Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
RICARDO PALIKIKO-GARCIA, an
individual; STANLEY HARRIS, an
individual; and KEITH DWAYNE
RICHARDSON, an individual,
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Case No.:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
(42 U.S.C 1983; and pendant tort
claims)
Plaintiffs,
v.
28
1
1
2
Defendants.
4
5
6
INTRODUCTION
1.
1983 and 1988, and the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution, under California Civil Code Section 52.1 and
51.7, and under the common law of California. This action is against SHERIFF
10
11
12
13
14
15
during the course and scope of the above-mentioned officers employment with
the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT.
JURISDICTION
16
17
3.
This action arises under Title 42 of the United States Code, Section
18 1983. Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 1331 and 1343 confers
19 jurisdiction upon this Court. The unlawful acts and practices alleged herein
occurred in the City of San Francisco, San Francisco County, California, which is
20
within the judicial district of this Court.
21
PARTIES
22
23
4.
24
25
26
27
5.
HARRIS), has been and is a resident of the state of California and is a United
28
2
1
2
States Citizen.
6.
7.
(hereinafter MIRKARIMI), was the Sheriff and elected official of the CITY
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
the jails in the City and County of San Francisco and, in that capacity, is
responsible for protecting the health and safety of both inmates and staff.
Sheriff MIRKARIMI and his sworn staff, while acting under the color of law,
have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
8.
(hereinafter NEU), was a deputy sheriff for the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT, and is sued individually and in his
official capacity.
9.
18
(hereinafter STAEHELY), was a deputy sheriff for the CITY AND COUNTY
19
20
21
10.
22
23
24
25
26
11.
27
28
3
official capacity.
12.
employees of the City and County of San Francisco and members of the Sheriffs
during the events alleged herein. In that capacity, DOES 1 through 25 directly
10
11
12
13
14
13.
22
23
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such
24
fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege their true names
25
and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon
26
27
28
4
1
2
3
manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs damages herein
alleged were proximately caused by such Defendants.
16.
acted within the course and scope of their employment for THE CITY AND
6
7
8
9
10
17.
each of them, acted under color of authority and/or under color of law.
18.
13
each of them, acted as the agent, servant, and employee and/or in concert with
each of said other Defendants herein.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
11
12
Ricardo Palikiko-Garcia
19.
booked into San Francisco County Jail #4 located at 850 Bryant Street, San
14
Francisco 94103. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff PALAKIKO-GARCIA was
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
pulled out a deck of cards on the desk outside L1 and insisted that Plaintiff
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
21.
addressed Plaintiff HARRIS as fat boy and referred to him as his fighter,
10
11
12
13
14
from the kitchen and make him do exercises in a small area past L3.
22.
GARCIA and said words to the effect of, Whats up little man? You want to
see my champion? Plaintiff PALIKIKO-GARCIA, out of fear of Defendant
NEU, agreed to see Defendant NEUs Champion, despite his confusion and
lack of understanding about Defendant NEUs intentions. Defendant NEU then
15
ordered Plaintiff PALIKIKO-GARCIA and Plaintiff HARRIS to walk down the
16
17
18
19
hallway past the L dorms, near the room that contained a dip bar. This area
was not visible to security cameras or other individ uals who might be passing
by. Defendant CLIFFORD CHIBA was also present in the area.
23.
20
GARCIA and Plaintiff HARRIS to face each other. Defendant NEU then told
21
22
fight each other. Defendant NEU went on to explain the rules of engagement.
23
Defendant NEU stated that they could not seek medical attention after the fight.
24
25
HARRIS not to strike each other in the face. Defendant NEU further instructed
26
the two inmates that, If either of you gets injured, you are to say that you fell
27
28
6
Plaintiff HARRIS, that he had no ill will towards Plaintiff HARRIS and that he
Defendant NEU would carry out. Defendant NEU followed the threat by telling
up and lose their kitchen jobs if they revealed what happened to medical
personnel. Specifically, Defendant NEU said, Ill also put you on the
mainline and send you to San Bruno. Defendant NEU then offered a
10
11
12
13
14
15
Defendant CHIBA egged them on, but the fight quickly escalated with neither
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
dont like losing money! Defendant NEU then told Plaintiff PALIKIKO-
25
GARCIA and Plaintiff HARRIS that they were going to fight again in exactly
26
one week.
27
28
7
25.
26.
gotten hurt and needed time for his body to recover. However, Defendant
10
11
12
13
14
JONES insisted, saying words to the effect of, Im counting on you, are you
ready? Plaintiff PALIKIKO-GARCIA, in an attempt to postpone the pending
fight, offered to Defendant JONES his injuries from the previous fight as a
plea. Plaintiff PALIKIKO-GARCIA also complained to Defendant JONES that
Defendant NEU had not given him the cheeseburger that he had promised th e
winner of the first fight. Plaintiff PALIKIKO-GARCIA feared that he would be
15
forced to fight again as he knew that Defendant NEU was upset about Plaintiff
16
17
18
19
27.
when Defendant JONES told him that, NEU has your hamburger, cmon.
Plaintiff PALIKIKO-GARCIA was determined not to fight again. Without
20
regard, Defendant NEU appeared in the kitchen and screamed, fight or Ill
21
fuck you up! Plaintiff PALIKIKO-GARCIA was afraid that Defendant NEU
22
would follow through with this threat, so he walked back to the fight area.
23
Defendant JONES and Defendant EVAN STAEHELY were present at the fight
24
area.
25
28.
26
instructed that, anything goes except for punching in the face. Plaintiff
27
28
8
GARCIAs request for a timeout and the fight immediately continued. Plaintiff
get on top of him. At the time, Plaintiff PALIKIKO-GARCIA saw that two
other deputies, Deputy Crystal Collins and Deputy Francisco Aquino, had run
down the hall toward the fight. However, Deputies Collins and Aquino
10
11
12
13
14
29.
The fight continued for a short time until Defendant NEU got
scared and stopped it because he did not know if Deputies Collins and Aquino
were going to say something. After the fight, Plaintiff PALIKIKO-GARCIA
and Plaintiff HARRIS were sent back to the kitchen. Plaintiff PALIKIKOGARCIA could not perform his duties due to the injuries that he suffered to his
ribs, shoulder and groin.
15
30.
16
17
18
19
20
difficulty moving his right arm and getting out of bed. This person from Jail
21
22
23
24
25
breathed.
26
31.
27
PALIKIKO-GARCIA that he would fuck him up, asking him if he has ever
28
9
been handcuffed, maced and had your ass beat? Plaintiff PALIKIKO-
32.
being because these sheriffs deputies are law enforcement and have far
10
11
Stanley Harris
12
33.
13
2010 to 2012. Beginning in 2012, Defendant NEU would take food from
14
Plaintiff HARRIS and make him gamble (e.g. play dice or cards) or workout
15
(e.g. do pushups) to get his food back. On his release day in 2012, Defendant
16
NEU called Plaintiff HARRISs name and told Plaintiff HARRIS that he had to
17
do 50 pushups to get out the gate. It took Plaintiff HARRIS about an hour to
18
complete the 50 pushups and it caused him extreme embarrassment and fear.
19
Ever since that time, seemingly every time Defendant NEU saw Plaintiff
20
HARRIS he went out of his way to antagonize and strike fear into him.
21
22
23
24
25
26
34.
occasions, Defendant NEU grabbed food from Plaintiff HARRIS and threw it to
nearby inmates. On these occasions, Defendant NEU proclaimed that Plaintiff
HARRIS was already fat enough and should not be eating any more food.
Defendant NEU forced Plaintiff HARRIS to do exercises, i.e. 50 pushups, and
threatened to fuck Plaintiff HARRIS up or roll him up and send him to the
mainline with the killers if he did not complete the exercises to the
27
28
10
handcuff Plaintiff HARRIS and take him to a room, where three awaiting
Deputies would beat him. Defendant NEU instructed Plaintiff HARRIS to say
35.
routine by making him do push-ups and other exercises in front of the other
inmates. Defendant NEU would stand over Plaintiff HARRIS exhorting him
and insulting him as Plaintiff HARRIS grunted and groaned through the
10
11
12
13
14
15
36.
16
17
fight and insisted that they go a round against each other. Defendant NEU
then removed all his work gear and shirt and challenged and threatened
18
Plaintiff HARRIS, saying that he would make Plaintiff HARRIS tap out.
19
Plaintiff HARRIS believes that Defendant NEUs motives may have been
20
21
22
23
illicit sexual relations with other inmates. On one occasion, Defendant NEU
24
25
26
make any sudden movements for fear that Defendant NEU would, without
27
28
11
because this particular incident stopped after Deputy Meinbress (Star #1947)
accidently came upon them. Defendant NEU, in an attempt to cover it up, acted
like it was just another workout session with Plaintiff HARRIS. Defendant
proclamations about taking cheeks and the fact that he could force Plaintiff
HARRIS to be alone with him at any given moment, led Plaintiff HARRIS to
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
37.
early March 2015. Defendant NEU had been telling Plaintiff HARRIS that he
was Defendant NEUs prize.
38.
15
Defendant NEU and his fellow sheriffs.
16
17
18
19
20
39.
21
22
Plaintiff HARRIS objected, Defendant NEU said that the winner would get a
23
cheeseburger. Plaintiff HARRIS then objected again and Defendant NEU said
24
that the winner would get ODR food. Plaintiff HARRIS again refused.
25
Defendant NEU left and returned about 30 minutes later. This time , he said
26
27
(Defendant NEU), would fuck Plaintiff HARRIS up himself or send him back
28
12
41.
GARCIA were taken to a secluded area past L3. Defendant NEU immediately
other. Defendant NEU then told Plaintiff HARRIS and Plaintiff PALIKIKO-
GARCIA that they were going to fight each other. Defendant NEU went on to
explain the rules of engagement. Defendant NEU stated that they could not
10
11
12
13
14
seek medical attention after the fight. They were told not to strike each other
in the face. Defendant NEU further instructed the two inmates that, If either
of you gets injured, you are to say that you fell out of the bunk beds. Plaintiff
PALIKIKO-GARCIA protested his being forced to fight. Defendant NEU then
angrily threatened to cuff and fuck Plaintiff PALIKIKO-GARCIA up.
Defendant NEU then told Plaintiff PALIKIKO-GARCIA that he would put him
15
on the mainline and send him to San Bruno. Defendant NEU then offered a
16
17
18
19
20
and Defendant CHIBA egged them on. However, the fight quickly escalated
21
with neither combatant holding back. Neither combatant threw blows to the
22
head, but they did throw elbows. During the fight, Plaintiff HARRIS and
23
24
25
26
ended the fight. Defendant NEU then berated Plaintiff HARRIS saying,
27
Motherfucker, I dont like losing money! Defendant NEU then told Plaintiff
28
13
in a week.
43.
Defendant CHIBA then told Plaintiff HARRIS words to the effect of, Listen
fat boy. If he uses that on you next time, this is how you get out. Defendant
CHIBA then demonstrated the escape move to Plaintiff HARRIS. Later that
day, Defendant NEU approached Plaintiff HARRIS and told him, You gave
up. Defendant NEU then made Plaintiff HARRIS do pushups and told him
10
11
12
13
14
that they would start training at 7 a.m. the next day in preparation for winning
the next fight.
44.
a.m. and made him go to the secluded area to work out. Fear ful of what
Defendant NEU might do, Plaintiff HARRIS went with him to the secluded area
and obeyed his commands. Defendant NEU cajoled Plaintiff HARRIS
15
16
17
18
19
A few days after the first fight, Plaintiff HARRIS and Plaintiff
20
afternoon when Defendant NEU appeared and told Plaintiff HARRIS that he
21
22
23
deaf ears as Defendant NEU escorted him to the same area where the first fight
24
25
46.
26
fight area.
27
28
14
47.
instructed that, anything goes, except for punching in the face. Plaintiff
intense from the very beginning. At one point, Plaintiff HARRIS punched
GARCIAs request for a timeout and forced him to continue fighting. The fight
10
11
12
13
14
The fight continued for a short time until Defendant NEU got
scared and stopped it because he did not know if Deputies Collins and Aquino
15
16
17
18
19
20
were going to say something. At the end of the second fight, Plaintiff
PALAKIKO-GARCIA and Plaintiff HARRIS shook hands, which made
Defendant NEU angry. After the fight, Plaintiff PALIKIKO-GARCIA and
Plaintiff HARRIS were sent back to the kitchen. Plaintiff PALIKIKO-GARCIA
told the other inmates about the injuries to his ribs, shoulder and groin.
49.
21
22
are all validated gang members with far reaching powers. Defendant NEU has
23
24
gang called the 850 Mob. Plaintiff HARRIS believes that Defendant NEU,
25
26
other members of the San Francisco Sheriffs Department, are members of the
27
850 Mob and work in conjunction to achieve the illicit goals of said gang.
28
15
1
2
RICHARDSON served a white inmate food, and the inmate tossed the food all
into the white inmates cell to make him fight the white inmate for tossing the
10
11
racially charged threats very seriously and was scared for his life. Ultimately,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff RICHARDSON used his better judgment and did not fight the white
inmate.
51.
L1, near where the fights were staged. Sometime in March 2015, he witnessed
Defendant NEU take inmate Plaintiff HARRIS out of his cell to fight. Plaintiff
16
PALIKIKO-GARCIA often confided in Plaintiff RICHARDSON that Defendant
17
18
19
20
21
22
NEU would make him fight against his will. On one occasion, Plaintiff
PALIKIKO-GARCIA told Plaintiff RICHARDSON that his ribs were hurting.
Plaintiff RICHARDSON told him to go to the nurses office. The deputies
previously told Plaintiff PALIKIKO-GARCIA that if he could not get up and
continue fighting, he would get transferred to another cell block.
52.
23
dice and cards. Beginning in early March of 2015, De fendant NEU made him
24
gamble in games involving dice and cards. Fearing retribution from Defendant
25
26
27
play included, but were not limited to: 21, dice, and a ping pong ball game.
28
16
items, including food and clothes. Defendant NEU also made him gamble for
Defendant NEU would often proceed as if he were the victor and keep the
promised items.
53.
CHIBA and NEU instructed the inmates to assault other inmates using methods
10
11
12
13
14
such as: striking other inmates in the testicles, how to lock someone in a
chokehold, and how to escape a chokehold if caught in one. Moreover,
Plaintiff RICHARDSON heard the deputies discuss how much money they lost
staging the fights.
54.
55.
20
21
22
23
through its own acts and omissions, through their own deliberate indifference,
24
25
instruct, and discipline its law enforcement officers and/or employees and
26
agents, including the officers and officials described herein. Plaintiffs further
27
28
17
causing severe injury and/or death to arrestees and inmates there. Plaintiff
notice, have failed to take remedial action to deter such acts by its deputy
7
8
9
10
11
DAMAGES
56.
general damages including pain, fear, anxiety, and terror and related trauma in
an amount according to proof.
57.
12
injuries, and have also incurred and may continue to incur medical treatment and
13
14
58.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
59.
counsel to vindicate their rights under the law. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled
to an award of attorneys fees and/or costs pursuant to statute(s) in the event that
he is the prevailing parties in this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985-86
and 1988. Plaintiffs are also entitled to punitive damages under 42 U.S.C.
23
1983, 1985-86 and 1988.
24
25
26
27
28
18
1
2
3
4
5
Constitution.
10
62.
11
officer would have known that: (1) the u se of force upon the Plaintiff was
12
excessive and could have led to serious injury or death; and (2) punishment and
13
14
15
16
PALIKIKO-GARCIAs injuries.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19
1
2
3
force, punishment, and punitive conditions of confinement under the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution .
67.
officer would have known that: (1) the use of force upon the Plaintiff was
confinement imposed upon the Plaintiff were not rationally related to any
68.
10
and need for medical care after Defendants forced Plaintiff PALIKIKO-
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
PALIKIKO-GARCIAs injuries.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
1
2
3
officer would have known that: (1) the use of force upon the Plaintiff was
confinement imposed upon the Plaintiff were not rationally related to any
75.
10
medical care after Defendants forced Plaintiff HARRIS to engage in this human
11
12
13
14
cockfighting ring.
76.
harm or to punish Plaintiff HARRIS rather than for any other legitimate
government purpose.
77.
15
16
and with conscious disregard to Plaintiff HARRISs rights with the purpose of
causing harm to Plaintiff HARRIS.
17
18
19
20
78.
HARRISs injuries.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
21
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22
24
25
79.
23
26
through 78.
27
28
21
80.
81.
officer would have known that : (1) the use of force upon the Plaintiff was
excessive and could have led to serious injury or death; and (2) punishment and
punitive conditions of confinement imposed upon the Plaintiff was not rationally
10
11
12
13
14
15
that purpose.
82.
HARRISs injuries.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
16
17
18
19
20
21
Defendants
jointly
and
severally
violated
Plaintiff
22
23
24
25
26
27
officer would have known that: (1) the use of force upon the Plaintiff was
28
22
excessive and could have led to serious injury or death; and (2) punishment and
5
6
87.
7
8
RICHARDSONs injuries.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
10
11
12
13
89.
14
90.
Defendants
jointly
and
severally
violated
Plaintiff
15
16
17
18
91.
19
officer would have known that: (1) the use of force upon the Plaintiff was
20
21
confinement imposed upon the Plaintiff were not rationally related to any
22
23
24
25
26
for
medical
care
after
Defendants
attempted
to
force
Plaintiff
27
28
23
93.
harm or to punish Plaintiff RICHARDSON rather than for any other legitimate
government purpose.
94.
7
8
95.
RICHARDSONs injuries.
9
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
10
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(42 U.S.C. 1983-SUPERVISORY LIABILITY)
(Against Defendant MIRKARIMI)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
96.
rights to be free from the use of unreasonable force, punishment, and punitive
conditions of confinement under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments
of the United States Constitution.
98.
Plaintiffs
allege
on
information
and
belief
that
Defendant
19
MIRKARIMI knew or reasonably should have known that their subordinates
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
were engaging in these acts and that their conduct would deprive Plaintiff s of
these rights, and, failed to prevent them from engaging in such conduct.
Alternatively, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant MIRKARIMI acquiesced in
Plaintiffs Constitutional deprivations alleged herein or for conduct that showed
a reckless or callous indifference to the rights of others.
99.
27
28
24
1
2
3
100.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
OF SAN FRANCISCO has not disciplined the staff involved in any of the abovereferenced incidents and other similar incidents, based on the customs, policies,
13
and procedures described in this Complaint.
14
15
103.
16
17
Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments were, upon information and belief,
18
19
20
21
22
23
104.
24
have known that the alleged acts and omissions would likely result in the
25
26
27
105.
Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that these acts and
28
25
1
2
4
5
106.
6
through 105 of this Complaint.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
107.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO concerning the acts of jail staff,
including all individuals identified herein.
108.
Plaintiffs
allege
on
information
and
belief
that
Defendant
14
15
16
17
18
Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that these acts and
19
20
22
23
110.
21
24
25
26
and outrageous.
27
28
26
112.
In
engaging
in
the
above-described
conduct,
Defendants
Defendants conduct.
7
8
113.
9
through 112 of this Complaint.
10
11
12
13
114.
outrageous.
115.
In
engaging
in
the
above-described
conduct,
Defendants
intentionally ignored or recklessly disregarded the forese eable risk that Plaintiff
14
15
conduct.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
119.
and outrageous.
121.
27
28
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
124.
18
of this Complaint.
19
125.
20
bodily harm. Defendants conduct was neither privileged nor justified under statute or
21
common law.
22
23
24
25
26
27
of this Complaint.
28
28
127.
severe bodily harm. Defendants conduct was neither privileged nor justified under statute
or common law.
4
5
7
8
128.
9
10
11
12
129.
13
caused by their acts or omissions to the same extent as a private person. At all
14
15
16
times mentioned herein, Defendant Officers were acting within the course and
scope of their employment and/or agency with Defendants CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. As such DEFENDANTS CITY AND
17
18
injuries caused by the acts and omissions of Defendant officers, and DOES 1-
19
20
130.
21
negligently and without due care, and without cause harassed and forced
22
inmates to fight each other. The treatment of the inmates was unjustified as
23
24
Deputies.
25
26
27
28
29
1
2
3
4
131.
5
FRANCISCO, and/or DOES 1-25 and/or each of them, individually and/or in
6
7
further allege that the acts and/or omissions alleged in the Complaint herein are
10
11
12
13
abuse of police authority, and disregard for the constitutional rights of citizens,
14
15
16
17
18
such as Plaintiffs.
133.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the acts
and/or omissions alleged herein are the proximate results of a custom, policy,
pattern or practice of deliberate indifference by Defendants CITY AND
19
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, NEU, STAEHELY, JONES, CHIBA, DOES
20
21
1-25 and.or each of them, to the repeated violations of the constitutional rights
22
23
included, but are not limited to, repeated acts of : forcing inmates to engage in a
24
25
26
27
28
30
system.
3
134.
Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that
4
5
the acts and/or omissions alleged herein are the proximate result of a custom,
1-25 and/or each of them, to the repeated violations of the constitutional rights
of citizens by the San Francisco Sheriffs Department, which have included, but
10
11
12
135.
Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that
13
the damages sustained as alleged herein were the proximate result of customs,
14
policies and/or practices which included, but were not limited to, the failure to
15
adequately or appropriately hold officers accountable for their miscondu ct, the
16
17
18
19
20
of citizens.
21
136.
22
23
24
25
26
STAEHELY, JONES, CHIBA, DOES 1-25, and or each of them, resulted in the
deprivation of the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs, i ncluding, but not limited
to, the following
27
28
31
1
2
a.
and/or,
3
b.
c.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
JONES, CHIBA, and/or DOES 1-25 and/or each of them, Plaintiffs sustained
11
12
13
14
EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Civil Code 51.7)
(Against All Defendants)
15
16
17
18
138.
19
20
139.
21
22
Plaintiffs are and were readily recognizable as Latino and African -American.
23
24
California Civil Code 51.7. Under 51.7, individuals have a right to be free
25
26
because of race.
27
28
32
140.
are liable fore each violation of California Civil Code 51.7 for punitive
4
5
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
6
JURY DEMAND
7
8
141.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
defendants;
4. For an award of attorneys fees and costs as permitted by law;
5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem necessary and
appropriate.
18
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN BURRIS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
34
Case 3:16-cv-01305-JCS
Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 2
CIVILDocument
COVER1-1
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
JOHN L. BURRIS, Esq., LATEEF H. GRAY, Esq., JAMES A COOK, Esq. LAW
OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS, 7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120, Oakland, CA
94621 (510) 839-5200 (510) 839-3882 fax
Plaintiff
X 3 Federal Question
U.S. Government
San Francisco
DEF
1
U.S. Government
Defendant
4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
REAL PROPERTY
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities
- Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities
- Other
448 Education
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
PRISONER PETITIONS
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
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
BANKRUPTCY
422 Appeal 28 USC 158
423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))
OTHER STATUTES
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
IMMIGRATION
462 Naturalization Application
465 Other Immigration
Actions
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 U.S.C., Section 1983
Brief description of cause:
Violation of Civil Rights
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:
(See instructions):
JUDGE
DOCKET NUMBER
( X) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND
( ) SAN JOSE
( ) EUREKA
Case 3:16-cv-01305-JCS
1-1 Filed 03/16/16 Page 2 of 2
SIGNATURE OFDocument
ATTORNEY OF RECORD
DATE
03/16/2016
/s/John L. Burris
(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.
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.