Christopher Ziemer (Inmate) v. Santa Barbara County Sheriffs Office Et Al Nov2018

Case 2:18-cv-10054-KS Document 1 Filed 11/30/18 Page 1 of 20 Page ID #:1
1 RUSSELL A. BROWN (CA Bar No. 297991)

ROBERT F. LANDHEER (CA Bar No. 101687)
2 LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT F. LANDHEER
924 Anacapa Street, Suite 1-T
3 Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 962-5103
4 Facsimile: (805) 963-2273
E-Mail: robertlandheer@gmail.com
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff David Christopher Ziemer
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9 DAVID CHRISTOPHER ZIEMER, an ) Case No.

individual, )
10 ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Plaintiff, )
11 ) 1. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (8th and
vs. ) 14th Amendment – Cruel and
12 ) Unusual Punishment)
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, )
13 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY ) 2. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims -
SHERIFF’S OFFICE, SHERIFF BILL ) Municipal Defendant Liability
14 BROWN, an official and an individual, )
CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL ) 3. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 -
15 GROUP, INC., CORRECTIONAL ) Supervisory Liability
MEDICAL GROUP COMPANIES, INC. )
16 and DOES 1-10, and 11-20, inclusive. ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
)
17 )
Defendants. )
18 )
__________________________________ )
19 _
20 1
21 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
22
1 INTRODUCTION
2 1. This is a complaint for money damages by Plaintiff, arising under 42 U.S.C.
3 §§ 1983 and 1988. Plaintiff seeks redress for deprivation of his rights, privileges
4 and immunities, secured by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
5 States Constitution.
6 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7 2. Subject matter jurisdiction for this action is conferred upon this Court
8 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343, as it arises under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
9 3. The acts complained of arose in the Central District of California.
10 Therefore, venue properly lies here pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Venue in this
11 Court is also proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1), in that one or more
12 Defendants resides in, or has its principal place of business in, the Central District
13 of California.
14 PARTIES
15 4. Plaintiff DAVID CHRISTOPHER ZIEMER (“ZIEMER”), at all relevant
16 times, was a resident of Santa Barbara County, California.
17 5. At all relevant times, Defendant COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA,
18 (“COUNTY”) was, and is, a public entity authorized by law to establish certain
19 departments, responsible for enforcing the laws and protecting the welfare of the
20 2
22
1 citizens of the County of Santa Barbara. At all relevant times, Defendant COUNTY
2 was, and is, ultimately responsible for overseeing the operation, management, and
3 supervision of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office. Defendant COUNTY is
4 liable for the negligent and reckless acts of Defendant DOES 1-10, as well as other
5 personnel employed at the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office and Santa Barbara County
6 Jail.
7 6. At all relevant times, Defendant SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
8 SHERIFF’S OFFICE (“SBSO”) was, and is, a public entity responsible for
9 providing inmate custody services for Defendant COUNTY.
10 7. At all relevant times, Defendant SBSO was, and is, the duly authorized law
11 enforcement agency in and for the County of Santa Barbara, California, and was,
12 and is, responsible for overseeing the operation, management, and supervision of
13 the SBSO employees who work at the Santa Barbara County Jail in Santa Barbara
14 County, California, and is liable for the negligent and reckless acts of all employees,
15 personnel, and entities, including, but not limited to, Defendants DOES 1-10,
16 inclusive.
17 8. At all relevant times, Defendant SHERIFF BILL BROWN, (“BROWN”),
18 was the police chief of Defendant COUNTY, and was responsible for supervising,
19 operating, and managing SBSO, and was further responsible for the policies,
20 3
22
1 customs, and procedures used at SBSO and the Santa Barbara County Jail. He is
2 being sued in his individual and official capacities.
3 9. At all relevant times, Defendant Deputy DOES 1-10 were, and are, natural
4 persons, residing in the Central District of California, acting as a duly appointed
5 sheriff deputies employed by Defendant SBSO at the Santa Barbara County Jail,
6 which is located in the Central District of California.
7 10. Upon information and belief, Defendants DOES 1-10 were each responsible
8 for the injuries and damages to Plaintiff alleged herein. The true names and
9 identities of Defendants DOES 1-10 are presently unknown to Plaintiff. At all
10 relevant times DOES 1-10 were acting in the course and scope of their employment
11 with SBSO and under color of the law.
12 11. At all relevant times, CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC.
13 (“CFMG”) was, and is, a corporation incorporated in the state of California with a
14 business address in San Diego, California. Upon information and belief, CFMG was
15 responsible for the injuries and damages to Plaintiff alleged herein. Upon
16 information and belief, CMFG was contracted with SBSO to provide medical
17 services to Plaintiff and other inmates in the Santa Barbara County Jail, failed to
18 provide care to Plaintiff, and did so with conscious disregard to Plaintiff’s health,
19 thereby causing Plaintiff’s injuries.
20 4
22
1 12. At all relevant times, CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL GROUP
2 COMPANIES, INC. (“CMG”) was, and is, a corporation incorporated in the State
3 of Delaware with a business address in San Diego. Upon information and belief,
4 CMG was responsible for the injuries and damages to Plaintiff alleged herein. Upon
5 information and belief, CMG was contracted with SBSO to provide medical
6 services to Plaintiff and other inmates in the Santa Barbara County Jail, failed to
7 provide care to Plaintiff, and did so with conscious disregard to Plaintiff’s health,
8 thereby causing Plaintiff’s injuries.
9 13. Upon information and belief, DOES 11-20 were and are natural persons
10 residing in the Central District of California. At all relevant times, DOES 11-20
11 were employees of Defendants CFMG and CMG and were acting in the course and
12 scope of their employment with CFMG and/or CMG.
13 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
14 14. This action is brought under Title 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1988, and the Eighth
15 and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and pursuant to the
16 general laws of the United States.
17 15. Plaintiff alleges that, while in the custody of Defendant SBSO, DOES 1-10,
18 CFMG, CMG, and DOES 11-20, refused to provide Plaintiff with medical care, and
19
20 5
22
1 provided inadequate medical care, thereby causing a significant portion of
2 Plaintiff’s right foot to rot away.
3 16. Defendant DOES 1-10 are being sued in their individual capacities. At the
4 time of the acts complained, Defendant DOES 1-10 were duly appointed SBSO
5 deputies employed as such by Defendant COUNTY. At the time of the acts
6 hereinafter complained of, Defendant DOES 1-10 acted in the course and scope of
7 such employment and acted under color of law.
8 17. At all relevant times, Defendants COUNTY, SBSO, and BROWN were
9 ultimately responsible for the hiring, training, supervision, and discipline of
10 Defendant DOES 1-10, CFMG, CMG, and DOES 11-20, and were responsible for
11 violation of Plaintiff’s rights.
12 18. At all relevant times, Defendants COUNTY, SBSO, and BROWN were
13 responsible for the administration of the Santa Barbara County Jail, including
14 ensuring that medical care is provided to inmates in custody as required under the
15 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Further, these Defendants were responsible
16 for maintaining, cleaning, and repairing the Santa Barbara County Jail in a status
17 such that incarceration therein does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
18 19. As described hereinafter, Defendants acted with deliberate indifference and
19 conscious disregard for Plaintiff in denying medical care to Plaintiff.
20 6
22
1 20. At all relevant times, each Defendant was individually and jointly engaged
2 in tortious activity, resulting in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights
3 and other harm.
4 21. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each Defendant sued herein was
5 responsible in some manner for the events as hereinafter described, and proximately
6 caused injuries and damages to Plaintiff.
7 22. Upon information and belief, Defendants DOES 1-10 were each responsible
8 in some manner for the injuries and damages alleged herein. The true names and
9 identities of Defendants DOES 1-10 are presently unknown to Plaintiff. At all
10 relevant times, Defendants DOES 1-10 were employees and/or agents of COUNTY
11 and/or SBSO. Defendant DOES 1-10 include, inter alia, COUNTY and/or SBSO
12 deputies or supervising employees and/or agents who were involved in any manner
13 in the incidents and legal claims for relief alleged in this Complaint. Plaintiff will
14 amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when they are
15 ascertained.
16 23. At all relevant times, Defendants CFMG and CMG were health care
17 providers legally and contractually responsible for providing health care services to
18 Plaintiff. Upon information and belief, CFMG and CMG were contracted by
19 Defendant SBSO to provide health care for inmates at the Santa Barbara County
20 7
22
1 Jail. Defendants CFMG and CMG acted with conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s
2 health and denied medical care or provided inadequate medical care, thereby
3 causing Plaintiff’s injuries.
4 24. Upon information and belief, Defendants DOES 11-20 were each
5 responsible in some manner for the injuries and damages alleged herein. The true
6 names and identities of Defendants DOES 11-20 are presently unknown to Plaintiff.
7 At all relevant times, Defendants DOES 11-20 were employees and/or agents of
8 COUNTY and/or SBSO. Defendant DOES 11-20 include, inter alia, CFMG and/or
9 CMG employees or supervising employees and/or agents who were involved in any
10 manner in the incidents and legal claims for relief alleged in this Complaint.
11 Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when
12 they are ascertained.
13 25. Plaintiff ZIEMER is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that each
14 Defendant DOE herein is in some manner responsible for the injuries and damages
15 suffered by him.
16 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
17 26. On October 20, 2017, at approximately 9:56 a.m., DAVID CHRISTOPHER
18 ZIEMER was arrested by Santa Barbara County Sheriff deputies Bertuzzi and
19
20 8
22
1 Brittingham. Deputy Bertuzzi transported Ziemer to the jail where he was booked
2 at approximately 10:25 a.m.
3 27. Ziemer was healthy when he entered the jail. He was not suffering from any
4 maladies or infections. While in jail, Ziemer developed severe pain in his right foot.
5 Staff at Cottage Hospital later determined that the cause of that pain was a foreign
6 body inside Ziemer’s foot.
7 28. Ziemer was initially examined by jail medical staff when he entered jail on
8 October 20, 2017. Ziemer was observed by jail medical staff, employees of CFMG
9 and CMG, every day or almost every day from October 20 through October 30.
10 Most days Ziemer was observed by jail medical staff multiple times.
11 29. As soon as the pain began, Ziemer complained of this pain to Sheriff
12 deputies and requested medical treatment in writing using a “kite.” The pain in
13 Ziemer’s right foot became increasingly painful and he repeatedly asked deputies
14 for immediate medical treatment. Ziemer complained several times each day. He
15 attempted to ask for medical treatment every time deputies passed by his cell. Other
16 inmates also complained to deputies of Ziemer’s medical condition.
17 30. On October 25, 2017, Ziemer complained to jail medical staff that his feet
18 were hurting. That same day Ziemer was placed on medical observation. On
19 October 27, 2018, Ziemer told jail medical staff that he could not walk due to his
20 9
22
1 foot. On October 27, 2018, Ziemer began receiving medical treatment for his foot.
2 On October 28, 2017, jail medical staff did not give Ziemer medical treatment.
3 31. By October 29, 2017, Ziemer’s foot smelled rotten and was emitting a
4 discharge. On October 30, 2017, Ziemer was taken to the emergency room at
5 Cottage Hospital.
6 32. The resident doctor at Cottage Hospital examined Ziemer and determined
7 that he had a fever caused by a bad infection in his right foot. Ziemer underwent
8 immediate emergency surgery to remove rotten and gangrenous portions of his right
9 foot. This surgery was necessary to prevent amputation and death to Ziemer. Ziemer
10 was returned to jail several days later with antibiotics and instructions to the jail
11 medical staff regarding cleaning and dressing the infection.
12 33. The doctor recommended that Ziemer be on a wound vac machine in order
13 to prevent further infection. However, Ziemer did not receive wound vac machine
14 treatment when he was returned to the Santa Barbara County Jail.
15 34. Wound cultures from Ziemer’s operation showed that his right foot
16 contained Klebsiella, MSSA, and Streptococcus.
17 35. Upon information and belief, the cleanliness of the jail contributed to
18 Ziemer’s injuries. First, a small, sharp foreign body from the jail entered Ziemer’s
19 foot and became lodged therein, thereby causing Ziemer’s wound. Second,
20 10
22
1 Ziemer’s foot was infected as a result of unclean conditions at the jail. The unclean
2 conditions affected Ziemer prior to and after his emergency hospitalization on
3 October 30, 2017.
4 36. On or about November 7, 2017, Ziemer was released from jail. Ziemer’s
5 release was pursuant to a plea deal that gave him credit for time served. Ziemer was
6 forced to enter a plea deal in order to be released from jail and receive adequate
7 medical treatment.
8 37. Ziemer had been using a wheelchair inside the jail because he could not
9 walk. CFMG employees issued an order that Ziemer be permitted to use the
10 wheelchair from November 7, 2017 through December 4, 2017. However, deputies
11 demanded that Ziemer get out of the wheelchair and walk to the jail exit. Ziemer
12 was released around midnight on November 7, 2017 without the wheelchair or other
13 means of ambulation.
14 38. Due to his foot injury, Ziemer was hospitalized for several months following
15 his release from jail. His mobility is limited and he cannot walk without the use of
16 a cane, walker, or wheelchair.
17 39. While in jail, Ziemer endured pain and suffering from the infection in his
18 right foot. Ziemer’s job involved physical labor. He can no longer perform this work
19
20 11
22
1 due to his injury. Further, it has affected his ability to participate in recreational and
2 every day activities.
3 40. Ziemer continues to undergo physical therapy and medical treatment for his
4 injured foot. His mobility is forever limited due to the injuries he received in jail.
5 41. Upon information and belief, there is a pattern of inmates being denied
6 medical treatment and being provided inadequate medical treatment by Defendants.
7 42. Upon information and belief, the Santa Barbara County Jail has repeatedly
8 failed to provide care, or provided inadequate care to inmates. Defendants
9 COUNTY, SBSO, and BROWN are ultimately responsible for this failure to
10 provide care. Further, defendants COUNTY, SBSO, and BROWN are aware of this
11 failure to provide care and have taken no steps to remediate this failure. The failure
12 to remediate this problem, which can and has resulted in great bodily injury to
13 inmates, is evidence of Defendants’ conscious disregard and callous indifference to
14 the health of inmates.
15 43. Upon information and belief, Defendants CMFG and CMG have a pattern
16 of failing to provide care, or provided inadequate care to inmates. Defendants
17 CMFG and CMG are ultimately responsible for this failure to provide care. Further,
18 defendants CFMG and CMG are aware of this failure to provide care and have taken
19 no steps to remediate this failure. The failure to remediate this problem, which can
20 12
22
1 and has resulted in great bodily injury to inmates, is evidence of Defendants’
2 conscious disregard and callous indifference to the health of inmates.
3 44. Upon information and belief, Defendants CMFG and CMG have a pattern
4 and practice of denying medical care to inmates or providing inadequate care. The
5 practice and policy of Defendants to deny medical care or provide inadequate
6 medical care is undertaken in an effort to keep costs low and thereby increase
7 corporate profits.
8 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
9 Violation of Civil Rights: Cruel and Unusual Punishment
10 (42 U.S.C. § 1983/8th and 14th Amendments)
11 45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in
12 the foregoing paragraphs, as though set forth herein verbatim.
13 46. Plaintiff brings this cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as against
14 Defendants.
15 47. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, the United States
16 Constitution, and common law principles. By engaging in the conduct described
17 hereinabove, Defendants violated Plaintiff’s civil rights, afforded to him under the
18 United States Constitution, including his right to be free from cruel and unusual
19 punishment protected under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
20 13
22
1 48. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's wrongful conduct described
2 hereinabove, Plaintiff suffered physical and emotional injuries.
3 49. Plaintiff has suffered special and general damages as allowable under federal
4 law in an amount to be proven at trial. These injuries and damages are ongoing.
5 50. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that by engaging in
6 the conduct alleged herein, Defendants acted with the intent to harm Plaintiff,
7 and/or conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and thereby subjected
8 Plaintiff to cruel and unusual punishment.
9 51. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff ZIEMER seeks exemplary and punitive
10 damages against Defendants.
11 52. Further, as a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff seeks an award of reasonable
12 attorneys’ fees and costs according to proof, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.
13 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
14 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims (Municipal Liability Claims -
15 Deliberate Indifference and Failure to Supervise, Train and Hire)
18 54. Plaintiff brings this cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as against
19 Defendants.
20 14
22
1 55. Defendants’ violations of Plaintiff’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment
2 rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, as set forth herein, were the
3 direct and proximate results of Defendants maintaining longstanding customs,
4 policies, practices, and/or procedures which tolerate and condone Defendant DOES
5 violations, set forth herein.
6 56. These longstanding customs, policies, practices, and/or procedures, include,
7 but are not limited to, Defendants’ standard operating procedures as well as
8 accepted practices.
9 57. Said customs, policies, practices, and/or procedures include, inter alia: an
10 ongoing pattern of condoning and having a deliberate indifference towards citizens’
11 constitutional rights in connection with the following acts committed by SBSO
12 officers: (1) conscious disregard for inmates’ health; (2) failure to provide medical
13 treatment; (3) the public denial or minimization of rampant problems of failure to
14 provide medical care at the Santa Barbara County Jail; (4) release of inmates that
15 places them in a position of peril.
16 58. The above described customs, policies, practices, and/or procedures
17 demonstrate a deliberate indifference and conscious disregard of Defendants to the
18 constitutional rights of inmates within Santa Barbara County Jail and were a cause
19 of the violations of Plaintiff’s rights alleged herein.
20 15
22
1 59. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendants
2 knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that SBSO deputies,
3 and CFMG and CMG employees, including DOES, were engaging in the conduct
4 described hereinabove.
6 knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that SBSO deputies
7 and CFMG and CMG employees, including Defendant DOES, had a history,
8 propensity, pattern, and practice of adhering to the unlawful and unconstitutional
9 actions described herein and above.
11 have customs, policies, or practices which condone and/or ignore misconduct of
12 DOES and fail to impose discipline. As a result, the custom, practice, or policy
13 results in the retention of employees such as DOES who have a propensity to cause
14 constitutional violations. This failure to discipline condones, ratifies, promotes, and
15 perpetuates misconduct and was a moving force behind the violations of Plaintiff’s
16 constitutional rights.
18 expressly or tacitly encouraged, ratified, and/or approved of the acts and/or
19
20 16
22
1 omissions alleged herein, and knew that such conduct was unjustified and would
2 result in violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
3 63. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff was subjected to physical and
4 emotional injuries that were a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ failure to
5 maintain customs, policies, practices, or procedures designed to protect the
6 constitutional rights of inmates.
7 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
8 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Supervisory Liability)
11 65. This Count arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A supervisor may be individually
12 liable if there exists a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s
13 wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. Supervisory liability exists even
14 without overt personal participation in the offensive act, if supervisory officials
15 implement a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of
16 constitutional rights and is the moving force of the constitutional violation.
17 66. On information and belief, Defendants are responsible for making and
18 maintaining the policies and practices of Defendants SBSO and/or CFMG and
19 CMG. Defendants are responsible for ensuring that that policies and procedures
20 17
22
1 are in place to provide medical care to inmates and to address and remediate any
2 failure to do so.
3 67. On information and belief, Defendants are aware that the current policy and
4 procedure for providing medical care to inmates is insufficient, and that there is no
5 policy or procedure for remediating the failure to provide care. On information and
6 belief, Defendants have taken no measures to remediate the failure to provide
7 medical care. On information and belief, Defendants maintain a policy and practice
8 of denying medical care to inmates. On information and belief, Defendants are
9 aware of prior citizen complaints and lawsuits filed alleging cruel and unusual
10 punishment and have taken no measures to implement any policy or procedure to
11 ensure that said complaints are adequately and independently investigated or that
12 deputies and employees who deny medical care are disciplined or retrained. The
13 policies, customs, and practices created and maintained by Defendants are relied on
14 by DOES, who believe that they are permitted to deny medical care or provide
15 inadequate care.
16 68. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, including emotional distress,
17 punitive damages, attorney fees, and costs.
18
19
20 18
22
1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
2 Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of
3 them, on each and every cause of action as follows:
4 1. For general damages according to proof at trial;
5 2. For special damages according to proof at trial;
6 3. For an award of punitive damages against the Defendants;
7 4. For declaratory and injunctive relief;
8 5. For attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, or under any other
9 applicable statutes or law;
10 6. For an award of Plaintiff’s costs of suit incurred herein;
11 7. For an award of any applicable statutory penalties;
12 8. For an award of any applicable interest amounts; and
13 9. For any other relief the Court deems appropriate.
14
15 Respectfully submitted,
16 Dated: November 30, 2018 LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT LANDHEER
17
18 By: /s/
RUSSELL A. BROWN
19 Attorney for Plaintiff DAVID ZIEMER
20 19
22
1
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2
Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial.
3
Dated: November 30, 2018 LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT LANDHEER
4
5 By: /s/
RUSSELL A. BROWN
6 Attorney for Plaintiff DAVID ZIEMER
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 20
22

Christopher Ziemer (Inmate) v. Santa Barbara County Sheriffs Office Et Al Nov2018

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

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

Christopher Ziemer (Inmate) v. Santa Barbara County Sheriffs Office Et Al Nov2018

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 2:18-cv-10054-KS Document 1 Filed 11/30/18 Page 1 of 20 Page ID #:1

1 RUSSELL A. BROWN (CA Bar No. 297991)

9 DAVID CHRISTOPHER ZIEMER, an ) Case No.

21 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 1. This is a complaint for money damages by Plaintiff, arising under 42 U.S.C.

6 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343, as it arises under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

9 3. The acts complained of arose in the Central District of California.

11 Court is also proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1), in that one or more

15 4. Plaintiff DAVID CHRISTOPHER ZIEMER (“ZIEMER”), at all relevant

16 times, was a resident of Santa Barbara County, California.

17 5. At all relevant times, Defendant COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA,

21 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

3 supervision of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office. Defendant COUNTY is

7 6. At all relevant times, Defendant SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

9 providing inmate custody services for Defendant COUNTY.

17 8. At all relevant times, Defendant SHERIFF BILL BROWN, (“BROWN”),

21 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 being sued in his individual and official capacities.

4 persons, residing in the Central District of California, acting as a duly appointed

6 which is located in the Central District of California.

9 identities of Defendants DOES 1-10 are presently unknown to Plaintiff. At all

11 with SBSO and under color of the law.

12 11. At all relevant times, CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, INC.

19 thereby causing Plaintiff’s injuries.

21 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1 12. At all relevant times, CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL GROUP

8 thereby causing Plaintiff’s injuries.

12 scope of their employment with CFMG and/or CMG.

16 general laws of the United States.

21 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1 provided inadequate medical care, thereby causing a significant portion of

2 Plaintiff’s right foot to rot away.

5 deputies employed as such by Defendant COUNTY. At the time of the acts

7 such employment and acted under color of law.

9 ultimately responsible for the hiring, training, supervision, and discipline of

11 violation of Plaintiff’s rights.

18 19. As described hereinafter, Defendants acted with deliberate indifference and

19 conscious disregard for Plaintiff in denying medical care to Plaintiff.

21 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 in tortious activity, resulting in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights

3 and other harm.

6 caused injuries and damages to Plaintiff.

9 identities of Defendants DOES 1-10 are presently unknown to Plaintiff. At all

21 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

3 causing Plaintiff’s injuries.

12 they are ascertained.

17 26. On October 20, 2017, at approximately 9:56 a.m., DAVID CHRISTOPHER

21 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 at approximately 10:25 a.m.

6 body inside Ziemer’s foot.

16 inmates also complained to deputies of Ziemer’s medical condition.

21 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

11 medical staff regarding cleaning and dressing the infection.

14 treatment when he was returned to the Santa Barbara County Jail.

16 contained Klebsiella, MSSA, and Streptococcus.

21 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 conditions affected Ziemer prior to and after his emergency hospitalization on

3 October 30, 2017.

10 wheelchair from November 7, 2017 through December 4, 2017. However, deputies

16 a cane, walker, or wheelchair.

21 COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 every day activities.