Miguel Angel Llamas Vs City of Long Beach

Case 2:16-cv-04341-AB-SS Document 1 Filed 06/16/16 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:1
HUMBERTO GUIZAR, Esq. SBN: 125769

LAW OFFICES OF HUMBERTO GUIZAR
2 3500 W. Beverly Blvd.
Montebello, CA 90640
3 Telephone: (323) 725-1151
Facsimile: (323) 597-0101
4 Email: herito@aol.com
1
PATRICK McINTYRE, Esq. (SBN: 272042)

LAW OFFICES OF PATRICK McINTYRE
468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200
7 Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone: (323) 834-2542
8 Fax: (310) 851-9374
Email: Patrick@McIntyreLegal.com
6
9
10
Attorneys For Plaintiff,

MIGUEL ANGEL LLAMAS
11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
MIGUEL ANGEL LLAMAS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CITY OF LONG BEACH, DAVID
)
DOUGHERTY, DAVID T. OKERMAN, )
DANIEL VISSER, ERIC HUBBARD, )
CONRAD PENN, JACOB DILLON,
)
EDUARDO SALDANA and DOES 1
)
THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE.
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________ )
CASE NO:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
1.Unreasonable Search and
Seizure-Detention and Arrest (42
U.S.C. 1983)
2.Unreasonable Search and
Seizure-Excessive Force and Denial
of Medical Care (42 U.S.C. 1983)
3. Municipal Liability for
Unconstitutional Custom, Practice,
or Policy (42 U.S.C. 1983)
23
PENDENT STATE-LAW
CLAIMS
24
4. Assault and battery

5. Negligence
25
26
27
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW PLAINTIFF MIGUEL ANGEL LLAMAS and alleges as
2
3
follows:
I.
VENUE AND JURISDICTION
1.
This action is brought pursuant 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is founded
on 29 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343(1), (2), (3) and (4), and the aforementioned statutory
and Constitutional provisions.
10
2.
Venue is proper in the Central District of California. The injury occurred in
11
the CITY OF LONG BEACH, California. Plaintiff filed a timely claim against the
12
Defendants for the State Causes of action, which was rejected by the Defendants.
13
Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies under the California Government
14
Code.
II.
15
16
PARTIES
17
At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff MIGUEL ANGEL LLAMAS is and was
18
a resident of the CITY OF LONG BEACH, California.
19
3.
20
(hereinafter referred to as CITY) was a public entity duly organized and existing
21
under and by virtue of the laws of the state of California.
22
4.
23
OKERMAN, DANIEL VISSER, ERIC HUBBARD, CONRAD PENN, JACOB
24
DILLON, EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5, were
25
residents of the CITY, and were police officers, captains, lieutenants, commanders
26
and/or civilian employees, agents and representatives of the CITY Police Department
27
and employees, agents and representatives of the CITY. At all times relevant hereto,
At all times mentioned herein, defendants CITY OF LONG BEACH,
At all times relevant herein, defendants, DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T.
PLAINTIFFS COM PLAINT FOR DAM AGES
-2-
said defendants were acting within the course and scope of their employment as
OFFICERS, sergeants, captains, and/or civilian employees of the CITY Police
Department, a department and subdivision of defendant CITY. Each said defendant
is sued in his or her official capacity and in his or her personal capacity.
5.
true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as DOE defendants 1 through
PLAINTIFF will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when
ascertained. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of
10
the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences
11
herein alleged, and that PLAINTIFFs injuries as herein alleged were proximately
12
caused by the acts and/or omissions of said fictitiously named defendants.
13
6.
14
15
DILLON, EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5, inclusive, and
16
each of them, were acting under color of law, to wit, under the color of the statutes,
17
ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, practices and usages of defendant CITY,
18
its Police Department, and the State of California.
19
7.
20
supervisors and policy makers for the CITY Police Department.
Plaintiff, MIGUEL ANGEL LLAMAS, (also PLAINTIFF) is ignorant of the
inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names.
At all times relevant herein, defendants, DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T.
At all times relevant herein, defendants DOES 6 through 10, inclusive, were
21
III.
22
FACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTIONS
23
8.
On or about March 11, 2015 at approximately 9:30 a.m., Plaintiff MIGUEL
24
ANGEL LLAMAS was lawfully on the premises of a neighbors home located at 5333
25
Long Beach Boulevard, Space 42, Long Beach, California. Plaintiff is a 67 year old
26
male, insulin dependent diabetic, and he requires dialysis treatments to live. In fact,
27
at the time of the incident that is the subject of this lawsuit Plaintiff had tubing for
-3-
dialysis treatments affixed to his arms.
9.
As Mr. Llamas was in the process of injecting his insulin he was
brutally attacked by Long Beach Police Officers, defendants, DAVID
DOUGHERTY, DAVID T. OKERMAN, DANIEL VISSER, ERIC HUBBARD,
CONRAD PENN, JACOB DILLON, EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS
1 Through 5. Said defendants attacked Plaintiff wrongfully believing he was injecting
heroin. Two of these aforementioned defendants, approached Plaintiff with their hand
guns drawn on Plaintiff, as they gave Plaintiff commands to move to the side. One of
the aforementioned defendants then grabbed Plaintiff by the arms and proceeded to
10
yank and pull on Plaintiff by the arms in an extremely forceful and violent manner.
11
The unreasonable and unnecessary yanking and pulling of Plaintiffs arms caused
12
Plaintiffs medical tubing to become disconnected, causing Plaintiff to suffer severe
13
pain and visible bleeding. One of the other defendants then slammed plaintiff up
14
against a wall causing Plaintiff to strike his head.
15
10.
16
defendants to be careful with him and asked them why they were treating him in such
17
a violent manner. One of the other defendants then kicked Plaintiffs leg and grabbed
18
one of his Plaintiffs arms and forcibly placed handcuffs on Plaintiff.
19
11.
20
Plaintiff was then placed in a Long Beach Patrol car for approximately 15 minutes.
21
Thereafter, Plaintiff was released. Plaintiff was never charged with any crime
22
whatsoever by any of the defendant officers. Despite the fact Plaintiff was visibly
23
bleeding in defendants presence none of the defendants provided or offered to
24
provide Plaintiff with medical care. Also, none of the defendants called for a rescue
25
ambulance or any other medical personnel for assistance. Defendant officers then left
26
the location of the incident and failed to apologize or explain their actions.
27
///
As these aforementioned violent events occurred Plaintiff pled to the
Plaintiff immediately informed all defendants that he felt immediate pain.
-4-
12. Said use of brutal violent force by Defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID
T. OKERMAN, DANIEL VISSER, ERIC HUBBARD, CONRAD PENN, JACOB
DILLON, EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5 against
Plaintiff was extreme and unnecessary excessive force, which caused Plaintiff to
sustain the injuries described above. Said detention, and physical assault on Plaintiff
was intentional, without any legitimate law enforcement purpose and done in
deliberate indifference to Plaintiff s Constitutional rights.
IV.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
10
UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE -DETENTION AND ARREST
11
(42 U.S.C. 1983) (Against Defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T.
12
OKERMAN, DANIEL VISSER, ERIC HUBBARD, CONRAD PENN,
13
JACOB DILLON, EDUARDO SALDANA,
14
and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5)
15
13.
Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1
16
through 12 of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth
17
herein.
18
14.
19
VISSER, ERIC HUBBARD, CONRAD PENN, JACOB DILLON, EDUARDO
20
SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5 detained and mistreated Plaintiff in
21
violation of his rights to be secure in her person against unreasonable searches and
22
seizures as guaranteed to the Plaintiff under the Fourth Amendment to the United
23
States Constitution and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment.
24
15.
25
DANIEL VISSER, ERIC HUBBARD, CONRAD PENN, JACOB DILLON,
26
EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5 deprived Plaintiff of
27
his rights to be free from state actions that shock the conscience under the Fourteenth
Defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T. OKERMAN, DANIEL
The actions of Defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T. OKERMAN,
-5-
Amendment's Due Process Clause.
16.
EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5 was willful, wanton,
malicious and done with an evil motive and intent and with a reckless disregard for
the rights and safety of Plaintiff and therefore warrants the imposition of exemplary
and punitive damages against each individual defendant.
17.
The conduct of Defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T. OKERMAN,
Accordingly, Defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T. OKERMAN,
10
EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5 are liable to Plaintiff for
11
compensatory and punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
12
V.
13
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
14
UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE -EXCESSIVE FORCE AND
15
DENIAL OF MEDICAL CARE (42 U.S.C. 1983) (Against Defendants
16
DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T.OKERMAN, DANIEL VISSER, ERIC
17
HUBBARD, CONRAD PENN, JACOB DILLON,
18
EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5)
19
18.
20
21
herein.
22
19.
23
DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T. OKERMAN, DANIEL VISSER, ERIC
24
HUBBARD, CONRAD PENN, JACOB DILLON, EDUARDO SALDANA, and
25
DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5, deprived Plaintiff of his right to be secure in his
26
person against unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed to Plaintiff under the
27
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and applied to state actors by
The unjustified detention and violent assaults on Plaintiff by Defendants
-6-
the Fourteenth Amendment.
20.
T. OKERMAN, DANIEL VISSER, ERIC HUBBARD, CONRAD PENN, JACOB
DILLON, EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5 deprived
Plaintiff of his rights to be free from state actions that shock the conscience under the
Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
21.
that were caused by defendants deprived Plaintiff of his right to be secure in his
person against unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed to Plaintiff under the
10
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and applied to state actors by
11
the Fourteenth Amendment.
12
22.
13
14
DILLON, EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5, they are each
15
liable for Plaintiff's injuries, because all of the aforementioned defendants were
16
integral participants, as they all they failed to intervene to prevent these violations.
17
In addition, the defendants listed above are further liable for failing to intervene while
18
plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights were being violated. Said defendants are liable
19
under this cause of action because; (1) these defendant officers, had a realistic
20
opportunity to intervene and prevent the harm, (2) a reasonable person in the
21
defendant officers' position would have known that the plaintiff's constitutional rights
22
were being violated, and (3) the defendant officers did not take reasonable steps to
23
intervene.
24
23.
25
26
EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5, was willful, wanton,
27
malicious and done with an evil motive and intent and a reckless disregard for the
These aforementioned actions of Defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID
The defendants failure to provide Plaintiff with medical care for his injuries
As a result of the conduct of Defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T.
The conduct of Defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T. OKERMAN,
-7-
rights and safety of PLAINTIFF, and therefore warrants the imposition of exemplary
and punitive damages as to Defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T.
DILLON, EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5.
24.
EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5, are liable to Plaintiff
for compensatory and punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
Accordingly, Defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T. OKERMAN,
VI.
10
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
11
MUNICIPAL LIABILITY FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL CUSTOM,
12
PRACTICE OR POLICY(42 U.S.C. 1983)
13
(Against Defendants CITY OF LONG BEACH
14
and DOES 6 THROUGH-10)
15
25.
16
17
herein.
18
26.
19
date) Defendants CITY and DOES 6-10, deprived Plaintiff of the rights and liberties
20
secured to him by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
21
Constitution, in that said defendants and their supervising and managerial employees,
22
agents, and representatives, acting with gross negligence and with reckless and
23
deliberate indifference to the rights and liberties of the public in general, of
24
PLAINTIFF, and of persons in their class, situation and comparable position in
25
particular, knowingly maintained, enforced and applied an official recognized
26
COUNTY custom, policy, and practice of:
27
On and for some time prior to March 11, 2015 (and continuing to the present
(a)
Employing and retaining as police officers and other personnel,

-8-
including defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T. OKERMAN,
EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5, who Defendants
CITY and DOES 6-10 at all times material herein knew or reasonably should
have known had dangerous propensities for abusing their authority and for
mistreating citizens by failing to follow written CITY Police Department
policies;
(b)
disciplining CITY police officers, and other CITY personnel, including
Of inadequately supervising, training, controlling, assigning, and
10
defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T. OKERMAN, DANIEL
11
12
SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5, who Defendants CITY and
13
DOES 6-10 each knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known
14
had the aforementioned propensities and character traits;
15
(c)
16
investigating, reviewing, disciplining and controlling the intentional
17
misconduct by Defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T. OKERMAN,
18
19
EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5, who are CITY
20
police officers; and,
21
(d)
22
using excessive force, detaining and arresting individuals without probable
23
cause, and covering up police misconduct.
By maintaining grossly inadequate procedures for reporting, supervising,
By having and maintaining an unconstitutional custom and practice of
24
27.
These customs and practices by CITY and DOES 6-10 were done with a
25
deliberate indifference to individuals' safety and rights. By reason of the
26
aforementioned policies and practices of Defendants CITY and DOES 6-10, Plaintiff
27
suffered severe pain and suffering, mental anguish, humiliation, and emotional
-9-
distress.
28.
whether named or unnamed, had either actual or constructive knowledge of the
deficient policies, practices and customs alleged in the paragraphs above. Despite
having knowledge as stated above these defendants condoned, tolerated and through
actions and inactions thereby ratified such policies. Said defendants also acted with
deliberate indifference to the foreseeable effects and consequences of these policies
with respect to the constitutional rights of Plaintiff, and other individuals similarly
situated.
Defendants CITY and DOES 6-10, together with various other officials,
10
29.
By perpetrating, sanctioning, tolerating and ratifying the outrageous conduct
11
and other wrongful acts, Defendants CITY and DOES 6-10 acted with an intentional,
12
reckless, and callous disregard for the well-being of Plaintiffand his constitutional
13
as well as human rights. Defendants CITY and DOES 6-10 and each of their actions
14
were willful, wanton, oppressive, malicious, fraudulent, and extremely offensive and
15
unconscionable to any person of normal sensibilities.
16
30.
17
and still tolerated by Defendants CITY and DOES 6-10 were affirmatively linked to
18
and were a significantly influential force behind the Plaintiffs injuries.
19
31.
20
compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
Furthermore, the policies, practices, and customs implemented and maintained
Accordingly, Defendants CITY and DOES 6-10 each are liable to Plaintiff or
21
VII.
22
FOURTH COUNT/CAUSE OF ACTION
23
ASSAULT AND BATTERY
24
(Against Defendants Defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T.
25
26
27
and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5)

- 10 -
32. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through
31 as though fully set forth herein. As to the following causes of action Plaintiff
herein invokes the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court to hear and determine these
claims.
33.
CONRAD PENN, JACOB DILLON, EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE
OFFICERS 1 Through 5, without just and legal cause, physically attacked the
Plaintiff, as described above, thereby causing Plaintiff fear, apprehension and
At that time and place herein above alleged, Defendants DAVID
10
emotional distress and placed him in immediate fear for his life.
11
34. Said harmful and offensive contact, was intentionally committed by said
12
defendants and was willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive thereby justifying the
13
awarding of exemplary and punitive damages as to each of these individual
14
defendants.
15
35.
16
was the proximate cause of the injuries complained of herein. Defendant CITY is
17
liable under the California Government Code because the actions of Defendants
18
DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T. OKERMAN, DANIEL VISSER, ERIC
19
HUBBARD,
20
DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5 was within the course and scope of their employment
21
with CITY.
Said assault and battery was not consented to by the present Plaintiff and
CONRAD PENN, JACOB DILLON, EDUARDO SALDANA, and
22
23
VIII.
24
FIFTH COUNT/CAUSE OF ACTION
25
NEGLIGENCE
26
(Against Defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T.
27

- 11 -
CITY OF LONG BEACH and DOES 1 THROUGH 10 )
36.
Plaintiff hereby repeats, realleges and incorporates, as though fully set forth
herein, each allegation of paragraphs 1 through 35 above.
37.
2015 Defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T. OKERMAN, DANIEL
SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5, did negligently, violently and
without due care, and without cause or provocation assault, batter and injure
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on March 11,
10
Plaintiff.
11
38.
12
safety of others and constituted an unreasonable, unwarranted, and excessive use of
13
force and manifested an unreasonable risk of injury to Plaintiff.
14
39.
15
and battery.
16
40. Defendants CITY, and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, inclusive, are directly liable
17
and responsible for the acts of Defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T.
18
19
DILLON, EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5, inclusive,
20
because defendants CITY, and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, inclusive, failed to
21
adequately supervise, discipline or in any other way control said defendants exercise
22
of their unlawful use of excessive force.
23
41.
24
responsible for the acts of said Defendants because defendant CITY and supervising
25
OFFICERS repeatedly and knowingly and negligently failed to enforce the laws of
26
the State of California and the regulations of said defendant CITY and its Police
27
Department, thereby creating within the said Police Department an atmosphere of
The assault, and battery occurred as a result of the absence off due care for the
Plaintiff was free of any negligence in the events leading up to the assault
Defendants CITY, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, are directly liable and
- 12 -
lawlessness in which OFFICERS would employ excessive and illegal force and
violence, in the belief that such acts will be condoned and justified by their
supervisors, and said defendant CITY and supervising defendants therefore were or
should have been aware of such unlawful acts and practices prior to and at the time
of the assault and battery of the present PLAINTIFF.
42.
of them, and of the physical injury caused PLAINTIFF, Plaintiff has suffered
extreme and severe mental anguish and pain and has been injured in mind and body
all to Plaintiffs general damage according to proof.
As a proximate result of the acts and omissions of all said defendants and each
10
43.
Defendants CITY, and DOES 6-10, inclusive, were also negligent in failing
11
to provide Defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T. OKERMAN, DANIEL
12
13
SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5, inclusive, the proper and special
14
training necessary for the duties they could foreseeably be expected to perform in the
15
course of their employment in that Defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T.
16
17
DILLON, EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5 inclusive,
18
received inadequate training in the proper use of force and police tactics.
19
44.
20
and tactics training to Defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T. OKERMAN,
21
22
EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5, inclusive, the assault
23
and battery of Plaintiff occurred, thereby causing Plaintiff the losses and injuries
24
herein complained of.
25
45.
26
defendants CITY, and DOES 6-10, inclusive, and their Police Department to
27
adequately and sufficiently train its OFFICERS as to proper police practices.
As a direct and proximate result of this failure to provide adequate use of force
Further, the assault and battery of Plaintiff was a result of failure of the
- 13 -
46.
Defendants CITY, and DOES 6-10, inclusive, also negligently hired and
retained Defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T. OKERMAN, DANIEL
SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5, when it was known or should have
been known by Defendants CITY, DOES 6-10, inclusive, that Defendants DAVID
CONRAD PENN, JACOB DILLON, EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS
1 Through 5 had on prior occasions used excessive force and/or had participated in
the concealment and cover-up of his misconduct.
10
47.
As a result of the lack of due care by Defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY,
11
DAVID T. OKERMAN, DANIEL VISSER, ERIC HUBBARD, CONRAD PENN,
12
JACOB DILLON, EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 10,
13
inclusive, Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer, severe emotional and
14
psychological pain, suffering, anguish, shock, and fear.
15
48.
16
Defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T. OKERMAN, DANIEL VISSER,
17
ERIC HUBBARD, CONRAD PENN, JACOB DILLON, EDUARDO SALDANA,
18
and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5 actions were within the course and scope of their
19
employment with defendant CITY.
Defendant CITY is liable under the California Government Code because
20
IX.
21
PRAYER
22
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, MIGUEL ANGEL LLAMAS demands the following
23
relief, jointly and severally, against all the defendants with respect to the First,
24
Second, Third, and Fourth, Causes of Action:
25
a)
with proof;
26
27
Compensatory general and special damages in an amount in accordance
b)
Exemplary damages, against each of the individual defendant Police

- 14 -
Officer, as spelled out in each cause of action, in an amount sufficient
to deter and to make an example of those defendants;
c)
Reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation as provided for in

42 U.S.C. 1988;
4
5
e)
Costs of suit necessarily incurred herein;
f.
Prejudgment interest, and
g)
Such further relief as the Court deems just or proper.
8
9
Dated: June 14, 2016
LAW OFFICES OF HUMBERTO GUIZAR
10
11
12
By: _____/S/_________________
HUMBERTO GUIZAR
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MIGUEL ANGEL LLAMAS
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
- 15 -
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
2
3
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.

Dated: June 14, 2016
LAW OFFICE OF HUMBERTO GUIZAR
4
5
6
By: _____/S/_________________
HUMBERTO GUIZAR
Attorneys for Plaintiff
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
- 16 -

Miguel Angel Llamas Vs City of Long Beach

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Miguel Angel Llamas Vs City of Long Beach

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Case 2:16-cv-04341-AB-SS Document 1 Filed 06/16/16 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:1

HUMBERTO GUIZAR, Esq. SBN: 125769

PATRICK McINTYRE, Esq. (SBN: 272042)

Attorneys For Plaintiff,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL ANGEL LLAMAS,

4. Assault and battery

Case 2:16-cv-04341-AB-SS Document 1 Filed 06/16/16 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:2

COMES NOW PLAINTIFF MIGUEL ANGEL LLAMAS and alleges as

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is founded

and Constitutional provisions.

Venue is proper in the Central District of California. The injury occurred in

a resident of the CITY OF LONG BEACH, California.

under and by virtue of the laws of the state of California.

OKERMAN, DANIEL VISSER, ERIC HUBBARD, CONRAD PENN, JACOB

DILLON, EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5, were

At all times mentioned herein, defendants CITY OF LONG BEACH,

At all times relevant herein, defendants, DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T.

PLAINTIFFS COM PLAINT FOR DAM AGES

Case 2:16-cv-04341-AB-SS Document 1 Filed 06/16/16 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:3

OFFICERS, sergeants, captains, and/or civilian employees of the CITY Police

Department, a department and subdivision of defendant CITY. Each said defendant

caused by the acts and/or omissions of said fictitiously named defendants.

OKERMAN, DANIEL VISSER, ERIC HUBBARD, CONRAD PENN, JACOB

DILLON, EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5, inclusive, and

ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, practices and usages of defendant CITY,

its Police Department, and the State of California.

supervisors and policy makers for the CITY Police Department.

Plaintiff, MIGUEL ANGEL LLAMAS, (also PLAINTIFF) is ignorant of the

inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names.

At all times relevant herein, defendants, DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL ACTIONS

On or about March 11, 2015 at approximately 9:30 a.m., Plaintiff MIGUEL

Case 2:16-cv-04341-AB-SS Document 1 Filed 06/16/16 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:4

dialysis treatments affixed to his arms.

As Mr. Llamas was in the process of injecting his insulin he was

brutally attacked by Long Beach Police Officers, defendants, DAVID

DOUGHERTY, DAVID T. OKERMAN, DANIEL VISSER, ERIC HUBBARD,

CONRAD PENN, JACOB DILLON, EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS

1 Through 5. Said defendants attacked Plaintiff wrongfully believing he was injecting

Plaintiffs medical tubing to become disconnected, causing Plaintiff to suffer severe

against a wall causing Plaintiff to strike his head.

one of his Plaintiffs arms and forcibly placed handcuffs on Plaintiff.

bleeding in defendants presence none of the defendants provided or offered to

As these aforementioned violent events occurred Plaintiff pled to the

Plaintiff immediately informed all defendants that he felt immediate pain.

PLAINTIFFS COM PLAINT FOR DAM AGES

Case 2:16-cv-04341-AB-SS Document 1 Filed 06/16/16 Page 5 of 16 Page ID #:5

T. OKERMAN, DANIEL VISSER, ERIC HUBBARD, CONRAD PENN, JACOB

DILLON, EDUARDO SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5 against

deliberate indifference to Plaintiff s Constitutional rights.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE -DETENTION AND ARREST

(42 U.S.C. 1983) (Against Defendants DAVID DOUGHERTY, DAVID T.

OKERMAN, DANIEL VISSER, ERIC HUBBARD, CONRAD PENN,

JACOB DILLON, EDUARDO SALDANA,

and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5)

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1

VISSER, ERIC HUBBARD, CONRAD PENN, JACOB DILLON, EDUARDO

SALDANA, and DOE OFFICERS 1 Through 5 detained and mistreated Plaintiff in

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