Marlowe v. City and County of San Francisco Et Al.

Case 4:16-cv-00076-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/07/16 Page 1 of 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
IRWIN M. ZALKIN, ESQ. (#89957)

DEVIN M. STOREY, ESQ. (#234271)
ALEXANDER S. ZALKIN, ESQ. (#280813)
RYAN M. COHEN, ESQ. (#261313)
The Zalkin Law Firm, P.C.
12555 High Bluff Drive, Suite 301
San Diego, CA 92130
Tel: 858-259-3011
Fax: 858-259-3015
Email: Irwin@zalkin.com
dms@zalkin.com
alex@zalkin.com
ryan@zalkin.com
WILLIAM LITVAK, ESQ. (#90533)
Dapeer, Rosenblit & Litvak, LLP
11500 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90064-1524
Tel: 310-477-5575
Fax: 310-477-7090
Email: wlitvak@rllaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
15
HEATHER MARLOWE, an individual,
16
17
18
Plaintiff,
vs.
25
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, a governmental entity;
SUZY LOFTUS, individually and in her
official capacity as President of the San
Francisco Police Commission; GREG
SURH, individually and in his official
capacity as Chief of Police of the San
Francisco Police Department; MIKAIL
ALI, individually and in his official
capacity of Deputy Chief of the San
Francisco Police Department; JOE
CORDES, individually and in his official
capacity as an officer of the San Francisco
Police Department; and Does 6 through
100, inclusive,
26
Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1. VIOLATION OF
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS,
42 U.S.C. 1983
2. VIOLATION OF EQUAL
PROTECTION,
42 U.S.C. 1983
3. VIOLATION OF EQUAL
PROTECTION,
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1, 7
[DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL]
Date of Filing: January 6, 2016
27
28
1
COMPLAINT
1
2
NATURE OF ACTION
1. Plaintiff is an individual who reported her sexual assault to the San Francisco Police
Department (SFPD). The SFPD failed to investigate diligently the allegations made
by Plaintiff, including failing to test Plaintiffs rape kit. Plaintiff seeks damages resulting
from violations of due process, equal protection, and the California Constitution.
Plaintiff also seeks a writ of mandate to compel the City and County of San Francisco to
test her rape kit, or in the alternative, release the results of her tested rape kit to Plaintiff.
8
9
10
11
12
13
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Plaintiff Heather Marlowe (Marlowe) is an individual, and at all times relevant was a
citizen and resident of the County of San Francisco, State of California.
3. Defendant City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco), is a consolidated citycounty located in California, and operates the SFPD.
4. Defendant Suzy Loftus was, at all times relevant, President of the San Francisco Police
14
Commission. As stated on its website (http://sf-police.org/index.aspx?page=2572), The
15
mission of the Police Commission is to set policy for the Police Department
16
17
5. Defendant Greg Suhr is, and was at all times relevant, the Chief of Police of the SFPD.
Defendant Suhr is responsible for overseeing the entire SFPD.
18
6. Defendant Mikail Ali is, and was at all times relevant, Deputy Chief of the SFPD in
19
charge of the Forensic Division, which includes oversight of the SFPD forensic lab.
20
7. Defendant Joe Cordes was at all times relevant, an officer with the SFPD.
21
8. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Constitution of the State of
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
California, and the common law.

9. This Court has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and
1343, and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.
10. Venue is proper in this district, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391, because the Defendants
reside in this district and all wrongful acts and injuries occurred in this district.
ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGFUL CONDUCT
11. On April 6, 2010, Marlowe attended Bay to Breakers, a city-sponsored race, with a
2
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
group of friends.
12. While at Bay to Breakers, Marlowe was handed a beer in a red plastic cup by a male
attendee, and Marlowe drank the beer.
13. Subsequently, Marlowe began feeling much more inebriated than would have been
normal given her moderate alcohol consumption up to that point. Marlowe regained
consciousness inside an unfamiliar home approximately 8 hours after she was last seen
at Bay to Breakers. Marlowe was physically injured, experienced vaginal and pelvic
pain, was nauseous and vomited several times, was dazed, confused, and had no memory
of what had occurred in the house.
10
14. After gathering herself, Marlowe went to the nearest emergency room and contacted
11
SFPD. SFPD arrived thereafter, and drove Marlowe to San Francisco General Hospital
12
(Hospital).
13
14
15. While at Hospital, Marlowe underwent a rape kit procedure performed by a Sexual
Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) nurse.
15
16. At the end of the rape kit examination, Marlowe was assured by Hospital and SFPD
16
that the results would be processed, and the results would be returned to her within
17
fourteen (14) to sixty (60) days.
18
17. Around May 17, 2010, Marlowe returned to the neighborhood where she believed the
19
house was located in which the rape occurred. She recognized what she believed to be
20
the house in which it occurred, and immediately called Officer Joe Cordes of the SFPD.
21
18. Around May 24, 2010, Marlowe met Cordes at the house that she had identified. They
22
knocked on the door and a man answered. Cordes demanded that Marlowe enter the
23
home while Cordes distracted the owner to see if Marlowe could identify the home as
24
the scene of her rape.
25
19. Cordes actions contributed to and increased the risk of harm to Marlowe, as well as
26
changed the risk of harm that otherwise existed. Marlowe was terrified that she would
27
encounter her rapist inside the home with no protection from Cordes or any other officer
28
of the SFPD.
3
COMPLAINT
1
2
20. As Marlowe searched the home, the home owner repeatedly yelled at Marlowe and
Cordes that Cordes had no search warrant.
21. Marlowe could not reasonably identify the home as the location of her rape.
22. Around May 25, 2010, Marlowe searched google for what she believed was the name of
her rapist. She found a picture of a man that resembled what she could remember of her
rapist (Suspect). Marlowe informed Cordes of this new information.
23. Around May 27, 2010, Marlowe met Cordes at the police station. Cordes instructed
Marlowe to make contact with Suspect, and flirt with him in order to elicit a confession
that Suspect had indeed raped Marlowe. Cordes also instructed Marlowe to set up a date
10
with Suspect to prove that Marlowe could identify Suspect in a crowd. Cordes told
11
Marlowe that if she refused to engage in these actions, SFPD would cease its
12
investigation of her rape.
13
24. Around June 8, 2010, Marlowe again met with Cordes at the police station to clarify
14
what Cordes wanted Marlowe to do. At this time, Cordes strongly discouraged Marlowe
15
from further pursuing her case, indicating that it was too much work for the SFPD to
16
investigate and prosecute a rape in which alcohol was involved.
17
25. Nonetheless, Marlowe continued to pursue the investigation. Marlowe created an alias
18
and began communicating with Suspect. Marlowe purchased a disposable mobile phone
19
in order to text with Suspect, without revealing her true phone number. Eventually,
20
Marlowe set up a date with Suspect, as required by Cordes. Suspect canceled the
21
date and subsequently cancelled a second date that the two had set up.
22
26. Marlowe then contacted SFPD and informed them that she refused to continue to
23
privately investigate her case. In response, SFPD informed Marlowe that they had
24
brought Suspect in for questioning and had obtained a DNA sample from him.
25
26
27. Marlowe was also told that Suspects DNA was sent to the lab for processing, and that
the results of her rape kit should be available any day now.
27
28. Marlowe contacted SFPD on December 14, 2010 to request an update on the processing
28
of her rape kit. On December 15, 2010, Marlowe received a call back from Officer
4
COMPLAINT
Hutchings, informing Marlowe that neither her rape kit, nor Suspects DNA had yet
been processed. Hutchings told Marlowe to call back in six months to check if her rape
kit, and Suspects DNA had been processed.
29. On or about May 15th, 2011, Marlowe contacted SFPD to follow up on the status of her
rape kit processing. Marlowe was told that because there was such a backlog at the lab
of more important crimes that it could substantially more time until the processing of
her rape kit. She was told that Suspects DNA may also be in a different lab, but that
SFPD did not know the exact the location of Suspects DNA. Marlowe was told to keep
following up, and that eventually the rape kit would be processed.
10
30. On or about December 2011, Marlowe contacted SFPD. Marlowe was again told that
11
the lab was backed up but that they will eventually get the rape kit processed. Marlowe
12
was also told that SFPD was having trouble locating Suspects DNA could not be
13
located by SFPD.
14
31. Around August 28, 2012, Marlowe went to the SFPD station to follow up on the status
15
of her rape kit. Marlowe was told that due to the passage of time, her case was
16
considered inactive and was placed in a storage facility. SFPD also told Marlowe that
17
because she was a woman, weighs less than men, and has her menstruations, that
18
Marlowe should not have been out partying with the rest of the city on the day she was
19
drugged, kidnapped, and forcibly raped.
20
21
22
32. Despite these comments, Marlowe asked SFPD to retrieve her case from storage. SFPD
again told Marlowe to follow up in six months.
33. Around September 25, 2012, Marlowe reached out to a third party, well connected
23
woman (Woman) who had seen a performance written and performed by Marlowe
24
about her experience with the SFPDs investigation of her rape. Woman connected
25
Marlowe with a person at Victims Services, an entity affiliated with SFPD.
26
34. After several attempts Marlowe was unable to connect with this Victims services
27
representative. Woman then offered to reach out to California Attorney General Kamala
28
Harris and San Francisco Police Commissioner Suzy Loftus to get Marlowes rape kit
5
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
tested.
35. On October 18, 2012, Loftus informed Marlowe that her rape kit had been sent to the lab
to be processed.
36. On October 20, 2012, SFPD informed Marlowe that her rape kit was tested and placed in
their DNA database known as CODIS.
37. In November 2012, Marlowe learned of the national epidemic of law enforcement
agencies failing to process thousands of rape kits nationwide. Marlowe attempted to
contact Loftus to inquire about SFPDs processing of rape kits in light of this new
information, but Loftus never responded.
10
11
12
38. Subsequently, Loftus invited Marlowe to speak about her experience at a City Police
Commissioners meeting.
39. On May 8, 2013, at the City Commissioners meeting, city representatives gave a
13
glowing review of the SFPD lab and represented to Marlowe and the public that every
14
rape kit in its possession had been processed, and that there was no backlog of untested
15
rape kits.
16
40. Due to pressure by the media at the meeting, SFPD promised to perform an audit to
17
substantiate their claims that there was no backlog of rape kits, and that all rape kits had
18
been processed.
19
20
41. On January 14, 2104, Marlowe filed a Citizens Complaint with Defendant San
Francisco.
21
42. Around February 20, 2014, SFPD announced the results of their audit. SFPD admitted
22
that they were in possession of several thousand untested rape kits. However, SFPD
23
only committed to testing 753 of the several thousand untested rape kits.
24
43. On December 10, 2014, SFPD issued a press release confirming that SFPD would only
25
be testing 753 of the several thousand untested rape kits it had identified in its audit.
26
44. Around March 28, 2015, Marlowe read an article in the San Francisco Chronicle that
27
outlined several ways in which the SFPD forensic lab was deficient, including but not
28
limited to, irregularities in the handling of several pieces of forensic evidence

6
COMPLAINT
including rape kit evidence, as well as employment and retention of technicians that had
failed proficiency tests.
45. Doubtful that her rape kit had in fact been processed, or processed correctly, Marlowe
made a Public Records Request under the Freedom of Information Act. On May 5, 2015
Marlowe learned that the results of her rape kit, and any other information pertaining to
it, were not public records subject to a Freedom of Information Act request.
46. To this day, Marlowe has never been given the results of her rape kit test, nor has she
been provided with any documentation to substantiate the oral representations that her
rape kit was, in fact, processed.
10
11
47. Based on information and belief, Marlowes rape kit has, to this day, yet to be processed
by the SFPD.
12
48. Furthermore, to this day, Marlowe has never been given any information, written or oral,
13
that Suspects DNA has been processed, nor has she been assured that Suspects DNA
14
was not lost by SFPD.
15
SAN FRANCISCOS POLICIES, PRACTICES AND CUSTOMS
16
49. Defendant San Francisco had the policy, practice and/or custom of failing to diligently
17
investigate sexual assault allegations. For example, according to SFPDs own internal
18
audit, several thousand rape kits, including 753 dating back to 2003, in SFPDs
19
possession were not processed as of December 10, 2014.
20
50. Defendants failed to:
21
a. Assure that evidence was not lost;
22
b. Determine if an offense was committed;
23
c. Arrange for the timely analysis and evaluation of evidence;
24
d. Determine if other crimes may have been committed by the suspect;
25
51. On information and belief, the failure to investigate crimes of sexual assault were
26
consistent with an institutional practice of the SFPD, which was known to and ratified
27
by the City and County of San Francisco and its agents, the Defendant San Francisco
28
having failed to take any effective action to prevent the SFPD police personnel from
7
COMPLAINT
1
2
continuing to engage in such misconduct.

52. On information and belief, Defendant San Francisco had prior notice of the reckless,
willful and wanton, deliberate and/or intentional actions of their employees and agents,
but took no steps to train them, correct abuses of authority, or discourage the unlawful
use of authority. The failure to properly train their employees and agents included the
failure to instruct them as officers of the peace and in applicable laws of California.
7
8
9
53. On information and belief, Defendant San Francisco authorized, tolerated as institutional
practices, and ratified the misconduct above by:
a. Failing to properly supervise SFPD personnel;
10
b. Failing to properly train SFPD personnel;
11
c. Failing to properly discipline, restrict, and control employees, including but not
12
13
14
limited to, investigating crimes of sexual assault against females;

d. Failing to take adequate precautions in the hiring, promotion and retention of
police personnel;
15
e. Failing to protect and ensure evidence is not lost or mishandled; and
16
f. Failing to establish and/or assure the functioning of a bona fide and meaningful
17
departmental system for dealing with complaints of sexual assault, but instead
18
responding to such complaints with bureaucratic power and official denials
19
calculated to mislead the public.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
54. Defendants Loftus, Suhr and Ali were all individually, and collectively, responsible for
creating and perpetuating the policy of failing to test rape kits.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. 1983 - VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
55. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 to 54 as if fully stated herein.
56. At all times relevant herein, Defendants and the SFPD acted under the color of the state.
Upon information and belief, the SFPD was following policies and procedures.
57. At all times relevant herein, Defendant knew that victims of sexual assault had provided
evidence of sexual assault, and that Defendants were not taking steps to investigate
8
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
properly the allegations.

58. Defendants had a duty to investigate diligently the allegations and to submit the sexual
assault kits for testing.
59. At all times relevant herein, Defendants with deliberate indifference, intentionally,
willfully and wantonly, and/or with reckless disregard deprived Plaintiff of rights and/or
privileges secured by the constitution, including but not limited to:
a. Defendants violated Plaintiffs Due Process Clause property interests in her
DNA samples, which had been provided and stored at the SFPDs facility, and
her right to redress in the courts, by failing to investigate, by either failing to
10
submit sexual assault kits for testing or failing to report the results to the victims
11
whose kits were tested, or arrest the accused;
12
b. Defendants violated Plaintiffs Due Process Clause property interests in her
13
persons, by failing to investigate, by either failing to submit sexual assault kits
14
for testing or failing to report the results to the victims whose kits were tested, or
15
arrest the accused.
16
60. Defendants with deliberate indifference, failed to train its police officers as to the rights
17
of persons with whom the police come into contact, including but not limited to
18
Marlowe.
19
20
21
61. Defendants deliberate indifference, and willful and wanton behavior, created a danger
of and increased the risk of harm by sexual abuse.
62. Defendants violated Plaintiffs civil rights by having an express policy that, when
22
enforced, caused a constitutional deprivation to Plaintiff, or by having a widespread
23
practice and/or custom that, although not authorized by written law or express municipal
24
policy, was so permanent and well settled as to constitute a custom or usage with the
25
force of law.
26
27
28
63. The constitutional injury inflicted by Defendants was caused by a person with final
policymaking authority at The City and County of San Francisco.
64. Defendants knew about the above-described conduct and facilitated it, approved it,
9
COMPLAINT
condoned it, and/or turned a blind eye to the conduct.
65. The above-described conduct of Defendants constitutes a violation of Section 1983.
Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages for physical injury, emotional pain,
suffering, mental anguish and other non-pecuniary losses.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. 1983 VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION
67. At all times relevant herein, Defendants and the SFPD acted under the color of the state.
Upon information and belief, the SFPD was following policies and procedures.
10
68. At all times relevant herein, Defendants knew that victims of sexual assault had
11
provided evidence of sexual assault, and that Defendants were not taking steps to
12
investigate properly the allegations.
13
14
69. Defendants had a duty to investigate diligently the allegations and to submit the sexual
assault kits for testing.
15
70. At all times relevant herein, Defendants with deliberate indifference, intentionally,
16
willfully and wantonly, and/or with reckless disregard deprived Plaintiffs of rights
17
and/or privileges secured by the constitution, including but not limited to:
18
a. Defendants violated Plaintiffs Due Process Clause property interests in her
19
DNA samples, which had been provided and stored at the SFPDs facility, and
20
her right to redress in the courts, by failing to investigate, by either failing to
21
submit sexual assault kits for testing or failing to report the results to the victims
22
whose kits were tested, or arrest the accused;
23
b. Defendants violated Plaintiffs Due Process Clause property interests in her
24
persons, by failing to investigate, by either failing to submit sexual assault kits
25
for testing or failing to report the results to the victims whose kits were tested, or
26
arrest the accused.
27
28
71. Defendants with deliberate indifference, failed to train its police officers as to the rights
of persons with whom the police come into contact, including but not limited to
10
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
Marlowe.
72. Defendants deliberate indifference, and willful and wanton behavior, created a danger
of and increased the risk of harm by sexual abuse.
73. Defendants conduct was motivated by gender.
74. Defendants conduct was intentional, and due to Plaintiffs female gender.
75. Defendants have a history of discriminating against females. Defendants have treated
sexual assault reports from women with less priority than other crimes not involving
women reporting sexual assaults.
9
10
11
enforced, had the effect of discriminating against women based solely on their gender.
12
enforced, caused a constitutional deprivation to Plaintiff, or by having a widespread
13
practice and/or custom that, although not authorized by written law or express municipal
14
policy, was so permanent and well settled as to constitute a custom or usage with the
15
force of law.
16
17
18
19
20
80. The above-described conduct of Defendants constitutes a violation of Section 1983.
21
Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages for physical injury, emotional pain,
22
suffering, mental anguish and other non-pecuniary losses.
23
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
24
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1, 7 VIOLATION OF EQUAL
25
PROTECTION
26
27
82. Defendants violated Plaintiffs civil rights by having an express policy of failing to
28
properly investigate sexual assault reports made by women that, when enforced, caused
11
COMPLAINT
a constitutional deprivation to Plaintiff, or by having a widespread practice and/or
custom of failing to properly investigate sexual assault reports made by women that,
although not authorized by written law or express municipal policy, was so permanent
and well settled as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law.
83. This policy was intentional and, when enforced, had a discriminatory impact on women.
7
8
9

10
86. The above-described conduct of Defendants constitutes a violation Article 1, 7 of the
11
California Constitution. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages for physical
12
injury, emotional pain, suffering, mental anguish and other non-pecuniary losses.
13
REMEDIES, COSTS AND ATTORNEYS FEES
14
15
88. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, Plaintiff is entitled to a writ of
16
mandate to compel Defendant San Francisco to test Plaintiffs rape kit, or if the rape kit
17
has been tested provide Plaintiff with the results of the test. Petitioner is further entitled
18
to damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 1095.
19
89. Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable costs, including attorney fees under the Civil
20
Rights Act (42 U.S.C., 1988), to enforce constitutional rights in the administrative and
21
judicial proceedings.
22
23
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for a writ of mandate compelling Defendant San
24
Francisco to test Plaintiffs rape kit or release the results of the processed rape kit to Plaintiff;
25
damages; costs; interest; statutory/civil penalties according to law; attorneys fees and costs of
26
litigation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 or other applicable law; and such other relief as the court
27
deems appropriate and just.
28
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

12
COMPLAINT
1
2
NOW COME Plaintiff, by and through her counsel, and hereby demands a trial by jury as
to all of those issues so triable as of right.
3
4
5
Date: January 6, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
By:
/s/ Alexander S. Zalkin

Alexander S. Zalkin
6
THE ZALKIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
IRWIN M. ZALKIN
DEVIN M. STOREY
ALEXANDER S. ZALKIN
RYAN M. COHEN
7
8
9
DAPEER, ROSENBLIT & LITVACK, LLP

WILLIAM LITVAK, ESQ.
10
11
Attorneys for Plaintiff
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
COMPLAINT
Case 4:16-cv-00076-KAW
Filed 01/07/16 Page 1 of 2
CIVILDocument
COVER 1-1
SHEET
JS 44 (Rev. 12/12)
Cand rev (1/15/13)
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
HEATHER MARLOWE, an individual,
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SUZY LOFTUS, individually and

in her official capacity as President of the SFPD; GREG SURH, individually and
in his official capacity as Chief of Police of the SFPD; MIKAIL ALI, individually
and in his official capacity of Deputy Chief of the SFPD; JOE CORDES,
individually and in his official capacity as an officer of the SFPD,
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
San Francisco
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff San Francisco

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
NOTE:
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Attorneys (If Known)
Alexander S. Zalkin, Esq. (280813) / The Zalkin Law Firm, P.C.

12555 High Bluff Drive, Suite 301 / San Diego CA 92130
T: 858-259-3011 / F: 858-259-3015
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only)

1
U.S. Government
Plaintiff
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
1
X 3 Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
U.S. Government
Defendant
Citizen of This State
4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
IV. NATURE OF SUIT

CONTRACT
110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veterans Benefits
160 Stockholders Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise
REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property
(Place an X in One Box Only)

TORTS
PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities
- Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities
- Other
448 Education
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
463 Alien Detainee
510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
530 General
535 Death Penalty
Other:
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement
Incorporated or Principal Place

of Business In This State
Citizen of Another State
Incorporated and Principal Place

of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country
Foreign Nation
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
PERSONAL INJURY
365 Personal Injury Product Liability
367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal
Property Damage
385 Property Damage
Product Liability
and One Box for Defendant)

PTF
DEF
4
4
DEF
625 Drug Related Seizure

of Property 21 USC 881
690 Other
BANKRUPTCY
OTHER STATUTES
422 Appeal 28 USC 158

423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
375 False Claims Act

400 State Reapportionment
410 Antitrust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
890 Other Statutory Actions
891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
895 Freedom of Information
Act
896 Arbitration
899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes
PROPERTY RIGHTS
820 Copyrights
830 Patent
840 Trademark
LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
720 Labor/Management
Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act
SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS

870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
871 IRSThird Party
26 USC 7609
IMMIGRATION
462 Naturalization Application
465 Other Immigration
Actions
V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)

X 1 Original
Proceeding
2 Removed from
State Court
3 Remanded from
Appellate Court
Reinstated or
Reopened
5 Transferred from
Another District
6 Multidistrict
Litigation
(specify)
VI. CAUSE OF
ACTION
VII. REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 USC 1983; Cal Constitution Article 1, Section 7
Brief description of cause:
Violation of Substantive Due Process; Violation of Equal Protection;
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
DEMAND $
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
x
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Yes
No
JURY DEMAND:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)

IF ANY
(See instructions):
JUDGE
IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil L.R. 3-2)

(Place an X in One Box Only)
DOCKET NUMBER
( x) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND
DATE
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
January 6, 2016
/s/Alexander S. Zalkin
( ) SAN JOSE
( ) EUREKA
Case 4:16-cv-00076-KAW Document 1-1 Filed 01/07/16 Page 2 of 2

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I. (a)
(b)
(c)
Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at
the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In
land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment,
noting in this section "(see attachment)".
II.
Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III.
Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark
this section for each principal party.
IV.
Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more
than one nature of suit, select the most definitive.
V.
Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407.
When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.
VI.
Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII.
Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII.
Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Marlowe v. City and County of San Francisco Et Al.

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Marlowe v. City and County of San Francisco Et Al.

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 4:16-cv-00076-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/07/16 Page 1 of 13

IRWIN M. ZALKIN, ESQ. (#89957)

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HEATHER MARLOWE, an individual,

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

Case 4:16-cv-00076-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/07/16 Page 2 of 13

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Commission. As stated on its website (http://sf-police.org/index.aspx?page=2572), The

California, and the common law.

Case 4:16-cv-00076-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/07/16 Page 3 of 13

of what had occurred in the house.

fourteen (14) to sixty (60) days.

the scene of her rape.

Case 4:16-cv-00076-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/07/16 Page 4 of 13

rapist (Suspect). Marlowe informed Cordes of this new information.

investigation of her rape.

investigate and prosecute a rape in which alcohol was involved.

Case 4:16-cv-00076-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/07/16 Page 5 of 13

kit, and Suspects DNA had been processed.

drugged, kidnapped, and forcibly raped.

Marlowe with a person at Victims Services, an entity affiliated with SFPD.

Case 4:16-cv-00076-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/07/16 Page 6 of 13

agencies failing to process thousands of rape kits nationwide. Marlowe attempted to

information, but Loftus never responded.

limited to, irregularities in the handling of several pieces of forensic evidence

Case 4:16-cv-00076-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/07/16 Page 7 of 13

failed proficiency tests.

rape kit was, in fact, processed.

was not lost by SFPD.

SAN FRANCISCOS POLICIES, PRACTICES AND CUSTOMS

possession were not processed as of December 10, 2014.

50. Defendants failed to:

a. Assure that evidence was not lost;

b. Determine if an offense was committed;

c. Arrange for the timely analysis and evaluation of evidence;

d. Determine if other crimes may have been committed by the suspect;

Case 4:16-cv-00076-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/07/16 Page 8 of 13

continuing to engage in such misconduct.

b. Failing to properly train SFPD personnel;

limited to, investigating crimes of sexual assault against females;

e. Failing to protect and ensure evidence is not lost or mishandled; and

responding to such complaints with bureaucratic power and official denials

calculated to mislead the public.

Case 4:16-cv-00076-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/07/16 Page 9 of 13

properly the allegations.

privileges secured by the constitution, including but not limited to:

a. Defendants violated Plaintiffs Due Process Clause property interests in her

her right to redress in the courts, by failing to investigate, by either failing to

whose kits were tested, or arrest the accused;

b. Defendants violated Plaintiffs Due Process Clause property interests in her

persons, by failing to investigate, by either failing to submit sexual assault kits

arrest the accused.

enforced, caused a constitutional deprivation to Plaintiff, or by having a widespread

Case 4:16-cv-00076-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/07/16 Page 10 of 13

condoned it, and/or turned a blind eye to the conduct.

65. The above-described conduct of Defendants constitutes a violation of Section 1983.

Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages for physical injury, emotional pain,

suffering, mental anguish and other non-pecuniary losses.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

42 U.S.C. 1983 VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION

66. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 to 54 as if fully stated herein.

investigate properly the allegations.

a. Defendants violated Plaintiffs Due Process Clause property interests in her

her right to redress in the courts, by failing to investigate, by either failing to