Amedended Complaint

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 55 Filed 05/09/14 Page 1 of 28
1 LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO

Dale K. Galipo, Esq., SBN 144074 | dalekgalipo@yahoo.com
2 Thomas C. Seabaugh, Esq., SBN 272458 | tseabaugh@galipolaw.com
21800 Burbank Boulevard, Suite 310
3 Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (818) 347-3333
4 Facsimile: (818) 347-4118
5 CHAIN COHN STILES
David K Cohn, Esq., SBN 68768 | dcohn@chainlaw.com
6 Neil K. Gehlawat, Esq., SBN 289388 | ngehlawat@chainlaw.com
1430 Truxtun Ave., Suite 100
7 Bakersfield, CA 93301
Telephone: (661) 323-4000
8 Facsimile: (661) 324-1352
9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S.,E.Z.S.,
Merri Silva, and Salvador Silva
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
TARA GARLICK, individually;
Case No.1:13-CV-01051-LJO-JLT
13 M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S.,
minors, by and through their guardian ad FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR DAMAGES
14 litem, Judy Silva, in each case
individually and as successors in interest
1. Fourth AmendmentDetention
and Arrest (42 U.S.C. 1983)
15 to David Silva, deceased; MERRI
SILVA, individually; and SALVADOR
2. Fourth Amendment Excessive
Force (42 U.S.C. 1983)
16 SILVA, individually,
3. Fourth Amendment Denial of
Plaintiffs,
Medical Care (42 U.S.C. 1983)
17
vs.
4. Substantive Due Process (42 U.S.C.
1983)
18
COUNTY OF KERN, a municipality;
5. Municipal Liability for
Unconstitutional Custom, Practice,
19 DONNY YOUNGBLOOD, an
individual; DOUGLAS SWORD, an
or Policy (42 U.S.C. 1983)
6. Civil Conspiracy Interference
20 individual; RYAN GREER, an
individual; TANNER MILLER, an
With Civil Rights (42 U.S.C.
1985)
21 individual; JEFFREY KELLY, an
individual; LUIS ALMANZA, an
7. Civil Conspiracy Witness
Intimidation, Spoliation of
22 individual; BRIAN BROCK, an
individual; DAVID STEPHENS, an
Evidence, Obstruction of Justice
(42 U.S.C. 1985)
23 individual; MICHAEL PHILLIPS, an
individual, MICHAEL BRIGHT, an
8. False Arrest/ False Imprisonment
9. Battery (Wrongful Death)
24 individual; DOES 1-10, inclusive; and
J.S., a nominal defendant;
10.Negligence (Wrongful Death)
11.Violation of Cal. Civil Code 52.1
25
Defendants.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
26
27
28
-1-
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S., minors, by and through their guardian ad
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
17 officers featured prominently on national and international news. One remarkable

18 feature of the case is that one or more eyewitnesses called 9-1-1 to report the beating
19 while it was in progress. The eyewitnesses begged for someone to stop the beating
20 and to protect the Decedent. In response instead of taking steps to stop the beating
21 deputies targeted the eyewitnesses for detention, arrest, threats, and bullying. The
22 eyewitnesses were threatened and coerced into turning over their cellphones, which
23 they had used to record the beating. When their cellphones were finally returned,
24 one or more of the videos of the beating had been deleted.
25
3.
This case is in the public interest.
26
27
28
-2-
1
2
PARTIES
4.
At all relevant times, Decedent was an individual residing in the
3 County of Kern, State of California.

4
5.
At all relevant times, Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. were
5 Decedents minor children residing in the County of Kern, State of California.

6 Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. sue both in their individual capacity as
7 the children of Decedent and in representative capacities as successors in interest to
8 Decedent pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 377.60(a).
9
6.
At all relevant times, Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. were
10 dependent on Decedent, including financially dependent.

11
7.
At all relevant times, nominal defendant J.S. was Decedents minor
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.
At all relevant times, Defendants Michael Phillips (Phillips) and
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.
At all relevant times, Defendants Douglas Sword (Sword), Ryan
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.
Defendant Donny Youngblood (Youngblood) also proximately
11 caused Decedents and Plaintiffs injuries by integrally participating or failing to

12 intervene in the beating, and by engaging in the other acts and/or omissions
13 described below. At all relevant times, Youngblood was a duly authorized employee
14 and agent of the County and was employed by Defendant County as the Sheriff of
15 the Kern County Sheriffs Department. At all relevant times, Defendant Youngblood
16 was acting under color of law within the scope of his duty as the Sheriff of the Kern
17 County Sheriffs Department and with the complete authority and ratification of his
18 principal, Defendant County.
19
12.
Defendant County of Kern (County) also proximately caused
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.
At all relevant times, each of Defendants Does 1-10, inclusive, was a
6 sheriffs deputy and/ or managerial, supervisorial, and policymaking employee of

7 the Kern County Sheriffs Department, who was acting under color of law within
8 the course and scope of his duties as a sheriffs deputy and/ or managerial,
9 supervisorial, and policymaking employee for the Kern County Sheriffs
10 Department and with the complete authority and ratification of his principal,
11 Defendant County. Defendants Does 1-10 caused Decedents and Plaintiffs
12 injuries by integrally participating or failing to intervene in the beating, and by
13 engaging in other acts and/ or omissions around the time of the beating that resulted
14 in his death.
15
14.
In doing the acts and failing and omitting to act as hereinafter
16 described, Defendants Youngblood, Sword, Greer, Miller, Kelly, Almanza, Brock,

17 Stephens, and Does 1-10 were acting on the implied and actual permission and
18 consent of County.
19
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.
The true names of Defendants Does 1-10, inclusive, are unknown to
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.
On information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendants Phillips,
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.
The Officer Defendants are directly liable for Decedents and
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.
On July 8, 2013 Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. filed
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
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

21.
This civil action is brought for the redress of alleged deprivations of
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.
Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because all
21 incidents, events, and occurrences giving rise to this action occurred in the County
22 of Kern, California.
23
24
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
25
23.
The foregoing allegations are incorporated as if re-alleged herein.
26
24.
At all relevant times, Defendants Sword, Greer, Miller, Kelly,
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
2 color of law and as employees of the California Highway Patrol.

3
26.
On May 7, 2013 at approximately 11:00 p.m., the Decedent was asleep
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.
Phillips or Bright, or both, reported to the scene. At one point, either
7 Phillips or Bright performed a knuckle-rub on Decedents chest, causing the

8 Decedent to wake up.
9
28.
The rest of the Officer Defendants converged on the scene.
10
29.
At all relevant times, the Decedent was unarmed and in medical
11 distress.
12
30.
At all relevant times, the Decedent did not have a weapon or anything
13 that looked like a weapon.

14
31.
The Officer Defendants beat the Decedent to death.
15
32.
While he was being beaten to death, the Decedent cried out in pain and
16 begged for mercy.

17
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.
In the course of the beating, the Officer Defendants caused the
21 Decedent to be restrained, including with the use of handcuffs, hobble restraints, or

22 other restraint devices.
23
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.
The beating of Decedent was captured on cell phone by one or more
28 eyewitnesses.
-7-
37.
Eyewitnesses called 9-1-1 to report the beating.
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
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Fourth AmendmentDetention and Arrest (42 U.S.C. 1983)
(Against All Officer Defendants)
10
39.
11
40.
When the Officer Defendants placed the Decedent in handcuffs, they
12 violated Decedentss right to be secure in his person against unreasonable searches

13 and seizures as guaranteed to Decedent under the Fourth Amendment to the United
14 States Constitution and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment.
15
41.
The Officer Defendants detained Decedent without reasonable
16 suspicion and arrested him without probable cause.

17
42.
As a result of their misconduct, all of the Officer Defendants are liable
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.
The conduct of the Officer Defendants was willful, wanton, malicious,
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.
Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. bring this claim as
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
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Fourth Amendment Excessive Force (42 U.S.C. 1983)
46.
47.
When the Officer Defendants beat the Decedent to death, they
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.
When the Officer Defendants caused the Decedents death by using
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.
The beating was excessive and unreasonable, especially because
19 Decedent was unarmed, the Decedent was outnumbered approximately 10 to 1 by

20 the Officer Defendants, and the Decedent did not pose an imminent threat of death
21 or serious bodily injury to the Officer Defendants or to anyone else.
22
50.
As a result of the conduct of the Officer Defendants, Decedent suffered
23 extreme pain and suffering and eventually suffered a loss of life and of earning
24 capacity.
25
51.
The Officer Defendants beating of Decedent, together with the
26 improper restraint procedures they used, violated their training.

27
28
-9-
52.
2 and done with reckless disregard for the rights and safety of Decedent and therefore
4
53.
As a result of the conduct of the Officer Defendants, Decedent suffered
5 extreme pain and suffering and eventually suffered a loss of life and of earning
6 capacity.
7
54.
Each of the Officer Defendants integrally participated in, or failed to
8 intervene in, the conduct described above.

9
55.
10 successors in interest to Decedent, and seek both survival and wrongful death
12
56.
15
16
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
17
Fourth Amendment Denial of Medical Care (42 U.S.C. 1983)
18
19
57.
20
58.
The denial of medical care for Decedent by the Officer Defendants
21 deprived Decedent of his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable

22 searches and seizures as guaranteed to Decedent under the Fourth Amendment to the
23 United States Constitution and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment.
24
59.
As a result, Decedent suffered extreme pain and suffering and
25 eventually suffered a loss of life and of earning capacity.

26
60.
The Officer Defendants knew that failure to provide timely medical
27 treatment to Decedent could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary

28
-10-
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
6
62.
9
63.
12
13
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
14
Substantive Due Process (42 U.S.C. 1983)
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
10 Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from state

11 actions that deprive him of his right to life, liberty, or property in such a manner as
12 to shock the conscience.
13
70.
The aforementioned actions of the Officer Defendants, along with other
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.
Specifically, the following conduct of the Officer Defendants shocks
18 the conscience:
19
(a)
beating the Decedent to death;
20
(b)
beating the Decedent while he was restrained;
21
(c)
beating the Decedent while Decedent screamed and begged for

mercy;
22
23
(d)
beating the Decedent while he was outnumbered approximately

10 to 1;
24
25
(e)
using improper restraint procedures;
26
(f)
ignoring Decedents medical needs;
27
(g)
causing the Decedent to be attacked with a police dog;
28
-12-
(h)
attempting to cover up the killing of Decedent, including by (1)
giving false statements and reports; (2) bullying, threatening, intimidating,
detaining, arresting, and retaliating against eyewitnesses; and (3) confiscating,
deleting, and destroying a cell phone video taken by an eyewitness; and

(i)
integrally participating in or failing to intervene in the above

misconduct;
6
7
72.
The Officer Defendants acted under color of state law.
73.
The Officer Defendants violated the substantive due process rights of
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.
The Officer Defendants caused Decedents death.
13
75.
As a direct and proximate cause of the acts of the Officer Defendants,
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.
Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. bring this claim
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
2 death damages for the violation of her rights.

3
80.
All plaintiffs also seek attorney fees under this claim. Plaintiffs are
4 claiming funeral and burial expenses and a loss of financial support.

5
6
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Municipal Liability for Unconstitutional Custom or Policy (42 U.S.C. 1983)
(Against Defendants County, Youngblood, and Does 1-10)
81.
10
82.
On information and belief, the County, Youngblood, and Does 1-10,
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.
On information and belief, County, Youngblood, and Does 1-10,
14 together with other County supervisors, ratified the conduct of Sword, Greer, Miller,
15 Kelly, Almanza, Brock, and Stephens.
16
84.
On information and belief, Sword, Greer, Miller, Kelly, Almanza,
17 Brock, and Stephens were not disciplined, reprimanded, retrained, suspended, or

18 otherwise penalized in connection with Decedents death.
19
85.
On information and belief, County, Youngblood, and Does 1-10,
20 together with other County supervisors, maintained the following unconstitutional

21 customs, practices, and policies:
22
(a)
Using excessive force;
23
(b)
Providing inadequate training regarding the use of force;
24
(c)
Mistreating the mentally ill and persons with disabilities;
25
(d)
Providing inadequate training regarding encounters with the

mentally ill and persons with disabilities;
26
27
28
(e)
Causing positional and restraint asphyxia of individuals in

custody;
-14-
(f)
Providing inadequate training with regard to positional and

restraint asphyxia.
2
3
(g)
Denying medical care to individuals in its custody;
(h)
Providing inadequate training regarding the provision of medical

care to individuals in its custody;
5
6
(i)
Covering up misconduct, including mishandling evidence,
intimidating witnesses, destroying evidence, and making false
statements;
(j)
misconduct;
10
11
Providing inadequate training regarding the above types of
(k)
Employing and retaining as police officers individuals such as
12
Sword, Greer, Miller, Kelly, Almanza, Brock, and Stephens, who
13
Defendant County at all times material herein knew or
14
reasonably should have known had dangerous propensities for
15
abusing their authority and for using excessive force and
16
mistreating the mentally ill and persons with disabilities ;
17
(l)
Inadequately supervising, training, controlling, assigning, and
18
disciplining County police officers, and other personnel,
19
including Sword, Greer, Miller, Kelly, Almanza, Brock, and
20
Stephens, who Defendant City knew or in the exercise of
21
reasonable care should have known had the aforementioned
22
propensities and character traits;
23
(m) Maintaining grossly inadequate procedures for reporting,
24
supervising, investigating, reviewing, disciplining and
25
controlling intentional misconduct by County police officers,
26
including Sword, Greer, Miller, Kelly, Almanza, Brock, and
27
Stephens;
28
-15-
(n)
Failing to discipline County police officers for misconduct,
including but not limited to excessive force and mistreating
persons with disabilities, and covering up the same;

(o)
Failing to adequately discipline County police officers for the
above-referenced categories of misconduct, including slaps on
the wrist, discipline that is so slight as to be out of proportion to
the magnitude of the misconduct, and other inadequate discipline
that is tantamount to encouraging misconduct;
(p)
Ratifying the intentional misconduct of its police officers;
10
(q)
Failing to properly investigate claims of excessive force and

mistreatment of the mentally ill and persons with disabilities;
11
(r)
12
Encouraging, accommodating, or facilitating a blue code of
13
silence, blue shield, blue wall, blue curtain, blue veil,
14
or simply code of silence, pursuant to which police officers do
15
not report other officers errors, misconduct, or crimes. Pursuant
16
to this code of silence, if questioned about an incident of
17
misconduct involving another officer, while following the code,
18
the officer being questioned will claim ignorance of the other
19
officer's wrongdoing.
20
86.
By reason of the aforementioned policies and practices, Decedent was
21 severely injured, subjected to pain and suffering, and killed.

22
87.
Defendants County, Youngblood, and Does 1-10, together with various
23 other officials, whether named or unnamed, had either actual or constructive

24 knowledge of the deficient policies, practices and customs alleged in the paragraphs
25 above. Despite having knowledge as stated above, these defendants condoned,
26 tolerated and through actions and inactions thereby ratified such policies. Said
27 defendants also acted with deliberate indifference to the foreseeable effects and
28
-16-
1 consequences of these policies with respect to the constitutional rights of Decedent,

2 Plaintiffs, and other individuals similarly situated.
3
88.
By perpetrating, sanctioning, tolerating and ratifying the outrageous
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.
The actions of each of Defendants County, Youngblood, and Does 1-10
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.
By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions of Defendants
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.
By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions of Defendants
19 County, Youngblood, and Does 1-10, Plaintiffs have suffered loss of love,
20 companionship, affection, comfort, care, society, and future support.
21
92.
Accordingly, Defendants County, Youngblood, and Does 1-10each are
22 liable to Plaintiffs for compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

23
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
27 under this claim.

28
-17-
95.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. 1985)
96.
Defendants Sword, Greer, Miller, Kelly, Almanza, Brock, And
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.
Defendants Sword, Greer, Miller, Kelly, Almanza, Brock, and
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.
Defendants Phillips and Bright, while working as officers for the
California Highway Patrol and acting within the course and scope of their duties, ,
injured Decedent and violated Decedents rights.
99.
As a result of this conspiracy, Decedent suffered extreme pain and
suffering and eventually suffered a loss of life and of earning capacity.

100. Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. bring this claim as
successors in interest to Decedent, and seek both survival and wrongful death
damages for the violation of Decedents rights.
101. Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. also seek attorney fees
under this claim.
25
26
27
28
-18-
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Civil Conspiracy Witness Intimidation, Spoliation of Evidence,
Obstruction of Justice (42 U.S.C. 1985)
102. The foregoing allegations are incorporated as if re-alleged herein.
103. Defendants Sword, Greer, Miller, Kelly, Almanza, Brock, And
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
104. Defendants Sword, Greer, Miller, Kelly, Almanza, Brock, and
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
106. The following actions were taken in furtherance of the conspiracy to
19 cover up the beating and death of Decedent:

20
(a)
21
22
eyewitnesses to the killing of Decedent;

(b)
23
24
Detaining, arresting, bullying, threatening, and intimidating
Unlawfully seizing evidence of the beating and killing of

Decedent;
(c)
Using threats of violence to force eyewitnesses to relinquish
25
evidence of the beating and killing of Decedent, including telling
26
an eyewitness that the evidence would be obtained the easy way
27
or the hard way;
28
-19-
(c)
Destroying and spoiling evidence of the beating and killing of
Decedent, including by seizing and deleting one or more cell
phone videos;
(d)
beating and killing of Decedent;
5
6
Retaliating against eyewitnesses who called 9-1-1 to report the
(e)
Giving false reports and statements concerning the beating and

killing of Decedent;
7
8
(f)
Obstructing the investigation into decedents death;
(g)
Integrally participating in or failing to intervene in the above

conduct.
10
11
107. As a result of this conspiracy, Decedent and Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S.,
12 C.R.S., and E.Z.S. were injured.

13
108. Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. each bring this claim
14 individually and as successors in interest to Decedent.

15

17
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
18
False Arrest/False Imprisonment
19
(Against All Defendants)
20
21
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-
1 intentionally deprived Decedent of his freedom of movement by use of force, threats

2 of force, menace, fraud, deceit, and unreasonable duress.
3
113. Defendants Sword, Greer, Miller, Kelly, Almanza, Brock, Stephens,
4 Phillips, and Bright detained Decedent without reasonable suspicion and arrested
5 him without probable cause.
6
114. Decedent did not knowingly or voluntarily consent.
115. The conduct of Defendants Sword, Greer, Miller, Kelly, Almanza,
8 Brock, Stephens, Phillips, and Bright was a substantial factor in causing the harm to
9 Decedent.
10
116. Defendant County is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of
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
117. The conduct of all Officer Defendants was malicious, wanton,
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
24

26
27
28
-21-
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Battery (Cal. Govt. Code 820 and California Common Law)
(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
124. As a result of the actions of Defendants Sword, Greer, Miller, Kelly,
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
125. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct as alleged
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
8 under this claim.

9
10
11
12
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Negligence (Cal. Govt. Code 820 and California Common Law)
(Wrongful Death)
13
14
15
130. The actions and inactions of Defendants were negligent and reckless,
16 including but not limited to:

17
(a)
arrest, and use force or deadly force against Decedent;
18
19
(b)
the negligent tactics and handling of the situation with Decedent,

including pre-beating negligence;
20
21
the failure to properly and adequately assess the need to detain,
(c)
the negligent detention, arrest, and use of force, including deadly

force, against Decedent;
22
23
(d)
the failure to provide prompt medical care to Decedent;
24
(e)
the use of improper restraint procedures, leading to Decedents

death.
25
26
(f)
the use of the police dog;
27
28
-23-
(g)
the failure to ensure that adequate numbers of employees with
appropriate education and training were available to meet the
needs of and protect the rights of Decedent;
4
5
(h)
the negligent handling of evidence and witnesses.
131. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct as alleged
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
19
22

24
25
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
26
(Violation of Cal. Civil Code 52.1)
27
28

-24-
136. California Civil Code, Section 52.1 (the Bane Act), prohibits any
2 person from interfering with another persons exercise or enjoyment of his

3 constitutional rights by threats, intimidation, or coercion.
4
137. Each of the Officer Defendants, acting within the course and scope of
5 their duties, conspired to commit, attempted to commit, and actually committed

6 violent acts against Decedent, together with other misconduct, including, but not
7 limited to, the following:
8
(a)
beating the Decedent to death;
(b)
beating the Decedent while he was restrained;
10
(c)
beating the Decedent while Decedent screamed and begged for

mercy;
11
(d)
12
beating the Decedent while he was outnumbered approximately

10 to 1;
13
14
(e)
using improper restraint procedures;
15
(f)
ignoring Decedents medical needs;
16
(g)
causing the Decedent to be attacked with a police dog;
17
(h)
attempting to cover up the killing of Decedent, including by (1)
18
giving false statements and reports; (2) bullying, threatening,
19
intimidating, detaining, arresting, and retaliating against
20
eyewitnesses; and (3) confiscating, deleting, and destroying a
21
cell phone video taken by an eyewitness; and

(i)
22
misconduct;
23
24
integrally participating in or failing to intervene in the above
138.
The Officer Defendants acts, as described above, interfered with the
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-
139. Defendants intentionally and spitefully committed the above acts to
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
140. On information and belief, Decedent reasonably believed and
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.
Defendants successfully interfered with the above civil rights of
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
143. The conduct of the Officer Defendants was a substantial factor in
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
23
145. The conduct of the Officer Defendants was malicious, wanton,
24 oppressive, and accomplished with a conscious disregard for the rights of Decedent,
25 justifying an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
26
-26-
2 under this claim.

3
4
5
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs TARA GARLICK, M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., E.Z.S.,
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.
For compensatory damages, including both survival damages and
11
wrongful death damages under federal and state law, in the
12
amount to be proven at trial;
13
B.
For funeral and burial expenses, and loss of financial support;
14
C.
For punitive damages against the individual defendants in an

amount to be proven at trial;
15
16
D.
For interest;
17
E.
For reasonable costs of this suit and attorneys fees; and
18
F.
For such further other relief as the Court may deem just, proper,
19
and appropriate.
20
21 DATED: May 9, 2014
LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO
22
23
24
By
/s/ Thomas C. Seabaugh
Dale K. Galipo
Thomas C, Seabaugh
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
25
26
27
28
-27-
1
2
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
3
4 DATED: May 9, 2014
LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO
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-

Amedended Complaint

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

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

Amedended Complaint

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 55 Filed 05/09/14 Page 1 of 28

1 LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 55 Filed 05/09/14 Page 2 of 28

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

17 officers featured prominently on national and international news. One remarkable

This case is in the public interest.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 55 Filed 05/09/14 Page 3 of 28

At all relevant times, Decedent was an individual residing in the

3 County of Kern, State of California.

5 Decedents minor children residing in the County of Kern, State of California.

10 dependent on Decedent, including financially dependent.

At all relevant times, nominal defendant J.S. was Decedents minor

At all relevant times, Defendants Michael Phillips (Phillips) and

At all relevant times, Defendants Douglas Sword (Sword), Ryan

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 55 Filed 05/09/14 Page 4 of 28

Defendant Donny Youngblood (Youngblood) also proximately

11 caused Decedents and Plaintiffs injuries by integrally participating or failing to

Defendant County of Kern (County) also proximately caused

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 55 Filed 05/09/14 Page 5 of 28

At all relevant times, each of Defendants Does 1-10, inclusive, was a

6 sheriffs deputy and/ or managerial, supervisorial, and policymaking employee of

In doing the acts and failing and omitting to act as hereinafter

16 described, Defendants Youngblood, Sword, Greer, Miller, Kelly, Almanza, Brock,

The true names of Defendants Does 1-10, inclusive, are unknown to

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 55 Filed 05/09/14 Page 6 of 28

On information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendants Phillips,

The Officer Defendants are directly liable for Decedents and

On July 8, 2013 Plaintiffs M.L.S., C.J.S., C.R.S., and E.Z.S. filed

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This civil action is brought for the redress of alleged deprivations of

Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because all

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

The foregoing allegations are incorporated as if re-alleged herein.

At all relevant times, Defendants Sword, Greer, Miller, Kelly,

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 55 Filed 05/09/14 Page 7 of 28

2 color of law and as employees of the California Highway Patrol.

On May 7, 2013 at approximately 11:00 p.m., the Decedent was asleep

Phillips or Bright, or both, reported to the scene. At one point, either

7 Phillips or Bright performed a knuckle-rub on Decedents chest, causing the

The rest of the Officer Defendants converged on the scene.

At all relevant times, the Decedent was unarmed and in medical

13 that looked like a weapon.

The Officer Defendants beat the Decedent to death.

16 begged for mercy.

In the course of the beating, the Officer Defendants caused the

21 Decedent to be restrained, including with the use of handcuffs, hobble restraints, or

The beating of Decedent was captured on cell phone by one or more

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 55 Filed 05/09/14 Page 8 of 28

Eyewitnesses called 9-1-1 to report the beating.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Fourth AmendmentDetention and Arrest (42 U.S.C. 1983)

(Against All Officer Defendants)

The foregoing allegations are incorporated as if re-alleged herein.

When the Officer Defendants placed the Decedent in handcuffs, they

12 violated Decedentss right to be secure in his person against unreasonable searches

The Officer Defendants detained Decedent without reasonable

16 suspicion and arrested him without probable cause.