Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1
2
3 litem, Judy Silva, in each case individually and as successors in interest to David
4 Silva, deceased; TARA GARLICK, individually; MERRI SILVA, individually; and
5 SALVADOR SILVA, individually, (all together, Plaintiffs), for their complaint
6 against County of Kern, Donny Youngblood, Douglas Sword, Ryan Greer, Tanner
7 Miller, Jeffrey Kelly, Luis Almanza, Brian Brock, David Stephens, Michael Phillips,
8 Michael Bright, and Does 1-10, inclusive, (all together, Defendants) allege as
9 follows:
10
11
12
INTRODUCTION
1.
This civil rights and wrongful death action seeks compensatory and
13 punitive damages from Defendants for violating various rights under the United
14 States Constitution and state law in connection with the fatal police beating of David
15 Silva (Decedent), on May 7, 2013.
16
2.
The beating and death of Decedent at the hands of the defendant police
3.
26
27
28
-2-
1
2
PARTIES
4.
5.
At all relevant times, Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. were
6.
At all relevant times, Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. were
7.
12 child. Upon information and belief, J.S. is currently represented by The Law Offices
13 of John Burris, 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120, Oakland, CA 94621; Phone: 51014 379-7215; Fax: 510-839-3882. A separate lawsuit has been filed on behalf of J.S..
15
8.
At all relevant times, Plaintiff Tara Garlick was the natural mother of
16 Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S., and she was the girlfriend of the
17 Decedent.
18
9.
19 Michael Bright (Bright) were officers for the California Highway Patrol and were
20 acting under color of law within the course and scope of their duties as officers for
21 the California Highway Patrol and with the complete authority and ratification of
22 their principal, the California Highway Patrol. Defendants Phillips and Bright
23 proximately caused Decedents and Plaintiffs injuries by administering the blows
24 that killed him, by integrally participating or failing to intervene in the beating, and
25 by engaging in other acts and/ or omissions described below.
26
10.
27 Greer (Greer), Tanner Miller (Miller), Jeffrey Kelly (Kelly), Luis Almanza
28 (Almanza), Brian Brock (Brock), and David Stephens (Stephens) were duly
-3-
1 authorized employees and agents of the County, subject to oversight and supervision
2 by the Countys elected and non-elected officials, and were acting under color of
3 law within the course and scope of their duties as sheriffs deputies for the Kern
4 County Sheriffs Department and with the complete authority and ratification of
5 their principal, Defendant County. Defendants Sword, Greer, Miller, Kelly,
6 Almanza, Brock, and Stephens also proximately caused Decedents and Plaintiffs
7 injuries by administering the blows that killed Decedent, by integrally participating
8 or failing to intervene in the beating, and by engaging in other acts and/ or omissions
9 described below.
10
11.
12.
20 Decedents and Plaintiffs injuries and is liable under state law and under principles
21 set forth in Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
22 Defendant County is a chartered subdivision of the State of California with the
23 capacity to sue and be sued. At all relevant times, Defendant County is and was a
24 duly organized public entity, form unknown, existing under the laws of the State of
25 California. Defendant County is responsible for the actions, omissions, policies,
26 procedures, practices and customs of its various agents and agencies. At all times
27 relevant to the facts alleged herein, Defendant County was responsible for assuring
28 that the actions, omissions, policies, procedures, practices and customs of its
-4-
1 employees complied with the laws and the Constitutions of the United States and of
2 the State of California. At all relevant times, County was the employer of
3 Defendants Youngblood, Sword, Greer, Miller, Kelly, Almanza, Brock, Stephens,
4 and Does 1-10.
5
13.
14.
15.
At all times mentioned herein, each and every County Defendant was
20 the agent of each and every other County Defendant and had the legal duty to
21 oversee and supervise the hiring, conduct and employment of each and every
22 County Defendant.
23
16.
24 Plaintiffs, who therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs
25 will seek leave to amend this complaint to show the true names and capacities of
26 these defendants when they have been ascertained. Each of the fictitiously-named
27 defendants is responsible in some manner for the conduct and liabilities alleged
28 herein.
-5-
17.
2 Bright, Youngblood, Sword, Greer, Miller, Kelly, Almanza, Brock, Stephens, and
3 Does 1-10 (all together, the Officer Defendants) were residents of the State of
4 California.
5
18.
6 Plaintiffs injuries under state law and federal law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and
7 are sued in their individual capacities for damages only.
8
19.
9 comprehensive and timely claims for damages with the County and the State of
10 California pursuant to applicable sections of the California Government Code.
11
20.
On July 30, 2013, the County denied the claims of Plaintiffs M.L.S.,
12 C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. in writing. On August 23, 2013, the State of California
13 denied the claims of Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. in writing.
14
15
16
17 constitutional rights as protected by 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, and the
18 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction
19 is founded on 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343, and 1367.
20
22.
21 incidents, events, and occurrences giving rise to this action occurred in the County
22 of Kern, California.
23
24
25
23.
26
24.
27 Almanza, Brock, and Stephens were acting under color of law and as employees of
28 the Kern County Sheriffs Department.
-6-
25.
At all relevant times, Defendants Phillips and Bright were acting under
26.
4 on the front lawn of a home across from Kern Medical Center at the intersection of
5 Flower Street and Palm Street in Bakersfield, California.
6
27.
28.
10
29.
11 distress.
12
30.
At all relevant times, the Decedent did not have a weapon or anything
31.
15
32.
While he was being beaten to death, the Decedent cried out in pain and
33.
The Officer Defendants used their batons, fists, and boots to beat the
18 Decedent to death. The Officer Defendants also caused the Decedent to be attacked
19 by a K-9 police dog.
20
34.
35.
Before, during, and after the beating, Decedent was in obvious and
24 critical need of emergency medical care and treatment. However, upon information
25 and belief, Defendants did not timely summon medical care or permit medical
26 personnel to treat Decedent.
27
36.
28 eyewitnesses.
-7-
37.
38.
In response to the 9-1-1 call, instead of halting the beating and caring
3 for the Decedent, the Officer Defendants and other County employees targeted the
4 9-1-1 callers for detention or arrest, and confiscating and deleting one or more of the
5 cell phone videos.
6
7
10
39.
11
40.
41.
42.
18 for Decedents injuries and the injuries to M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S., either
19 because they were integral participants in the wrongful detention and arrest, or
20 because they failed to intervene to prevent these violations.
21
43.
22 and done with reckless disregard for the rights and safety of decedent and therefore
23 warrants the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages as to each of them.
24
44.
25 successors in interest to Decedent, and they seek both survival and wrongful death
26 damages for the violation of Decedents rights.
27
28
-8-
45.
Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. seek attorney fees under
2 this claim. Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. are also seeking funeral and
3 burial expenses and loss of financial support.
4
5
46.
47.
10 deprived the Decedent of his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable
11 searches and seizures as guaranteed to Decedent under the Fourth Amendment to the
12 United States Constitution and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment.
13
48.
14 improper restraint procedures, they deprived the Decedent of his right to be secure
15 in his person against unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed to Decedent
16 under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and applied to state
17 actors by the Fourteenth Amendment.
18
49.
50.
23 extreme pain and suffering and eventually suffered a loss of life and of earning
24 capacity.
25
51.
52.
2 and done with reckless disregard for the rights and safety of Decedent and therefore
3 warrants the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages as to each of them.
4
53.
5 extreme pain and suffering and eventually suffered a loss of life and of earning
6 capacity.
7
54.
55.
10 successors in interest to Decedent, and seek both survival and wrongful death
11 damages for the violation of Decedents rights.
12
56.
Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. seek attorney fees under
13 this claim. Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. are also seeking funeral and
14 burial expenses and loss of financial support.
15
16
17
18
19
57.
20
58.
59.
60.
1 and wanton infliction of pain, but disregarded that serious medical need, causing
2 Decedent great bodily harm, pain and suffering, and death.
3
61.
4 and done with reckless disregard for the rights and safety of Decedent and therefore
5 warrants the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages as to each of them.
6
62.
7 successors in interest to Decedent, and seek both survival and wrongful death
8 damages for the violation of Decedents rights.
9
63.
Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. seek attorney fees under
10 this claim. Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. are also seeking funeral and
11 burial expenses and loss of financial support.
12
13
14
15
16
64.
17
65.
Salvador Silva had a cognizable interest under the Due Process Clause
18 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from state
19 actions that deprive him of life, liberty, or property in such a manner as to shock the
20 conscience, including but not limited to, unwarranted state interference in his
21 familial relationship with his son, Decedent.
22
66.
Merri Silva had a cognizable interest under the Due Process Clause of
23 the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from state
24 actions that deprive her of life, liberty, or property in such a manner as to shock the
25 conscience, including but not limited to, unwarranted state interference in her
26 familial relationship with her son, Decedent.
27
67.
Tara Garlick had a cognizable interest under the Due Process Clause of
28 the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from state
-11-
1 actions that deprive her of life, liberty, or property in such a manner as to shock the
2 conscience, including but not limited to, unwarranted state interference in her
3 familial relationship with Decedent.
4
68.
M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. had cognizable interests under the
5 Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution
6 to be free from state actions that deprive them of life, liberty, or property in such a
7 manner as to shock the conscience, including but not limited to, unwarranted state
8 interference in the minor plaintiffs familial relationship with their father, Decedent.
9
69.
Decedent had a cognizable interest under the Due Process Clause of the
70.
14 undiscovered conduct, shock the conscience, in that they acted with deliberate
15 indifference to the constitutional rights of Decedent and Plaintiffs, and with purpose
16 to harm unrelated to any legitimate law enforcement objective.
17
71.
18 the conscience:
19
(a)
20
(b)
21
(c)
22
23
(d)
24
25
(e)
26
(f)
27
(g)
28
-12-
(h)
6
7
72.
73.
9 Plaintiffs Merri Silva, Salvador Silva, Tara Garlick, M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and
10 E.Z.S. to be free from unwarranted interference with their familial relationship with
11 Decedent.
12
74.
13
75.
14 the Decedent experienced severe pain and suffering and lost his life and earning
15 capacity. Plaintiffs suffered extreme and severe mental anguish and pain and have
16 been injured in mind and body. Plaintiffs have also been deprived of the life-long
17 love, companionship, comfort, support, society, care, and sustenance of Decedent,
18 and will continue to be so deprived for the remainder of their natural lives.
19
76.
20 and done with reckless disregard for the rights and safety of Decedent and Plaintiffs
21 and therefore warrants the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages as to each
22 of the Officer Defendants.
23
77.
24 individually and as successors in interest to Decedent, and seek both survival and
25 wrongful death damages for the violation of both their rights and Decedents rights.
26
78.
Plaintiffs Merri Silva and Salvador Silva bring this claim individually
27 and seek wrongful death damages for the violation of their rights.
28
-13-
79.
Plaintiff Tara Garlick brings this claim individually and seeks wrongful
80.
All plaintiffs also seek attorney fees under this claim. Plaintiffs are
81.
10
82.
11 together with other County supervisors, determined that the conduct of Sword,
12 Greer, Miller, Kelly, Almanza, Brock, and Stephens was within policy.
13
83.
14 together with other County supervisors, ratified the conduct of Sword, Greer, Miller,
15 Kelly, Almanza, Brock, and Stephens.
16
84.
85.
(a)
23
(b)
24
(c)
25
(d)
26
27
28
(e)
(f)
2
3
(g)
(h)
5
6
(i)
statements;
(j)
misconduct;
10
11
(k)
12
13
14
15
16
17
(l)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Stephens;
28
-15-
(n)
(p)
10
(q)
11
(r)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
officer's wrongdoing.
20
86.
87.
88.
4 conduct and other wrongful acts, Defendants County, Youngblood, and Does 1-10
5 acted with intentional, reckless, and callous disregard for the life of Decedent and
6 for Decedents and Plaintiffs constitutional rights. Furthermore, the policies,
7 practices, and customs implemented, maintained, and still tolerated by Defendants
8 County, Youngblood, and Does 1-10 were affirmatively linked to and were a
9 significantly influential force behind the injuries of Decedent and Plaintiffs.
10
89.
11 were willful, wanton, oppressive, malicious, fraudulent, and extremely offensive and
12 unconscionable to any person of normal sensibilities, and therefore warrants the
13 imposition of exemplary and punitive damages as to Defendants Youngblood and
14 Does 1-10.
15
90.
16 County, Youngblood, and Does 1-10, Plaintiffs were caused to incur funeral and
17 related burial expenses, and loss of financial support.
18
91.
19 County, Youngblood, and Does 1-10, Plaintiffs have suffered loss of love,
20 companionship, affection, comfort, care, society, and future support.
21
92.
93.
Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. bring this claim in each
24 case individually and as a successors in interest to Decedent, and in each case seek
25 both wrongful death damages and survival damages under this claim.
26
94.
Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. also seek attorney fees
95.
96.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Stephens, while working as sheriffs deputies for the Kern County Sheriffs
Department and acting within the course and scope of their duties, conspired with
Defendants Phillips and Bright, who were working as officers for the California
Highway Patrol and acting within the course and scope of their duties, as well as
with Does 1-10 and other unnamed co-conspirators, to violate Decedents rights and
to injure Decedent.
97.
Stephens, while working as sheriffs deputies for the Kern County Sheriffs
Department and acting within the course and scope of their duties, injured Decedent
and violated Decedents rights.
98.
California Highway Patrol and acting within the course and scope of their duties, ,
injured Decedent and violated Decedents rights.
99.
25
26
27
28
-18-
1
2
3
6 Stephens, while working as sheriffs deputies for the Kern County Sheriffs
7 Department and acting within the course and scope of their duties, conspired with
8 Defendants Phillips And Bright, who were working as officers for the California
9 Highway Patrol and acting within the course and scope of their duties, as well as
10 with Does 1-10 and other unnamed co-conspirators, to cover up Decedents death.
11
12 Stephens, while working as sheriffs deputies for the Kern County Sheriffs
13 Department and acting within the course and scope of their duties, participated in
14 the attempted cover-up of Decedents death.
15
105. Defendants Phillips and Bright, while working as officers for the
16 California Highway Patrol and acting within the course and scope of their duties,
17 participated in the attempted cover-up of Decedents death.
18
(a)
21
22
23
24
(c)
25
26
27
28
-19-
(c)
phone videos;
(d)
5
6
(e)
7
8
(f)
(g)
10
11
108. Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. each bring this claim
109. Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. also seek attorney fees
18
19
20
21
22 Stephens, while working as sheriffs deputies for the Kern County Sheriffs
23 Department and acting within the course and scope of their duties, intentionally
24 deprived Decedent of his freedom of movement by use of force, threats of force,
25 menace, fraud, deceit, and unreasonable duress.
26
112. Defendants Phillips and Bright, while working as officers for the
27 California Highway Patrol and acting within the course and scope of their duties,
28
-20-
4 Phillips, and Bright detained Decedent without reasonable suspicion and arrested
5 him without probable cause.
6
8 Brock, Stephens, Phillips, and Bright was a substantial factor in causing the harm to
9 Decedent.
10
11 Defendants Sword, Greer, Miller, Kelly, Almanza, Brock, and Stephens, pursuant to
12 section 815.2(a) of the California Government Code, which provides that a public
13 entity is liable for the injuries caused by its employees within the scope of the
14 employment if the employees act would subject him or her to liability.
15
16 oppressive, and accomplished with a conscious disregard for the rights of Decedent,
17 entitling Plaintiffs to an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
18
118. As a result of their misconduct, all Officer Defendants are liable for the
19 Decedents injuries, either because they were integral participants in the wrongful
20 detention and arrest, or because they failed to intervene to prevent these violations.
21
119. Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. bring this claim as
22 successors in interest to Decedent, and seek both survival and wrongful death
23 damages for the violation of Decedents rights.
24
120. Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. also seek attorney fees
(Wrongful Death)
7 Stephens, while working as police officers for the County Sheriffs Department, and
8 acting within the course and scope of their duties, intentionally struck Decedent
9 multiple times, including with their police batons, fists, and boots.
10
123. Defendants Bright and Phillips, while working as officers for the
11 California Highway Patrol, and acting within the course and scope of their duties,
12 intentionally struck Decedent multiple times, including with their police batons,
13 fists, and boots.
14
15 Almanza, Brock, Stephens, Bright, and Phillips, the Decedent suffered severe pain
16 and suffering and ultimately died from his injuries and also lost his earning capacity.
17 The Officer Defendants did not have legal justification for using the force against
18 the Decedent, and said Defendants use of force while carrying out their police
19 officer duties was an unreasonable use of force.
20
21 above, Plaintiffs and Decedent suffered extreme and severe mental anguish and pain
22 and have been injured in mind and body. Plaintiffs also have been deprived of the
23 life-long love, companionship, comfort, support, society, care and sustenance of
24 Decedent, and will continue to be so deprived for the remainder of their natural
25 lives. Plaintiffs also are claiming funeral and burial expenses and a loss of financial
26 support.
27
126. The County is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of Defendants
28 Sword, Greer, Miller, Kelly, Almanza, Brock, and Stephens, pursuant to section
-22-
1 815.2(a) of the California Government Code, which provides that a public entity is
2 liable for the injuries caused by its employees within the scope of the employment if
3 the employees act would subject him or her to liability.
4
127. Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. bring this claim in each
5 case as a successor in interest to Decedent, and seek both survival and wrongful
6 death damages for the violation of Decedents rights.
7
128. Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. also seek attorney fees
13
14
15
130. The actions and inactions of Defendants were negligent and reckless,
(a)
18
19
(b)
20
21
(c)
22
23
(d)
24
(e)
25
26
(f)
27
28
-23-
(g)
4
5
(h)
6 above, and other undiscovered negligent conduct, Decedent was caused to suffer
7 severe pain and suffering and ultimately died and lost earning capacity. Also as a
8 direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct as alleged above, Plaintiffs
9 suffered extreme and severe mental anguish and pain and have been injured in mind
10 and body. Plaintiffs also have been deprived of the life-long love, companionship,
11 comfort, support, society, care and sustenance of Decedent, and will continue to be
12 so deprived for the remainder of their natural lives. Plaintiffs also are claiming
13 funeral and burial expenses and a loss of financial support.
14
132. County is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of Defendants Sword,
15 Greer, Miller, Kelly, Almanza, Brock, Stephens, and Does 1-10 pursuant to section
16 815.2(a) of the California Government Code, which provides that a public entity is
17 liable for the injuries caused by its employees within the scope of the employment if
18 the employees act would subject him or her to liability.
19
133. Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. bring this claim as
20 successors in interest to Decedent, and seek both survival and wrongful death
21 damages for the violation of Decedents rights.
22
134. Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. also seek attorney fees
26
27
28
136. California Civil Code, Section 52.1 (the Bane Act), prohibits any
137. Each of the Officer Defendants, acting within the course and scope of
(a)
(b)
10
(c)
11
(d)
12
13
14
(e)
15
(f)
16
(g)
17
(h)
18
19
20
21
22
misconduct;
23
24
138.
25 civil rights of Decedent and Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to, Decedents
26 rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, to due process, to equal
27 protection of the laws, to medical care, to be free from state actions that shock the
28 conscience, and to life, liberty, and property.
-25-
2 discourage Decedent from exercising his civil rights, to retaliate against him for
3 invoking such rights, or to prevent him from exercising such rights, which he was
4 fully entitled to enjoy.
5
6 understood that the violent acts committed by the Officer Defendants were intended
7 to discourage him from exercising the above civil rights, to retaliate against him, or
8 invoking such rights, or to prevent him from exercising such rights.
9
141.
10 Decedent.
11
142. Decedent endured severe pain and suffering and ultimately died.
12 Plaintiffs have suffered mental anguish and pain and have been injured in mind and
13 body. Plaintiffs have been deprived of the life-long comfort, support, society, care,
14 and sustenance of Decedent, and will continue to be so deprived for the remainder
15 of their natural lives.
16
17 causing the harms, losses, injuries, and damages of Decedent and Plaintiff
18
144. The County is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of Defendants
19 Sword, Greer, Miller, Kelly, Almanza, Brock, and Stephens pursuant to section
20 815.2(a) of the California Government Code, which provides that a public entity is
21 liable for the injuries caused by its employees within the scope of the employment if
22 the employees act would subject him or her to liability.
23
24 oppressive, and accomplished with a conscious disregard for the rights of Decedent,
25 justifying an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
26
146. Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. bring this claim as
27 successors in interest to Decedent, and seek both survival and wrongful death
28 damages for the violation of Decedents rights.
-26-
147. Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. also seek attorney fees
6 MERRI SILVA, and SALVADOR SILVA request entry of judgment in their favor
7 and against Defendants County of Kern, Donny Youngblood, Douglas Sword, Ryan
8 Greer, Tanner Miller, Jeffrey Kelly, Luis Almanza, Brian Brock, David Stephens,
9 Michael Phillips, Michael Bright, and Does 1-10, inclusive, as follows:
10
A.
11
12
13
B.
14
C.
15
16
D.
For interest;
17
E.
18
F.
For such further other relief as the Court may deem just, proper,
19
and appropriate.
20
21 DATED: May 9, 2014
22
23
24
By
/s/ Thomas C. Seabaugh
Dale K. Galipo
Thomas C, Seabaugh
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
25
26
27
28
-27-
1
2
3
4 DATED: May 9, 2014
5
6
7
8
By
/s/ Thomas C. Seabaugh
Dale K. Galipo
Thomas C. Seabaugh
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-28-