
7 Amendment to the United States Constitution and applied to state actors by the
8 Fourteenth Amendment.

10 and VALTIERRA was willful, wanton, malicious, and done with reckless disregard
11 for the rights and safety of Plaintiff I.B. and therefore warrants the imposition of
12 exemplary and punitive damages as to Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE
13 OFFICERS, and VALTIERRA.
14 40. As a result of their misconduct, Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN,

15 DOE OFFICERS, and VALTIERRA are liable for Plaintiff I.B.’s injuries.
16 41. Plaintiff I.B. seeks compensatory damages for the violation of Plaintiff
17 I.B.’s rights. Plaintiff I.B. also seeks attorneys’ fees under this claim.
18 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

19 Fourth Amendment —Excessive Force (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
20 (By Plaintiff I.B. against Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS, and
21 VALTIERRA)
24 herein.

26 VALTIERRA used excessive force against Plaintiff I.B. when they placed him in
27 handcuffs, placed an arm over his neck choking him, dragged him to the patrol
-8-
1 vehicle, placed weight on Plaintiff I.B.’s back while Plaintiff I.B. was lying prone
2 on the ground with his hands handcuffed behind his back, and placed a spit mask
3 over Plaintiff I.B. Defendants’ unjustified use of force deprived Plaintiff I.B. of his
4 right to be secure in his person against unreasonable searches and seizures as
5 guaranteed to Plaintiff I.B. under the Fourth Amendment to the United States
6 Constitution and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment.
7 44. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff I.B. suffered physical pain and
8 emotional distress.

10 and VALTIERRA was willful, wanton, malicious, and done with reckless disregard
11 for the rights and safety of Plaintiff I.B., and therefore warrants the imposition of
12 exemplary and punitive damages.
13 46. The use of force against Plaintiff I.B. was excessive and unreasonable,
14 and Plaintiff I.B. did not pose a threat to anyone throughout the encounter. Further,
15 Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS, and VALTIERRA’s use of
16 force violated their training and standard police officer training.

18 DOE OFFICERS, and VALTIERRA are liable for Plaintiff I.B.’s injuries, either
19 because they were integral participants in the use of excessive force, and/or because
20 they failed to intervene to prevent these violations.
21 48. Plaintiff I.B. seeks compensatory damages for the violation of Plaintiff
22 I.B.’s rights. Plaintiff I.B. also seeks attorneys’ fees under this claim.
23 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

24 Municipal Liability – Ratification (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
25 (By Plaintiff I.B. against CITY, HAHN, and DOES 6-10)
-9-
1 herein.
2 50. Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, and DOE OFFICERS acted under

3 color of law.
4 51. The acts of Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, and DOE OFFICERS

5 deprived Plaintiff I.B. of his particular rights under the United States Constitution.
6 52. Defendants CITY, HAHN, and DOES 6-10, as final policymakers,

7 acting under color of law, who had final policymaking authority concerning the acts
8 of Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, and DOE OFFICERS, ratified Defendants
9 LINCOLN, LENEHAN, and DOE OFFICERS’ acts and the bases for them.
10 Defendants CITY, HAHN, and DOES 6-10 knew of and specifically approved of
11 Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, and DOE OFFICERS’ acts. On May 22, 2019,
12 SPD sent out a press release with regards to the incident in which Defendant HAHN
13 stated, “Our officers involved in this incident appropriately used a spit mask to
14 protect themselves and defuse the situation. I am grateful that our officers were
15 willing to proactively intervene when they observed suspicious activity, and that
16 nobody was injured during this encounter.”
17 53. Upon information and belief, Defendants CITY, HAHN, and DOES 6-
18 10 have determined that the acts of Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, and DOE
19 OFFICERS were “within policy.”
20 54. The aforementioned acts and omissions also caused Plaintiff I.B.
21 physical pain and emotional distress.
22 55. Accordingly, Defendants CITY, HAHN, and DOES 6-10 each are
23 liable to Plaintiff I.B. for compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
24 56. Plaintiff I.B. seeks compensatory damages for the violation of his
25 rights. Plaintiff I.B. also seeks attorneys’ fees under this claim.
26 //
27 //
-10-
1 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 Municipal Liability – Failure to Train (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
3 (By Plaintiff I.B. against CITY, HAHN, and DOES 6-10)
6 herein.
7 58. Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, and DOE OFFICERS acted under

8 color of law.
9 59. The acts of Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, and DOE OFFICERS

10 deprived Plaintiff I.B. of his particular rights under the United States Constitution.
11 60. The training policies of Defendants CITY, HAHN, and DOES 6-10
12 were not adequate to train its officers to handle the usual and recurring situations
13 with which they must deal, including detaining and arresting minors under the age
14 of 14. Nor were they adequate to train the officers to properly use force in the event
15 that such force was warranted, including placing minors in a prone restraint position
16 and placing a spit mask on a minor. The officers were not trained in the proper use
17 of equipment they carried with them.
18 61. Defendants CITY, HAHN, and DOES 6-10 were deliberately

19 indifferent to the obvious consequences of its failure to train its officers adequately.
20 62. The failure of Defendants CITY, HAHN, and DOES 6-10 to provide
21 adequate training, including training with regards to detention and use of force of
22 minors caused the deprivation of Plaintiff I.B.’s rights by Defendants LINCOLN,
23 LENEHAN, and DOE OFFICERS; that is, Defendants’ failure to train is so closely
24 related to the deprivation of the Plaintiff I.B.’s rights as to be the moving force that
25 caused the ultimate injury.
26 63. On information and belief, CITY failed to train Defendants LINCOLN,

27 LENEHAN, and DOE OFFICERS properly and adequately.
-11-
1 64. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions, Plaintiffs J.G. and
2 ELVIRA GUEVARA have suffered loss of the love, companionship, affection,
3 comfort, care, society, training, guidance, and past and future support of
4 DECEDENT. The aforementioned acts and omissions also caused DECEDENT’s
5 pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and death.
6 65. Accordingly, Defendants CITY, HAHN, and DOES 6-10 each are
7 liable to Plaintiff I.B. for compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
8 66. Plaintiff I.B. seeks compensatory damages under this claim. Plaintiff
9 I.B. also seeks attorneys’ fees under this claim.
10 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

11 False Arrest/False Imprisonment
12 (By Plaintiff I.B. against Defendants CITY, LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE
13 OFFICERS, PALADIN, VALTIERRA, WIENERSCHNITZEL, and DOE 1)
16 herein.
17 68. Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, and DOE OFFICERS, while

18 working as police officers for the Sacramento Police Department and acting within
19 the course and scope of their duties, intentionally deprived Plaintiff I.B. of his
20 freedom of movement by use of force, threats of force, menace, fraud, deceit, and
21 unreasonable duress. Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, and DOE OFFICERS
22 detained Plaintiff I.B. without reasonable suspicion and arrested him without
23 probable cause for an appreciable amount of time.
24 69. Defendant VALTIERRA, while working as a private security guard

25 employee for PALADIN and acting within the course and scope of his employment,
26 intentionally deprived Plaintiff I.B. of his freedom of movement by use of force,

27 threats of force, menace, fraud, deceit, and unreasonable duress. Defendant
-12-
1 VALTIERRA detained Plaintiff I.B. without reasonable suspicion and arrested him
2 without probable cause for an appreciable amount of time.
3 70. Defendant DOE 1, while working as an employee for

4 WIENERSCHNITZEL and acting within the course and scope of his employment,
5 intentionally deprived Plaintiff I.B. of his freedom of movement by use of force,
6 threats of force, menace, fraud, deceit, and unreasonable duress. Defendant DOE 1
7 detained Plaintiff I.B. without reasonable suspicion and arrested him without
8 probable cause for an appreciable amount of time.
9 71. Plaintiff I.B. did not knowingly or voluntarily consent to the detention
10 or arrest.

12 VALTIERRA, and DOE 1 was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff I.B.
13 73. Defendant CITY is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of

14 Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, and DOE OFFICERS pursuant to section
15 815.2(a) of the California Government Code, which provides that a public entity is
16 liable for the injuries caused by its employees within the scope of the employment if
17 the employee’s act would subject him or her to liability.
18 74. Defendant PALADIN is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of

19 Defendant VALTIERRA under California law and the doctrine of respondeat
20 superior.
21 75. Defendant WIENERSCHNITZEL is vicariously liable for the wrongful

22 acts of Defendant DOE 1 under California law and the doctrine of respondeat
23 superior.
24 76. Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS, VALTIERRA,

25 and DOE 1 integrally participated or failed to intervene in the detention and arrest.
26 77. As a result of their misconduct, LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE

27 OFFICERS, VALTIERRA, and DOE 1 are liable for Plaintiff I.B.’s injuries, either
-13-
1 because they were integral participants in the detention and arrest, or because they
2 failed to intervene to prevent it.
3 78. The conduct of LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS,

4 VALTIERRA, and DOE 1 was malicious, wanton, oppressive, and accomplished
5 with a conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff I.B., entitling Plaintiff to an
6 award of exemplary and punitive damages.
7 79. Plaintiff I.B. seeks compensatory damages under this claim.

8 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
9 Battery
10 (Plaintiff I.B. against Defendants CITY, LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS,
11 PALADIN, VALTIERRA, WIENERSCHNITZEL, and DOE 1)
14 herein.

16 working as officers for the SPD, and acting within the course and scope of their
17 duties, intentionally used unreasonable and excessive force against Plaintiff I.B. As
18 a result of the actions of Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, and DOE OFFICERS,

19 Plaintiff I.B. suffered harm and emotional distress. Defendants LINCOLN,
20 LENEHAN, and DOE OFFICERS had no legal justification for using force against
21 Plaintiff I.B., and their use of force while carrying out their duties as police officers
22 was an unreasonable and non-privileged use of force.
23 82. Defendant VALTIERRA, while working as a private security guard for

24 PALADIN, and acting within the course and scope of his employment, intentionally
25 used unreasonable and excessive force against Plaintiff I.B. As a result of the
26 actions of Defendant VALTIERRA, Plaintiff I.B. suffered harm and emotional

27 distress. Defendant VALTIERRA had no legal justification for using force against
-14-
1 Plaintiff I.B., and his use of force while performing service on behalf of his
2 principal PALADIN was an unreasonable and non-privileged use of force.
3 83. Defendant DOE 1, while working as an employee for

4 WIENERSCHNITZEL and acting within the course and scope of his employment,
5 intentionally used force against Plaintiff I.B. to restrict his freedom of movement.
6 As a result of the actions of Defendant DOE 1, Plaintiff I.B. suffered harm and
7 emotional distress. Defendant DOE 1 had no legal justification for using force
8 against Plaintiff I.B., and his use of force while performing service on behalf of his
9 principal WIENERSCHNITZEL was an unreasonable and non-privileged use of
10 force.
11 84. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants

12 LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS, VALTIERRA, and DOE 1 as alleged
13 above, Plaintiff I.B. sustained physical injuries and emotional distress.

15 Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, and DOE OFFICERS, pursuant to section

21 superior.

24 superior.

26 VALTIERRA, and DOE 1 was malicious, wanton, oppressive, and accomplished
27 with a conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff I.B., entitling him to an award
-15-
1 of exemplary and punitive damages as to Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE
2 OFFICERS, VALTIERRA, and DOE 1.
3 89. Plaintiff I.B. seeks compensatory damages under this claim.

4 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
5 Negligence
6 (Plaintiff I.B. against all Defendants)
9 herein.
10 91. Police officers, private security guards, and restaurant employees

11 including Defendants, have a duty to use reasonable care to prevent harm or injury
12 to others. This duty includes using appropriate tactics, giving appropriate
13 commands, giving warnings, and not using any force unless necessary, using less
14 than lethal options, and only using deadly force as a last resort.
15 92. Defendants CITY, LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS, HAHN,

16 DOES 6-10, PALADIN, VALTIERRA, WIENERSCHNITZEL, and DOE 1
17 breached this duty of care. Upon information and belief, the actions and inactions of
18 Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS, DOES 6-10, VALTIERRA,

19 and DOE 1 were negligent and reckless, including but not limited to:
20 (a) the failure to properly and adequately assess the need detain,
21 arrest, and use force against Plaintiff I.B.;
22 (b) the negligent tactics and handling of the situation with Plaintiff
23 I.B, including pre-force negligence;
24 (c) the negligent detention, arrest, and use of force against Plaintiff
25 I.B;
26 (d) the negligent handling of detaining and arresting a minor under
27 14 years of age, including the failure to call Plaintiff I.B.’s
-16-
1 parents and the failure to allow Plaintiff I.B. to speak with his
2 mother when she presented herself at the scene;
3 (e) the failure to properly train and supervise employees, both
4 professional and non-professional, including LINCOLN,
5 LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS,VALTIERRA, and DOE 1;
6 (f) the failure to ensure that adequate numbers of employees with
7 appropriate education and training were available to meet the
8 needs of and protect the rights of Plaintiff I.B;
9 (g) the negligent handling of evidence and witnesses; and
10 (h) the negligent communication of information during the incident.
11 93. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct as alleged
12 above, and other undiscovered negligent conduct, Plaintiff I.B. suffered harm and
13 emotional distress.
14 94. CITY is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of Defendants

15 LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS, HAHN, and DOES 6-10 pursuant to
16 section 815.2(a) of the California Government Code, which provides that a public
17 entity is liable for the injuries caused by its employees within the scope of the
18 employment if the employee’s act would subject him or her to liability.

21 superior.

24 superior.
25 97. Plaintiff I.B. brings seeks compensatory damages under this claim.
26 //
27 //
-17-
1 EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 Violation of Cal. Civil Code § 52.1
3 (By Plaintiff I.B. against Defendants CITY, LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE
4 OFFICERS, PALADIN, VALTIERRA, WIERNSCHNITZEL and DOE 1)
7 herein.
8 99. California Civil Code, Section 52.1 (the Bane Act), prohibits any
9 person from using violent acts or threatening to commit violent acts in retaliation
10 against another person for exercising that person’s constitutional rights.
11 100. On information and belief, Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, and

12 DOE OFFICERS, while working for the CITY and acting within the course and
13 scope of their duties, intentionally committed or attempted to commit acts of
14 violence against or acted in reckless disregard of Plaintiff I.B.’s rights.
15 101. On information and belief, Defendant VALTIERRA while working for

16 the PALADIN and acting within the course and scope of his employment,
17 intentionally committed or attempted to commit acts of violence against or acted in
18 reckless disregard of Plaintiff I.B.’s rights.

19 102. On information and belief, Defendant DOE 1, while working as an
20 employee for WIENERSCHNITZEL and acting within the course and scope of his
21 employment, intentionally committed or attempted to commit acts of violence
22 against or acted in reckless disregard of Plaintiff I.B.’s rights.
23 103. When Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS,

24 VALTIERRA, and DOE 1 detained and arrested Plaintiff I.B. and used force against
25 him, they interfered with his civil rights to be free from unreasonable searches and
26 seizures, to due process, to equal protection of the laws, and to life, liberty, and
27 property.
-18-
1 104. On information and belief, Defendants intentionally and spitefully

2 committed the above acts to discourage Plaintiff I.B. from exercising his civil rights,
3 to retaliate against him for invoking such rights, or to prevent him from exercising
4 such rights, which he was fully entitled to enjoy.
5 105. On information and belief, Plaintiff I.B. reasonably believed and

6 understood that the threats of violence and violent acts committed by Defendants
7 LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS, VALTIERRA, and DOE 1 were
8 intended to discourage him from exercising the above civil rights, to retaliate against
9 him for invoking such rights, or to prevent him from exercising such rights.
10 106. Defendants successfully interfered with the above civil rights of

11 Plaintiff I.B.
12 107. The conduct of Defendants was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff

13 I.B.’s harms, losses, injuries, and damages.


21 superior.

24 superior.
25 111. The conduct of Defendants was malicious, wanton, oppressive, and

26 accomplished with a conscious disregard for Plaintiff I.B.’s rights, justifying an
27 award of exemplary and punitive damages as to Defendants LINCOLN,
-19-
1 LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS, VALTIERRA, and DOE 1.
2 112. Plaintiff I.B. seeks compensatory damages, statutory damages, treble

3 damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs under this claim.
4 NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

5 (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
6 (By All Plaintiffs against Defendants CITY, LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE
10 herein.

12 working as police officers for CITY and while acting within the course and scope of
13 their duties, acted with reckless disregard of the probability that their outrageous
14 conduct in detaining, arresting, placing handcuffs, restraining, and placing a spit
15 mask on a 12-year-old I.B. without reasonable suspicion or probable cause would
16 cause Plaintiffs I.B., S.J., and LATOYA DOWNS to suffer emotional distress,
17 knowing that Plaintiffs I.B., S.J., and LATOYA DOWNS were present when the
18 conduct occurred.
19 115. Defendant VALTIERRA while working as a private security guard for
20 PALADIN and while acting within the course and scope of his employment, acted
21 with reckless disregard of the probability that his outrageous conduct in detaining,
22 arresting, placing handcuffs, restraining, and placing a spit mask on a 12-year-old
23 I.B. without reasonable suspicion or probable cause would cause Plaintiffs I.B., S.J.,
24 and LATOYA DOWNS to suffer emotional distress, knowing that Plaintiffs I.B.,
25 S.J., and LATOYA DOWNS were present when the conduct occurred.
26 116. Defendant DOE 1 while working as an employee for

27 WIENERSCHNITZEL and while acting within the course and scope of his
-20-
1 employment, acted with reckless disregard of the probability that his outrageous
2 conduct in detaining, arresting, and placing handcuffs on a 12-year-old I.B. without
3 reasonable suspicion or probable cause would cause Plaintiffs I.B., S.J., and
4 LATOYA DOWNS to suffer emotional distress, knowing that Plaintiffs I.B., S.J.,
5 and LATOYA DOWNS were present when the conduct occurred.

7 DOE OFFICERS, VALTIERRA, and DOE 1 are liable for Plaintiffs I.B., S.J., and
8 LATOYA DOWNS’ emotional distress, either because they were integral
9 participants in the unreasonable detention, unreasonable arrest, or use of excessive
10 force, and/or because they failed to intervene to prevent these violations.

12 above, Plaintiffs I.B., S.J., and LATOYA DOWNS were caused to suffer severe
13 emotional distress, including but not limited to suffering, anguish, fright, horror,
14 nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, and shame.


22 superior.

25 superior.
26 122. Plaintiffs bring this claim in their individual capacity and seek
27 compensatory damages. Plaintiffs also seek punitive damages under this claim.
-21-
1 TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2 (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress—Direct Victim and
3 Bystander)
4 (By All Plaintiffs against Defendants CITY, LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE
8 herein.
9 124. Plaintiff LATOYA DOWNS is the mother of Plaintiff I.B. Plaintiff S.J.
10 is the sister of Plaintiff I.B. At all times relevant to this action, these Plaintiffs were
11 close familial family members all living together in the same household.
12 125. Plaintiffs LATOYA DOWNS and S.J. were present at the scene of the
13 incident when Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS, and
14 VALTIERRA detained, arrested, and used force against Plaintiffs LATOYA
15 DOWNS and S.J. were contemporaneously aware the DECEDENT was being
16 harmed at the time LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS, and VALTIERRA
17 detained, arrested, and used force against Plaintiff I.B. Specifically, LATOYA
18 DOWNS and S.J. observed and perceived Plaintiff I.B. being detained, arrested,
19 choked, handcuffed and pressed against the ground, and had a spit mask placed over
20 his head by LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS, and VALTIERRA and were
21 aware that Plaintiff I.B. was being harmed.

23 working as police officers for CITY and while acting within the course and scope of
24 their duties, negligently and carelessly inflicted such emotional distress on Plaintiffs
25 I.B., S.J., and LATOYA DOWNS when they detained, arrested, and used force
26 against Plaintiff I.B. in front of S.J. and LATOYA DOWNS.

27 127. Defendant VALTIERRA while working as a private security guard for
-22-
1 PALADIN and while acting within the course and scope of his employment,
2 negligently and carelessly inflicted such emotional distress on Plaintiffs I.B., S.J.,
3 and LATOYA DOWNS when he detained, arrested, and used force against Plaintiff
4 I.B. in front of S.J. and LATOYA DOWNS.
5 128. Defendant DOE 1 while working as an employee for

6 WIENERSCHNITZEL and while acting within the course and scope of his
7 employment, negligently and carelessly inflicted such emotional distress on Plaintiff
8 I.B when he detained, arrested, and used force against Plaintiff I.B.

10 DOE OFFICERS, VALTIERRA, and DOE 1 are liable for Plaintiffs I.B., S.J., and
11 LATOYA DOWNS’ emotional distress, either because they were integral
12 participants in the unreasonable detention, unreasonable arrest, or use of excessive
13 force, and/or because they failed to intervene to prevent these violations.
14 130. As a result of his misconduct, Defendant DOE 1 is liable for Plaintiff

15 I.B.’s emotional distress, either because he was an integral participant in the
16 unreasonable detention, unreasonable arrest, or use of excessive force, and/or because
17 he failed to intervene to prevent these violations.

19 above, Plaintiffs I.B., S.J., and LATOYA DOWNS were caused to suffer severe
20 emotional distress, including but not limited to suffering, anguish, fright, horror,
21 nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, and shame.


-23-
2 superior.

5 superior.
6 135. Plaintiffs bring this claim in their individual capacity and seek
7 compensatory damages. Plaintiffs also seek and punitive damages under this claim.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-24-
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs I.B., a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem
3 LATOYA DOWNS, S.J., a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem LATOYA
4 DOWNS, and LATOYA DOWNS, individually, requests entry of judgment in their
5 favor and against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, DANIEL HAHN,
6 OFFICER LINCOLN, OFFICER J. LENEHAN, PALADIN PRIVATE
7 SECURITY, INC., VALTIERRA, GALARDI GROUP, INC., dba
8 WIENERSCHNITZEL and DOES 1-10, inclusive, as follows:
9 A. For compensatory damages in whatever other amount may be

10 proven at trial under federal and state law;
11 B. For punitive damages against the individual defendants in an
12 amount to be proven at trial;
13 C. For statutory damages;
14 D. For treble damages pursuant to California Civil Code Sections
15 52, 52.1;
16 E. For interest;
17 F. For reasonable attorneys’ fees, including litigation expenses;
18 G. For costs of suit; and
19 H. For such further other relief as the Court may deem just, proper,
20 and appropriate.
21 //
22 //
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
-25-
1 DATED: April 22, 2020 LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO

2
3 By /s/ Dale K. Galipo

Dale K. Galipo
4 Hang D. Le
Attorneys for Plaintiffs I.B., S.J., and
5 LATOYA DOWNS
6
7
DATED: April 22, 2020 BEN CRUMP LAW
8
9
By /s/ Mark T. Harris
10 Mark T. Harris
Attorneys for Plaintiffs I.B., S.J., and
11 LATOYA DOWNS
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-26-
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
3
DATED: April 22, 2020 LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO
4
5
By /s/ Dale K. Galipo
6 Dale K. Galipo
Hang D. Le
7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs I.B., S.J., and
LATOYA DOWNS
8
10 DATED: April 22, 2020 BEN CRUMP LAW

11
12 By /s/ Mark T. Harris

Mark T. Harris
13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs I.B., S.J., and
LATOYA DOWNS
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-27-

4.22.20 Complaint

Încărcat de

Informații document

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

4.22.20 Complaint

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case 2:20-at-00400 Document 1 Filed 04/22/20 Page 1 of 28

Dale K. Galipo, Esq. (Bar No. 144074)

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

5 OF SACRAMENTO, DANIEL HAHN, OFFICER LINCOLN, OFFICER J.

6 LENEHAN, PALADIN PRIVATE SECURITY, INC., VALTIERRA, GALARDI

7 GROUP, INC., dba WIENERSCHNITZEL, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, allege as

9 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13 Amendments of the United States Constitution. This Court has supplemental

17 2. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because

2 damages and punitive damages under federal and state law.

3 5. Plaintiff S.J. is a minor individual residing in the City of Sacramento,

6 damages and punitive damages under federal and state law.

7 6. Plaintiff LATOYA DOWNS (“DOWNS”) is an individual residing in

10 capacity. Plaintiff LATOYA DOWNS seeks compensatory damages and punitive

11 damages under federal and state law.

12 7. At all relevant times, Defendant CITY OF SACRAMENTO (“CITY”)

14 CITY is a chartered subdivision of the State of California with the capacity to be

21 the employer of Defendants DANIEL HAHN, OFFICER LINCOLN, OFFFICER J.

22 LENEHAN, and DOES 1-10.

23 8. At all relevant times, Defendant DANIEL HAHN (hereinafter

26 screening, training, retention, supervision, discipline, and counseling of SPD

5 9. At all relevant times, Defendant OFFICER LINCOLN (Badge #691)

10 her principal, Defendant CITY.

11 10. At all relevant times, Defendant OFFICER J. LENEHAN (Badge #929)

16 ratification of her principal, Defendant CITY.

23 12. At all relevant times, Defendants DOES 6-10 are managerial,

1 principal, Defendant CITY.

4 14. At all relevant times, Defendant PALADIN PRIVATE SECURITY,

8 employees. At all relevant times, Defendant PALADIN was responsible for

12 Defendant VALTIERRA (Badge #291).

13 15. At all relevant times, Defendant VALTIERRA (Badge #291)

18 principal, Defendant PALADIN.

22 California and County of Sacramento. WIENERSCHNITZEL is and was the owner,

25 17. At all relevant times, Defendant DOE 1 is and was an employee

3 18. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate,

8 Defendants is responsible in some manner for the conduct or liabilities alleged

12 the hiring, conduct, and employment of each and every defendant.

13 20. All of the acts complained of herein by Plaintiffs against Defendants

24 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

3 guard VALTIERRA by Sacramento Police Department Officers LINCOLN and

5 Avenue. As I.B. was running, he was stopped and detained by Wienerschnitzel

6 employee DOE 1 until Defendant VALTIERRA caught up to him.

9 reasonable suspicion or probable cause by placing handcuffs on I.B. While being

10 placed in handcuffs, I.B. repeatedly asked why he was being arrested.

23 29. DOE OFFICERS subsequently responded to the scene. I.B.’s 15-year-

1 his hands cuffed behind his back.

4 32. Throughout the encounter, Defendants failed to contact I.B.’s mother

6 detention and arrest.

20 36. Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS, and

23 Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS, and VALTIERRA have any

2 without probable cause. The scope and manner of Defendant LINCOLN,

3 LENEHAN, and DOE OFFICERS’ detention of Plaintiff I.B. was unreasonable.

4 38. The conduct of Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS,

9 39. The conduct of Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS,

12 exemplary and punitive damages as to Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE

13 OFFICERS, and VALTIERRA.

14 40. As a result of their misconduct, Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN,

18 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

25 43. Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS, and

4 right to be secure in his person against unreasonable searches and seizures as

6 Constitution and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment.

9 45. The conduct of Defendants LINCOLN, LENEHAN, DOE OFFICERS,

12 exemplary and punitive damages.