Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12.- 2609_, . ~~ ~\I 10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF. C.·ALIFORNIA

II GABRIEL MOSES CARRILLO,

CAS~ N. O~ 1

D_~
)

12
13 v.

Plaintiff,

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

14 DEPUTY PANTAMITR

1)

ZUNGGEEMOG~, DEPUTY SUSSIE

15 AYALA, DEPUT x FERNANDO

2)

LUVIANO, DEPUTY NOEL

16 WOMACK, SERGEANT ERIC

GONZALEZ CAPTAIN DANIEL

17 CRY,?:, CAPTAIN DUANE HARRIS,

COur·<TY OF LOS ANGELES and

18 DOES I through 10, inclusive,

19

Defendants.

20

Violation of Civil Rights, 42
U.S.C. § 198t
Violation of Livil Rights, 42
U.S.C. § 1983, Supervisory
Liability.
Violation of California Civil Code§ 52.1;
Assault and Battery; Supervisory Negligence;
Violation of Civil Rights, 42,
U.S.C. § 1983, Monell
Violations.

21 [DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL]
22

23

24

25

JURISDICTION

26 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the federal law claims action pursuant to Title

27 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction

28 over the state claims and over all Defendants. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 2 of 25 Page ID #:6

1 Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988 and the state law claims for relief are within the

2 supplemental jurisdiction of the Court, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

3

VENUE

4 2. Venue over Plaintiffs claims is proper in the Central District of California as

5 Plaintiffs claims herein arises out of incidents involving deputies of the Los

6 Angeles County Sheriffs Department, and the events giving rise to the claim

7 occurred in the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail in Los Angeles, California,

8 within the Central District of California. Title 28 U.S.C. §139l(a)(l) and (b)(2).

9 3. Plaintiff filed a Claim in accord with California Government Code §§ 910 et

10 seq., with the State of California on August 4, 2011. Plaintiffs Claim was rejected

11 on October 5, 2011, and this action is timely filed.

12 13 4.

PARTIES Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo is, and was at all times relevant hereto, a

14 resident of the County of Los Angeles, and an adult competent to bring this suit in

15 this Court. 16 5. Defendant Deputy Pantamitr Zunggeemoge was a Los Angeles County

17 Sheriffs Department Deputy stationed at the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail

18 on February 26, 2011. The acts of this Defendant, which are the subject of this

19 lawsuit, were undertaken in the regular course of his employment for the Los

20 Angeles County Sheriffs Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. Upon

21 information and belief aforesaid Defendant is a resident of the County of Los

22 Angeles. 23 6. Defendant Deputy Sussie Ayala was a Los Angeles County Sheriffs

24 Department Deputy stationed at the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail on

25 February 26, 2011. The acts of this Defendant, which are the subject of this lawsuit,

26 were undertaken in the regular course of her employment for the Los Angeles

27 County Sheriffs Department. She is sued in her individual capacity. Upon

28 information and belief aforesaid Defendant is a resident of the County of Los

-2-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 3 of 25 Page ID #:7
1 Angeles. 2 7. Defendant Deputy Fernando Luviano was a Los Angeles County Sheriffs 3 Department Deputy stationed at the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail on 4 February 26, 20 II. The acts of this Defendant, which are the subject of this lawsuit, 5 were undertaken in the regular course of his employment for the Los Angeles 6 County Sheriffs Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. Upon 7 information and belief aforesaid Defendant is a resident of the County of Los 8 Angeles. 9 8. Defendant Deputy Noel Womack was a Los Angeles County Sheriffs 10 Department Deputy stationed at the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail on 11 February 26, 2011. The acts of this Defendant, which are the subject of this lawsuit, 12 were undertaken in the regular course of his employment for the Los Angeles 13 County Sheriffs Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. Upon 14 infonnation and belief aforesaid Defendant is a resident of the County of Los 15 Angeles. 16 9. Defendant Sergeant Eric Gonzalez was a Sergeant stationed at the Los 17 Angeles County Men's Central jail on February 26, 2011, and employed by the Los 18 Angeles County Sheriffs Department. The acts ofthis Defendant, which are the 19 subject of this lawsuit, were undertaken in the regular course ofhis employment for 20 the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. He is sued both in his individual and 21 official capacity. Upon information and belief aforesaid Defendant is a resident of 22 the County of Los Angeles. 23 10. Defendant Captain Daniel Cruz was a Captain stationed at the Los Angeles 24 County Men's Central jail employed for the Los Angeles County Sheriffs 25 Depmiment. The acts of this Defendant, which are the subject of this lawsuit, were 26 undeJiaken in the regular course of his employment for the Los Angeles County 27 Sheriffs Department. He is sued in both in his individual and official capacity. 28 Upon information and belief aforesaid Defendant is a resident of the County of Los
-3-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 4 of 25 Page ID #:8

1 Angeles. 2 11. Defendant Captain Duane Harris was a Captain stationed at the Los Angeles

3 County Men's Central jail employed by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs

4 Department. The acts of this Defendant, which are the subject of this lawsuit, were

5 undertaken in the regular course of his employment for the Los Angeles County 6 Sheriffs Department. He is sued in both in his individual and official capacity. 7 Upon information and belief aforesaid Defendant is a resident of the County of Los 8 Angeles. 9 12. Defendant County of Los Angeles is, and at all times alleged herein was, a

10 public entity, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California.

11 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants sued

12 herein as DOES I through I0, inclusive, are other employees of the Los Angeles 13 County Sheriffs Department and were at all relevant times acting in the course and l4 scope of their employment and agency. Each Defendant is the agent of the other.

15 Plaintiff alleges that each of the Defendants named as a "DOE" was in some manner l6 responsible for the acts and omissions alleged herein, and Plaintiff will ask leave of

17 this Court to amend the Complaint to allege such names and responsibility when that l8 information is ascetiained.

19

PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

o2 14. This action is brought under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and on the Fomih, Fifth

21 and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and pursuant to the

22 general laws of the United States and of the State of California. Plaintiff also alleges

23 that the conduct of each Defendant deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional right to

24 due process under the law, and caused Plaintiffto suffer grievous pain, suffering,

25 anxiety, depression, hann and injury based on his false arrest, wrongful

26 imprisonment, and the excessive force applied against him.

27 15. Each of the Defendants and Doe Defendants caused and is responsible for the 28 unlawful conduct and resulting injury by, inter alia, personally participating in the

-4-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 5 of 25 Page ID #:9

1 conduct, or acting jointly and in concert with others who did so by authorizing,

2 acquiescing in or failing to take action to prevent the unlawful conduct by

3 intervention, or promulgating policies and procedures or practices pursuant to which

4 the unlawful conduct occurred; by failing and refusing to initiate and maintain

5 adequate training, supervision, policies, procedures and protocols; by failing to 6 implement and ensure compliance with policies and procedures to ensure the safety 7 and reasonable security of individuals, such as Plaintiff; and by ratifying the 8 unlawful conduct perfmmed by agents, employees, counselors, staff, deputies and

9 officers under their direction and control.

10 16. Whenever and wherever reference is made in this Complaint to any act by a

11 Defendant, such allegation and reference will also be deemed to mean the acts and

12 failures to act of each Defendant individually, jointly or severally.

13
14 A.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS INCIDENT ALLEGATIONS

15

Background

l6 17. On February 26, 2011, Mr. Carrillo was visiting his brother Robert Carrillo

17 who was in custody at the Men's Central Jail in the County of Los Angeles. Robert l8 Carrillo had recently been arrested by Sheriffs deputies in East Los Angeles, and

19 had been hospitalized for his injuries before being transported to Men's Central Jail.
o2 Mr. Carrillo entered the visiting lobby of the Men's Central Jail with his girlfriend,
21 Griselda Torres, and his grandmother, Delores Mejia.

22 18. When other visitors who were in line in front of Mr. Carrillo were checking in 23 at the front reception desk, deputies would look at the visitor's identification, and 24 quickly return it. When examining Mr. Carrillo's identification, however, several 25 deputies gathered together and whispered to each other. At the time Mr. CmTillo had 26 several visible tattoos located on his neck.

27 19. While waiting in the visiting lobby, Ms. Torres dropped a cellular phone on 28 the floor. Within Men's Central Jail and in the outside patio, signs were posted

-5-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 6 of 25 Page ID #:10
1 prohibiting the possession of cellular telephones on Jail property. The signs made 2 no reference to possession of a cellular telephone being a criminal offense. 3 20. In response to Ms. Torres dropping the cellular telephone, a Sheriff's deputy 4 escorted Ms. Torres to a small "break" room behind the Sheriff's reception desk in 5 the inmate visiting lobby. The break room was approximately 10 feet by 8 feet, with 6 several chairs and desks, bookshelves, a refrigerator, and a sink. Shortly after 7 arriving in the break room, Ms. Torres was handcuffed behind her back. 8 21. While in the break room, deputies questioned Ms. Torres about whether she 9 was visiting the Jail with anyone else. Ms. Tones responded her boyfriend, Mr. 10 Carrillo, and his grandmother, Ms. Mejia. When asked whether her boyfriend had a 11 cellular phone, Ms. Tones stated that he might have one. 12 22. After learning this information about Mr. Canillo, Defendant Zunggeemoge 13 and another deputy approached Mr. Canillo who was waiting in the visiting lobby 14 and asked him to stand up. Mr. Canillo complied and one of the deputies handcuffed 15 Mr. Carrillo behind his back. The deputies then escorted Mr. Canillo to the back !6 break room. At no time did Mr. Carrillo fail to follow the deputies instructions. At 17 no time did he resist the deputies. l8 23. As Mr. Canillo entered the break room with his hands cuffed behind him, l9 Defendant Zunggeemoge shoved him face first into a small refrigerator. In response,
2o Mr. CmTillo asked something to the effect: "what was that for?" to which Defendant
21 Zunggeemoge twisted Mr. Canillo's hands behind his back and said "shut the fuck 22 up." Defendant Zunggeemoge then searched Mr. Carrillo and discovered a cellular 23 telephone. During these events, Ms. Tones was seated with her hands cuffed behind 24 her back in the small room. 25 24. Shortly after discovering Mr. Canillo's cellular telephone, several of the 26 deputies left the break room leaving Defendant Deputy Ayala alone with Mr. 27 Carrillo and Ms. Torres. Ms. Torres asked Defendant Ayala whether she and Mr. 28 Carrillo could go to jail for this offense, to which Defendant Ayala said "yes." After
-6-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 7 of 25 Page ID #:11

1 hearing Defendant Ayala's response, Mr. Carrillo told Ms. Torres to not speak to the 2 any of the deputies, and told her that if he was not in handcuffs, things would be 3 different.

4 25. Upon hearing this, Defendant Ayala confronted Mr. CarTillo, ordered him to 5 stand up, and yelled in his face: "what did you say?" She then radioed a code and, as 6 a result, Defendant Zunggeemoge, Defendant Luviano and several other deputies

7 entered the break room. As they arrived, Defendant Ayala stated something to the 8 effect: "You know what this home boy said? If he wasn't in handcuffs he would take 9 flight on us." Take flight is street vernacular for fight. Mr. Canillo denied saying 10 this, and in response, Defendant Luviano said something to the effect: "shut the fuck

11 up." Defendant Luviano then added something to the effect: "Let's see what this 12 guy's about. Let's take his handcuffs off and see how tough he is. Get his fucking

13 girlfriend out of here."

14

The Beating of Mr. Carrillo

15 26. Once Ms. Tones was taken out of the room, the deputies threw Mr. Canillo to

16 the floor and began punching and kicking his body and face. Mr. Canillo's hands

17 were still handcuffed behind his back while he was beaten on the floor. At times he 18 was pulled by his handcuffed hands in order to move his body.

19 27. As Mr. Canillo squirmed to try to avoid the blows, one of the deputies 20 kneeled down placing his knee on Mr. Carrillo's back, stopping him from moving. 21 For most of the beating, one deputy was at Mr. Canillo' s feet, holding them with one 22 hand and punching his thighs with the other. Another deputy kept his knee pressed 23 against Mr. Canillo's back and was punching his ribs. A third deputy punched his 24 head and face. Deputies were cursing at him while they kicked and punched him. 25 28. Several times during the beating, the door to the break room opened. As soon 26 as the door was opened, the deputies stopped the beating. When the door was shut, 27 however, the beating resumed.

28 29. Mr. Canillo never resisted throughout the beating. Multiple times throughout

-7-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 8 of 25 Page ID #:12
1 the beating, deputies yelled at Mr. Carrillo to stop resisting. On at least one 2 occasion, Mr. Carrillo responded "I'm not resisting." Mr. Carrillo blacked out from 3 the Deputies' beating. 4 30. Defendant Luviano, and other deputies ofthe Los Angeles Sheriffs 5 Department stationed at the Men's Central Jail, had a practice during this time period 6 of audibly making statements to the effect of "stop resisting" while they engaged in 7 acts of excessive force against inmates in custody, regardless ofthe fact that the 8 inmates were not resisting the deputies in any manner. On information and belief, 9 deputies at the Men's Central Jail employed this tactic so that witnesses- whether it 10 be percipient witnesses or video I audio recordings- would hear the fabricated 11 justification for the use of force. 12 31. At some point during the beating, Defendant Luviano sprayed Mr. Carrillo's 13 face with a 3-5 second burst of Freeze+ P- also known as Pepper Spray, which 14 interfered with his ability to breathe. As Mr. CmTillo gasped for breath, he 15 complained to the deputies that he could not breathe. In response, Defendant 16 Luviano said something to the effect of: "if you can talk, you can breathe .... I 17 don't give a fuck if you choke, if you die." Then Defendant Luviano said: "fuck 18 your gang." The spray which contacted the open wounds on Mr. Carrillo's face 19 caused him great pain. 20 32. Defendant Luviano, and other deputies of the Los Angeles Sheriffs 21 Department, had a practice during this time period of unnecessarily spraying Freeze 22 + P- also known as Pepper Spray, in the face and eyes of inmates who had been 23 beaten by the deputies, and were immobilized. On information and belief, 24 Defendant Luviano, and other deputies of the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department, 25 engaged in such spraying to create the appearance of resistance by inmates, and also, 26 to inflict additional pain and suffering on inmates, particularly those with open 27 wounds on their faces. 28 33. Shortly after Defendant Luviano sprayed Pepper Spray into the face, but while
-8-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 9 of 25 Page ID #:13

1 Mr. Carrillo lay coughing and gagging on the floor, with the deputy's knee on his

2 back, a deputy came into the break room with towels to clean the floor of Mr.

3 Carrillo's blood.

4 34. Shortly thereafter, the paramedics came and provided treatment to Mr.

5 Carrillo, and then he was taken into an interview room where he was videotaped.

6 35. Mr. Canillo was handcuffed during the whole beating- his hands were never

7 free and remained cuffed together behind his back throughout. At no point did the

8 deputies ever take the cuffs off Mr. Canillo's hands.

9 36. After the beating, Mr. Canillo was taken by ambulance to the jail ward at the

10 County Hospital. Eventually, he was taken to the Inmate Reception Center, where

11 he was placed for hours in a holding tank. During this time he suffered from

12 substantial pain.

13

The Cover-Up

14 37. After being escorted out of the break room by a Sheriff's deputy, Ms. Torres

15 was taken to the main lobby of the Men's Central Jail. For several hours she was

16 guarded by Sheriff's deputies, the majority of the time with her hands cuffed behind

17 her back. While she was in custody, she observed multiple deputies run through the

18 hallway, and watched an ambulance anive on the scene. Mr. Ton·es believed that

19 the deputies had beaten, or perhaps had killed, Mr. Canillo.

20 38. As deputies left the break room after the beating, a witness observed the

21 deputies, in particular Defendant Ayala, laughing and discussing how they would

22 create a story to characterize the beating as a response to Mr. Canillo's resistance. 23 Specifically, Defendant Ayala was heard saying something to the effect: "should I

24 say that my jaw hurts ... that my ribs hurt."

25 39. Ultimately, the deputy guarding Ms. Tones emphasized that she needed to

26 make a statement against Mr. Canillo before she could be released. The deputy

27 emphasized that Ms. Tones had a job, and a young daughter, and that she should not

28 lose it all for Mr. Carrillo. At first she refused to lie and say something against Mr.

-9-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 10 of 25 Page ID #:14

1 Canillo. Later, Ms. Tones agreed to write out a statement, and repeat her statement 2 on video tape in order to be released and return to her daughter. 3 40. In the video taped interview Ms. Tones specifically stated that Mr. Canillo 4 did not come to Men's Central Jail making any aggressive statements against the 5 Sheriffs Department; that he only came to see his brother.

6 · 41. On infmmation and belief, after placing Mr. Carrillo into custody, Defendants

7 Zunggeemoge, Ayala, Luviano, Womack, Gonzalez and Does l through l 0, met and 8 discussed how they would respond to the beating of Mr. Canillo. On inforn1ation

9 and belief, conesponding to an already existing custom by Sheriffs deputies at the 10 Men's Central Jail, the group agreed to characterize the beating of Mr. Canillo by

11 stating that Mr. Canillo initiated the confrontation with the deputies. In particular, 12 the Defendants conspired to create a fictitious story that Defendant Zunggeemoge

13 had uncuffed Mr. Canillo' s right hand in order to fingerprint him, and while 14 uncuffed, Mr. Canillo first attempted to escape from the break room, and when

15 stopped, attacked multiple deputies. Further, the deputies falsely alleged that Mr. 16 Canillo deliberately spit on Defendant Luviano.

17 42. In truth and fact, Mr. Canillo's hands were cuffed throughout the beating in 18 the break room; no effort was taken to finger print him; he never spat at Defendant

19 Luviano; and he never resisted the deputies.
o2 43. After creating this false and fabricated stmy, Defendants Zunggeemoge,
21 Ayala, Luviano, and Womack wrote false and fabricated Supplemental Reports in

22 support of Mr. Canillo's wrongful anest, accusing him of Resisting a Police Officer, 23 a violation of California Penal Code § 69.

24 44. After reviewing the reports of these defendants, and knowing that these

25 reports were false and fabricated, Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez nonetheless

26 approved the reports, which set in motion Mr. Carrillo's wrongful prosecution.

27

The Filing of Criminal Charges

28 45. After Mr. Canillo was anested, Defendant Zunggeemoge drafted the

-10-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 11 of 25 Page ID #:15
1 Probable Cause Detennination (Declaration) for the prosecution under Penal Code 2 Section 69, Resisting Arrest. In that document, Defendant Zunggeemoge falsely 3 described the incident which occurred in the break room, misrepresenting the facts 4 by describing Mr. Carrillo as the initiator and aggressor of the incident. On 5 infonnation and belief, at 2:30p.m. on February 26, 2011, Defendant Zunggeemoge 6 signed the Probable Cause Determination (Declaration) under the penalty ofperjmy. 7 Defendant Zunggeemoge's false description of events which occurred in the break 8 room was perJurous. 9 46. After returning from the hospital, and before being placed in custody at 10 Men's Central Jail, Mr. Carrillo was booked in the Inmate Reception Center on 11 February 26, 2011, approximately 1000 feet from the break room where he was 12 beaten. 13 47. Based on Defendant Zunggeemoge's false description of the facts leading up 14 to Mr. Carrillo's arrest, on February 27, 2011 at 11:34 a.m., Superior Court Judge 15 Teresa A. Beaudet found that there was probable cause that Mr. Carrillo committed 16 the crime of Resisting an Executive Officer. 17 48. With false and fabricated charges set against him, Mr. Carrillo retained a bail 18 bondsman and was released on $50,000.00 bail on March 1, 2011. 19 49. Based on the false and fabricated reports provided by Defendants 20 Zunggeemoge, Ayala, Luviano, Womack, and the knowing approval of these false 21 reports by Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez, on March 2, 2011, the Los Angeles 22 County District Attorney's Office filed a Criminal Complaint with the California 23 Superior Court against Mr. Carrillo, charging him with: (a) Resisting an Executive 24 Officer, a violation of Penal Code Section 69- a felony; (b) Escape from Arrest by 25 force and violence, a violation of Penal Code Section 836.6(b)- a felony; (c) 26 Battery by Gassing (reflecting Mr. Carrillo's purported spitting on Defendant 27 Luviano), a violation of Penal Code Section 243.9(a)- a felony; (d) Battery with 28 injury on a Peace Officer, a violation of Penal Code Section 243(c)(2)- a felony;
-11-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 12 of 25 Page ID #:16
1 and (e) Possession of a Wireless Device in Jail I Prison, a violation of Penal Code 2 Section 4575(a)- a misdemeanor. 3 50. Based on the filing of these false and fabricated charges, Mr. CatTi!lo retained 4 counsel to defend his case. 51151. On April 14, 2011, a preliminary hearing examination was held by the 6 California Superior Comito determine if there was probable cause for Mr. Carrillo 7 to face felony charges. The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office 8 represented the People of the State of California and Mr. Carrillo was represented 9 by retained counsel. At that hearing, Defendants Zunggeemoge, Luviano, and 10 Womack testified under oath against Mr. Carrillo. Defendants Zunggeemoge, II Luviano and Womack provided false testimony at this hearing and committed 12 perjury under California law. As a result of this false testimony, the California 13 Superior Court held Mr. Carrillo to answer the felony charges set out in the 14 Criminal Complaint. 15 52. Based on the findings of the Superior Court, the Los Angeles District 16 Attorney's Office filed a felony Information with the Superior Court against Mr. !7 Carrillo, charging him with: (a) Resisting an Executive Officer, a violation of Penal 18 Code Section 69 - a felony; (b) Escape from Arrest by force and violence, a 19 violation of Penal Code Section 836.6(b) - a felony; (c) Battery by Gassing 20 (reflecting Mr. Carrillo's purported spitting on Defendant Luviano), a violation of 21 Penal Code Section 243.9(a)- a felony; (d) Batte1y with injury on a Peace Officer, a 22 violation of Penal Code Section 243(c)(2) - a felony; and (e) Possession of a 23 Wireless Device in Jail I Prison, a violation of Penal Code Section 4575(a)- a 24 misdemeanor. 25 53. These charges subjected Mr. Carrillo to the possibility of 14 years in a 26 California State Prison, plus any additional time in custody for a violation of Penal 27 Code Section 4575(a)- Possession of a Wireless Device in Jail I Prison. 28 54. On July 22, 2011, an evidentiary hearing was held in the Los Angeles
-12-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 13 of 25 Page ID #:17

1 Superior Court based on Mr. Carrillo's motion to suppress the cellular telephone

2 seized from him on Febmary 26, 2011, pursuant to Penal Code Section 1538.5. At

3 that hearing, Defendant Zunggeemoge testified under oath on behalf of the People

4 of California. Once again Defendant Zunggeemoge provided false testimony at this

5 hearing and committed perjury under California law. At that hearing, the People of

6 the State of California were represented by the Los Angeles County District

7 Attorney's Office, and Mr. Carrillo was represented by retained counsel.

8 55. On August 16, 2011, Superior Court Judge William Ryan granted Mr.

9 Carrillo's suppression motion and suppressed the cellular telephone seized on

10 Febmary 26, 20 ll, bmTing its use as evidence in the case.

11 56. On information and belief, an internal investigation was initiated by the Los

12 Angeles County Sheriffs Department to assess whether deputies involved in Mr.

13 Canillo's arrest- and prosecution- including Defendants Zunggeemoge, Luviano,

14 Ayala provided false and fabricated evidence and testimony to the District

15 Attorney's Office, and whether excessive force was used by the deputies against Mr. 16 Canillo. 17 57. On October 14, 2011, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office

18 dismissed all charges pending against Mr. CmTillo that were set out in the

l9 Information.

20 B. AS THE RESULT OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLICY,

21

PRACTICE AND CUSTOM OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

22

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT IN TOLERATING, RATIFYING AND

23

PERMITTING THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDUCT OF

24

DEPUTIES AT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY MEN'S CENTRAL

25

JAIL, THE DEFENDANTS ACTED WITH IMPUNITY IN ENGAGING

26

IN ACTS OF EXCESSIVE FORCE, FALSIFYING EVIDENCE, AND

27

BRINGING FALSE CHARGES.

2g 58. Pursuant to a consent decree issued in Dennis Rutherford v. Baca, et al., CV

-13-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 14 of 25 Page ID #:18
1 75-4111-DDP, the ACLU of Southern California prepares an annual report 2 regarding conditions at Los Angeles County's Men's Central Jail. In relation to the 3 most recent annual report, "Cruel and Unusual Punishment, How a Savage Gang of 4 Deputies Controls LA County Jails," the ACLU has disclosed multiple declarations
sl revealing systemic acts of excessive force and fabrication of evidence by sheriffs
6 deputies at Men's Central Jail. Further, the Report cited to the statements of 7 multiple civilians who witnessed the unconstitutional, sadistic abuse of inmates by 8 Sheriffs deputies, while also witnessing the deputies falsely make statements to the 9 victim inmates of "stop resisting," to cover-up their brutal conduct. 10 59. Beginning on September 25, 2011 the Los Angeles Times printed a series of 11 articles repmiing on "allegations of deputy brutality and other misconduct in the 12 Los Angeles County jail system." Jails Under Scrutiny Series, L.A. Times, Sept. 25, 13 20 11-Dec. 25, 2011, available at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jails14 sg,0,483465l.storygallery. The series provides information regarding, inter alia: the 15 widespread use of excessive force by deputies at the Men's Central Jail; memos 16 detailing the excessive force problem at Men's Central Jail and what SheriffBaca 17 and other supervisors knew about the excessive force problem at Men's Central Jail; 18 an FBI investigation of deputy force at Men's Central Jail; deputy gangs or cliques 19 within Men's Central Jail; and the removal of Defendant Captain Daniel Cruz from 20 his position overseeing the Men's Central Jail. 21 60. Several articles focus, in particular, on the longstanding nature of the problem 22 of excessive force at Men's Central Jail and what the depmiment has done-or not 23 done-in response. Two such miicles are: (I )Robert Faturechi & Jack Leonard, 24 Sherif!Lee Baca Was Warned About Jail Deputies' Conduct, Retiree Says, L.A. 25 Times, December I, 2011 ("Baca Warned"); (2) Jack Leonard & Robe1i Faturechi, 26 Sheriff's StaffRaised Red Flags About Jail Brutality 2 Years Ago, L.A. Times, 27 October 29, 2011 ("Red Flags"). 28 61. Priorto and during the time of the beating of Mr. Carrillo and the fabrication
-14-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 15 of 25 Page ID #:19

1 of evidence against him, supervisors of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's 2 Department were aware of the existence of the brutal, unconstitutional practices of 3 the deputies within the Men's Central Jail. Defendant County of Los Angeles had a 4 duty to adequately train, supervise, and control its officers to prevent the deputies' 5 from committing acts of excessive force against individuals within the Men's 6 Central Jail and fabricating evidence intended to cover-up their acts of excessive 7 force. 8 62. In addition, Defendant County of Los Angeles had a duty to disseminate to 9 Deputy District Attorneys prosecuting cases in which a deputy was to testify, 10 including prosecutors who represented Defendant County of Los Angeles during 11 Mr. CmTillo's case, that deputies assigned to the Men's Central Jail had a practice of 12 engaging in acts of excessive force and fabrication of evidence. The County of Los 13 Angeles' failure to do so resulted in the prosecutors in Mr. Carrillo's case filing l4 criminal charges against him, resulting in Mr. Carrillo having to retain counsel and 15 defend himself of false criminal charges.

16

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

17

VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983

18

AGAINST DEFENDANT ZUNGGEEMOGE, DEFENDANT AYALA,

19 DEFENDANT LUVIANO, DEFENDANT WOMACK, DEFENDANT

20 SERGEANT ERIC GONZALEZ, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10

21 63. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-62 above, as

22 though fully stated herein.

23 64. Defendant Zunggeemoge, Defendant Ayala, Defendant Luviano, Defendant

24 Womack, Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez, and Does 1 through 10, acting under color

25 of state law, deprived Plaintiff of rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the

26 Constitution and laws of the United States including the Fourth, Fifth and

27 Fourteenth Amendments by:
28

-15-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 16 of 25 Page ID #:20

1

a. Subjecting Plaintiff to excessive force and unjustified infliction of

2

harm;

3

c. Falsely atTesting Plaintifffor: (a) Resisting an Executive Officer, a

4

violation of Penal Code Section 69 - a felony; (b) Escape from Arrest by force

5

and violence, a violation ofPenal Code Section 836.6(b)- a felony; (c)

6

Battery by Gassing (reflecting Mr. Carrillo's purported spitting on Defendant

7

Luviano), a violation of Penal Code Section 243.9(a)- a felony; (d) Battery

8

with injury on a Peace Officer, a violation of Penal Code Section 243(c)(2)- a

9

felony; based on deliberately false police reports;

10

d. Interfering with Plaintiffs right to seek redress for his injuries by

11

covering up for their officer misconduct;

12

e. Denying Plaintiff due process of law, all to Plaintiffs damages as

13

herein above alleged.

14 65. As a direct and proximate result ofthe aforementioned acts of Defendants,

15 Plaintiff was injured as set forth above, and is entitled to compensatory and punitive

16 damages according to proof.

17

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

18

VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983

19

FOR FAILURE TO SUPERVISE, TRAIN, AND TAKE CORRECTIVE

20

MEASURES CAUSING CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION.

21

AGAINST DEFENDANTS SERGEANT GONZALEZ,

22

DEFENDANT CAPTAIN DANIEL CRUZ,

23

DEFENDANT CAPTAIN DUANE HARRIS and DOES 1-10

24 66. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-65 above, as

25 though fully stated herein..

26 67. At all times material herein, Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez, Defendant

27 Captain Daniel Cruz, Defendant Captain Duane Harris and Does 1-10, as

28 supervisors of the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, under the color of law,

-16-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 17 of 25 Page ID #:21
1 had a duty to supervise and control officers under their command within the Los 2 Angeles County Men's Central Jail to ensure that said officers would not violate the 3 constitutional rights of individuals by using excessive force, fabricating criminal 4 allegations, and testifying falsely in criminal proceedings.. 5 68. Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez was the supervisor inside the break room when 6 the beating of Mr. Carrillo occurred in the visiting section of the Los Angeles 7 County Men's Central Jail on February 26, 2012, and arrived during the beating of 8 Mr. CaiTillo. Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez had the opportunity and the duty to take 9 control of the situation and of the deputies beating Mr. CaiTillo to prevent an 10 unwaiTanted use of excessive force, but failed to control the deputies under his 11 supervision, and instead ratified and even encouraged the use of force against Mr. 12 Carrillo. 13 69. Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez, knowing that the incident reports and the 14 supplemental reports of the deputies who engaged in the beating of Mr. CaiTillo on 15 February 26, 2012 were false and fabricated, approved of these false and fabricated 16 reports, thereby causing the filing of false charges against Mr. CaiTillo. 17 70. Defendant Captain Daniel Cruz, stationed at the Los Angeles County Men's 18 Central Jail until December of2010, and Defendant Captain Duane HaiTis, stationed 19 at the Los Angeles County Jail on February 26, 2011, knew or should have known 20 of a history and propensity and pattern at the time of this incident for deputies 21 assigned to the Men's Central Jail to engage in acts of excessive force and creating 22 false and fabricated repmis in order to cover-up acts of excessive force. In 23 pmiicular, Defendant Captain Cruz and Defendant Captain BatTis knew or should 24 have known about Defendant Luviano's history of engaging in acts of excessive 25 force, and fabrication of evidence, and Defendant Ayala's history of engaging in 26 wrongful detention practices and fabrication of evidence. As the Captains of the 27 Men's Central Jail, Defendant Captain Cruz and Defendant Captain HaiTis failed to 28 comply in implementing policies and procedures or ensuring that acts of excessive
-17-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 18 of 25 Page ID #:22

1 force and the creation of false and fabricated reports not occur; failed to train and 2 ensure that deputies refrain from acts of excessive force and the creation of false 3 and fabricated reports.

4 71. As a direct and proximate cause thereof, Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez,

5 Defendant Captain Cruz, Defendant Captain Harris and supervising Does 1-10

6 failed to supervise and control Defendant Zunggeemoge, Defendant Ayala,

7 Defendant Luviano, Defendant Womack, Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez, and
8 subordinate Does I through I 0, and by doing so, permitted Defendant

9 Zunggeemoge, Defendant Ayala, Defendant Luviano, Defendant Womack,

10 Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez, and subordinate Does I through 10, to unlawfully

11 engage in excessive force and the falsification of evidence against Mr. Carrillo.

12

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

13

CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1

14 AGAINST INDIVIDUALLY NAMED DEFENDANT ZUNGGEEMOGE,

15 DEFENDANT AYALA, DEFENDANT LUVIANO, DEFENDANT WOMACK,

16 DEFENDANT SERGEANT ERIC GONZALEZ, DOES 1 THROUGH 10 and

17 THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.

18 72. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-71 above, as 19 though fully stated herein.

20 73. The County of Los Angeles is liable for the violations of its employees under 21 California Government Code Section 815.2(a). Furthermore, the County of Los 22 Angeles is liable under California Government Code Section 815.6. 23 74. The United States Constitution, Amendment IV, Amendment V, and 24 Amendment XIV, and the California Constitution, Article I § 13, guarantee the right 25 of persons to be free from excessive force and to be free from having false and 26 fabricated charges filed against them. Defendants, by engaging in the wrongful 27 conduct alleged herein, interfered or attempted to interfere by threats, intimidation,
28

-18-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 19 of 25 Page ID #:23

I and/or coercion, with Plaintiff's exercise or enjoyment of these rights, thus giving

2 rise to claims for damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 52.1 (b). 3 75. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts of defendants,

4 Plaintiff was injured as set forth above, and is entitled to statutory damages under

5 California Civil Code § 52, as well as compensatory and punitive damages

6 according to proof.

7

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

8

ASSAULT AND BATTERY

9

AGAINST INDIVIDUALLY NAMED DEFENDANT ZUNGGEEMOGE,

10 DEFENDANT AYALA, DEFENDANT LUVIANO, DEFENDANT WOMACK,

11 DEFENDANT SERGEANT ERIC GONZALEZ, DOES 1 THROUGH 10 AND

12 THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.

13 76. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-75 above, as 14 though fully stated herein..

15 77. The County of Los Angeles is liable for the violations of its employees under 16 California Government Code Section 815.2(a). Furthermore the County of Los 17 Angeles is liable under California Government Code Section 815.6. 18 78. Defendant Zunggeemoge, Defendant Ayala, Defendant Luviano, Defendant 19 Womack, Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez, and Does 1 through 10, acting within the 20 scope of their employment as law enforcement officers for the Los Angeles County 21 Sheriff's Department, assaulted and battered Plaintiff causing injury. 22 79. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts of defendants, 23 Plaintiff was injured as set forth above, and is entitled to compensatory and punitive 24 damages according to proof. 25 \\

26 \\

27 \\

28 \\

-19-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 20 of 25 Page ID #:24

1

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

NEGLIGENCE

3

AGAINST DEFENDANTS SERGEANT GONZALEZ,

4

DEFENDANT CAPTAIN DANIEL CRUZ,

5

DEFENDANT CAPTAIN DUANE HARRIS and DOES 1-10

6 80. P1aintiffrestates and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-79 above, as

7 though fully stated herein.

8 81. Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez, Defendant Captain Daniel Cruz, Defendant

9 Captain Duane Harris and Doe supervisors 1-10, acting within the course and scope

10 of their employment had a duty to assure the competence of their employee/agents 11 Defendants and Does 1-10, but breached their duty and were negligent in the

12 performance of their duties by selecting, training, reviewing, supervising, failing to 13 supervise, evaluating the competency and retaining their defendant law enforcement

14 officers, and/or employees and/or agents. This breach of the duty of careful 15 selection, training, review, supervision, periodic evaluation of the competency, and

16 retention of such law enforcement officers and /or employees and /or agents created 17 an unreasonable risk of harm to persons such as Mr. Carrillo.

18 82. Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez, Defendant Captain Daniel Cruz, Defendant

19 Captain Duane Harris and Doe supervisors 1-1 0 breached their duty of care to

20 observe, report, monitor and discipline their defendant law enforcement officers, 21 and/or employees and /or agents.

22 83. As a direct and legal result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and

23 unskillfulness of Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez, Defendant Captain Daniel Cruz,

24 Defendant Captain Duane Harris and Doe supervisors 1-10, and each ofthem, and 25 as a result of their breach of duty of care to Mr. Carrillo, he suffered the damages as

26 alleged herein. 27 \\

28 \\

-20-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 21 of 25 Page ID #:25

1

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS-- 42 U.S.C. §1983

3

MONELL LIABILITY

4

AGAINST DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DEFENDANT

5 CAPTAIN DANIEL CRUZ IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, DEFENDANT

6

CAPTAIN DUANE HARRIS IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY

7

AND DOES 1 - 10.

8 84. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-83 above, as

9 though fully stated herein.

10 85. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times herein 11 mentioned, Defendant County of Los Angeles, Defendant Daniel Cruz, Defendant

12 Duane Harris and Does 1 - 10, with deliberate indifference, and conscious and

13 reckless disregard to the safety, security and constitutional and statutory rights of

14 Plaintiff, engaged in the unconstitutional conduct and omissions, which consist of

15 the following customs and/or policies:

16

a. The knowing presentation of false evidence by deputies;

17

b. The deliberately indifferent presentation of false evidence by deputies;

18

c. The presentation of false evidence by deputies in reckless disregard for

19

the truth or the rights of the accused;

20

d. Subjecting citizens, including Mr. Carrillo, to unreasonable uses of

21

force against their persons;

22

e. Selecting, retaining, and assigning deputies with demonstrable

23

propensities for excessive force, violence, and other misconduct;

24

f. Failing to adequately train, supervise, and control deputies in the field

25

of law enforcement, including the use of force;

26

g. Failing to adequately discipline deputies involved in misconduct,

27

including excessive force and dishonesty;

28

-21-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 22 of 25 Page ID #:26

1

h. Condoning and encouraging officers in the belief that they can violate

2

the rights of persons such as Gabriel Can-illo with impunity, and that

3

such conduct will not adversely affect their opportunities for promotion

4

and other employment benefits;

5
11

I. Knowingly failing to disband deputy gangs within the Los Angeles

6

County Sheriffs Department which engage in unconstitutional conduct

7

against individuals at the Men' Central Jail, including, among other

8

things, the fabrication of evidence in criminal cases and engaging in

9

acts of excessive force

10

J.

Condoning and encouraging deputies in the belief that they can violate

1 1

the rights of persons such as Mr. Can-illo with impunity, and that such

12

conduct will not adversely affect their oppmiunities for promotion and

13

other employment benefits; and

14

k. Condoning and encouraging the fabrication of evidence including but

15

not limited to the filing of materially false police reports, and/or

16

making false statements to prosecution authorities to obtain the filing

17

of false charges.

18 86. The actions and inactions of the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department set

19 forth in 4141 58-62 were known or should have been known to the policy makers

20 responsible for the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and occmTed with 21 deliberate indifference to either the recurring constitutional violations elaborated

22 above, and/or to the strong likelihood that constitutional rights would be violated as

23 a result of failing to train, supervise or discipline in areas where the need for such

24 training and supervision was obvious.

25 87. The actions of the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department set forth herein

26 were a motivating force behind the violations of Mr. Can-illo's constitutional rights

27 as set forth in this complaint. 28

-22-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 23 of 25 Page ID #:27

l 88. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant County of Los Angeles' acts

2 and omissions, condoning, encouraging, ratifying and deliberately ignoring the 3 pattern and practice of Defendants and Does l - l 0 acts and omissions, Plaintiff

4 sustained injury and damage as proved.

5

DAMAGES

6 89. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts, practices, policies and

7 decisions of Defendant Zunggeemoge, Defendant Ayala, Defendant Luviano,

8 Defendant Womack, Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez, Defendant Captain Daniel Cruz,

9 Defendant Captain Duane Harris, Defendant County of Los Angeles and Does l

I0 through l 0, Plaintiff has suffered great mental and physical pain, physical injury, II suffering, anguish, fright, nervousness, anxiety, shock, humiliation, indignity,

12 embarrassment, harm to reputation, and apprehension, which have caused Plaintiff

13 to sustain damages in a sum to be determined at trial.

14 90. All Defendants acted outside the scope of their jurisdiction and without

15 authorization of law, and, separately and in concert, the aforementioned acts of the

16 Defendants, and each of them, was willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, with

17 reckless disregard or with deliberate indifference with the intent to deprive Plaintiff

18 of his rights and privileges, and did in fact violate the aforementioned rights and

19 privileges, entitling Plaintiff to exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be

20 proven at the trial of this matter.

21 91. By reason of the afore described acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff

22 was required to retain an attorney to defend himself against the false and fabricated

23 criminal charges, thereby incurring damages by way of attorney fees.

24 92. By reason on the afore described acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff

25 was required to retain an attorney to prosecute the within action, and to render legal

26 assistance to Plaintiff that he might vindicate the loss and impairment of his rights,

27 and by reason thereof, Plaintiff requests payment by Defendants of a reasonable sum

28 for attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

-23-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 24 of 25 Page ID #:28

1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2 93. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendant
3 I Zunggeemoge, Defendant Ayala, Defendant Luviano, Defendant Womack,

4 Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez, Defendant Captain Cruz, Defendant Captain Harris,

5 Defendant County of Los Angeles, and Does 1 through 10, and each of them, jointly

6 and severally, as described and limited in the Causes of Action set forth above, as

7 follows:

8

1.

9

2.

10

3.

11

12

4.

13

14

5.

15

For general and compensatory damages according to proof; For special damages according to proof; For exemplary and punitive damages against individual Defendant in an amount according to proof; For costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees permitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C., §1988; and For such further relief as the court may deem just and equitable.

16

Respectfully submitted,

17

18

KAYE, McLANE & BEDNARSKI, LLP

19

20

21 DATED: March.:l?';-2012 22

23 II 24 II 25 II 26 II 27 II 28 II
-24-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 1 Filed 03/27/12 Page 25 of 25 Page ID #:29

I

JURY DEMAND

2

Trial by jury of all issues is demanded.

3

KAYE, McLANE & BEDNARSKI, LLP

4

5

6 DATED: March 2~012 7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-25-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 12-2609 DSF (PJWx) Title Gabriel Moses Carrillo v. Pantamitr Zunggeemoge, et al.

Date 5/22/12

Present: The Honorable DALE S. FISCHER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Debra Plato Deputy Clerk

Not Present Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

Absent a showing of good cause, an action must be dismissed without prejudice if the summons and complaint are not served on a defendant within 120 days after the complaint is filed. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 4(m). Generally, defendants must answer the complaint within 20 days after service (60 days if the defendant is the United States). Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(a)(1).

In the present case, it appears that one or more of these time periods has not been met. Accordingly, the Court, on its own motion, orders plaintiff(s) to show cause in writing on or before Monday, June 11, 2012, why this action should not be dismissed as to the applicable defendant(s) for lack of prosecution. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that this matter is appropriate for submission without oral argument. The Order to Show Cause will stand submitted on that date.

Filing of the following on or before the date indicated above will constitute a satisfactory response to the Order to Show Cause:

__ Proofs of service of summons and complaint on all defendants for whom such documents have not yet been filed;

XX An appearance by all defendants who have been served or an application for entry of default pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

__ A request that the clerk enter default judgment or motion for entry of default judgment pursuant to Rule 55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Deputy Clerk dp

CV-90 (12/02)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

 
 Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 42 Filed 03/19/13 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:185

1 RONALD O. KAYE (No.145051) KEVIN J. LaHUE (No. 237556)
2 KAYE, McLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT 234 E. Colorado Blvd. Suite 230
3 Pasadena CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 844-7660
4 Facsimile: (626) 844-7670 E-mail: rok@kmbllaw.com
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
6 GABRIEL MOSES CARRILLO

7

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

GABRIEL MOSES CARRILLO, )

12

)

Plaintiff,

)

13 v.

)

)

14 DEPUTY PANTAMITR

)

ZUNGGEEMOGE, DEPUTY SUSSIE)

15 AYALA, DEPUTY FERNANDO )

LUVIANO, DEPUTY NOEL

)

16 WOMACK, SERGEANT ERIC

)

GONZALEZ, CAPTAIN DANIEL )

17 CRUZ, CAPTAIN DUANE HARRIS, )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and )

18 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

)

)

19

)

Defendants,

)

20 _______________________________)

CASE NO. CV 11-02403 DSF(PJWx)
STIPULATION TO STAY CIVIL PROCEEDINGS

21 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiff
22 Gabriel Moses Carrillo, through his counsel, Ronald O. Kaye, and Defendants
23 Deputuy Zunggeemoge, Deputy Ayala, Deputy Luviano, Deputy Womack,
24 Sergeant Gonzalez, Retired Captain Cruz, Captain Harris and the County of Los
25 Angeles, through their counsel of record, that all proceedings in the above
26 referenced case be stayed pursuant to the Court’s inherent power under Federal
27 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) based on the pending Federal criminal investigation
28 against Defendants Deputy Zunggeemoge, Deputy Ayala, Deputy Luviano, Deputy

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 42 Filed 03/19/13 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:186

1 Womack and Sergeant Gonzalez, but that the parties report back to the Court of the

2 status of the Federal criminal investigation by July 12, 2013, and either request

3 further stay, or propose a new trial and related dates. As described below, after the

4 parties engaged in extensive document production, the Defendants have requested

5 a demand by the Plaintiff, which Plaintiff has provided, and the parties have agreed

6 to engage in mediation. At the present time, the parties are in the process of setting

7 a mediation session in late April / early May of 2013 in front of the Hon. Enrique

8 Romero.

9 I. Procedural Background

10

Plaintiff filed the instant case on March 27, 2012. Based on Plaintiff’s

11 counsel’s trial schedule, the Court set the trial for October 8, 2013. During the

12 week of September 10, 2012, Defendants’ counsel advised Plaintiff’s counsel that

13 Defendants Deputy Zunggeemoge, Deputy Ayala, Deputy Luviano, Deputy

14 Womack and Sergeant Gonzalez were either subjects and/or targets of a Federal

15 criminal Grand Jury investigation within the Central District of California

16 reflecting the conduct which is the subject of the instant lawsuit – the alleged

17 beating of Plaintiff in a Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department deputy break room on

18 February 26, 2011, and the initiation of allegedly false criminal charges against

19 Plaintiff in the Los Angeles Superior Court for conduct which occurred on that

20 date.

21

At that time, Plaintiff’s counsel was of the understanding that this Federal

22 investigation would be resolved in 2012. Consequently, on September 25, 2012,

23 based on Defendants’ counsel’s representation that Defendants Deputy

24 Zunggeemoge, Deputy Ayala, Deputy Luviano, Deputy Womack and Sergeant

25 Gonzalez would invoke their Fifth Amendment Right against self incrimination,

26 both at deposition and in any written responses to interrogatories or requests for

27 admissions, the parties agreed to informally stay such discovery, but proceed with

28 further document production. Plaintiff has produced 343 pages of documents and

2

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 42 Filed 03/19/13 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:187

1 Defendants produced 3327 pages of documents as of this filing.

2

On November 7, 2012, Defendants’ counsel, after having reviewed the

3 discovery, requested a formal demand from Plaintiff to settle the litigation. On

4 January 9, 2013, after Plaintiff engaged a psychiatrist to assess Plaintiff’s

5 psychiatric condition, Plaintiff provided Defendants counsel with Plaintiff’s

6 Demand. In response, Defendants’ counsel has requested that Plaintiff perform an

7 Independent Medical Examination, which has not yet occurred.

8

On March 14, 2013,1 Plaintiff’s counsel spoke to Defendants’ counsel about

9 the status of the Federal Grand Jury criminal investigation against Defendants

10 Deputy Zunggeemoge, Deputy Ayala, Deputy Luviano, Deputy Womack and

11 Sergeant Gonzalez. Defendants’ counsel contacted Defendants criminal counsel,

12 who advised him that the Federal Grand Jury criminal investigation was ongoing.

13 Consequently, the parties agreed to propose to the Court the instant stipulation, and

14 proceed to mediation before the Hon. Enrique Romero. The parties have contacted

15 Judge Romero and are in the process of arranging a mediation session during the

16 last week of April or early May 2013.

17 II. Legal Support

18

Federal courts may stay civil proceedings pending the outcome of a related

19 criminal prosecution in "the interests of justice." United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S.

20 1, 12, n. 27 (1970); Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820, 827 (1996) (stating that a

21 trial court's inherent authority to manage discovery in a civil suit includes the

22 ability to manage the impact of a criminal proceeding to avoid interference with a

23 related civil case); Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th

24 Cir. 1995) (holding that a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil

25

26

1 Since January 15, 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel has been engaged in trial in

People of the State of California v. Oscar Hernandez, et al., BA 376025 - a 27 complex prosecution of six city council members of the City of Bell for

misappropriation of government funds - for which the jury has been deliberating 28 for 16 days.

3

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 42 Filed 03/19/13 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:188

1 proceedings "when the interests of justice seem to require such an action"); Federal

2 Savs. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating that a

3 trial court has discretion to stay proceedings where necessary).

4

The Fifth Circuit in Campbell v. Eastland, 307 F.2d 478 (5th Cir. 1962),

5 cert. denied, 371U.S. 955 (1963) set forth the policy considerations supporting the

6 deferral of civil discovery pending the trial of a criminal proceeding as follows:

7

The very fact that there is a clear distinction between civil and criminal

actions requires a government policy determination of priority: which case

8

should be tried first. Administrative policy gives priority to the public

interest in law enforcement. This seems so necessary and wise that a trial

9

judge should give substantial weight to it in balancing the policy against the

right of a civil litigant to a reasonably prompt determination of his civil

10

claims or liabilities.

11

In Molinaro, the Ninth Circuit enumerated at least five factors for courts to

12 consider in deciding whether a stay is appropriate:

13

A court must decide whether to stay civil proceedings in the face of parallel

criminal proceedings in light of the particular circumstances and competing

14

interests involved in the case. [SEC v.] Dresser Indus., 628 F.2d [1368] at

1375. Obviously a court should consider the extent to which the defendant's

15

fifth amendment rights are implicated. Id. at 1375-76. Other factors a court

should consider will vary according to the case itself, but generally will

16

include:

17

( 1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this

litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to

18

plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of the

proceedings may impose on defendants; (3) the convenience of the court in

19

the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources; ( 4)

the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the interest

20

of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation.

21 889 F.2d at 903-04.

22

In the instant case, both the Plaintiff and the Defendants are in agreement

23 that the stay should proceed at least until July 12, 2013. Defendants’ counsel has

24 advised Plaintiff’s counsel that he will instruct the Defendants involved in the

25 incident which is the subject of this lawsuit – Defendants Deputy Zunggeemoge,

26 Deputy Ayala, Deputy Luviano, Deputy Womack and Sergeant Gonzalez – to

27 invoke their Fifth Amendment Right against self incrimination, both at deposition

28 and in any written responses to interrogatories or requests for admissions. Further,

4

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 42 Filed 03/19/13 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:189

1 the United States Attorney’s Office advised Plaintiff’s counsel that it would

2 intervene and move the Court for a stay if Defendants should notice the deposition

3 of Plaintiff’s witnesses, to prevent any undue advantage prior to any criminal

4 proceeding. Plaintiff’s counsel agrees with the position of the government as to

5 any one-sided discovery against Plaintiff’s witnesses, including Plaintiff himself.

6

Moreover, the parties are engaged in productive settlement discussions,

7 initiated by the Defendants, and will be engaging the services of an experienced

8 mediator in the near future. Therefore, in order to preserve the parties resources, as

9 well as those of the Court, it is in the best interest all parties involved to stay the

10 instant proceeding with the hope that the parties can reach a satisfactory settlement.

11

Finally, the parties propose that they file a joint report with the Court on July

12 12, 2013, apprising the Court of the status of the settlement discussions and the

13 pending Federal criminal proceedings, and either request a further stay or propose

14 new trial and related dates pursuant to this Court’s local rule.

15 \\

16 \\

17 \\

18 \\

19 \\

20 \\

21 \\

22 \\

23 \\

24 \\

25 \\

26 \\

27 \\

28 \\

5

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 42 Filed 03/19/13 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:190

1

This request for a stay is not the result of a lack of diligence on the part of

2 the parties. As of the filing of this Stipulation, the parties have engaged in

3 substantial document production and would be prepared, absent the pending

4 Federal criminal case, to proceed with depositions and other related discovery..

5

6

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

7

Respectfully submitted,

8

9 DATED: March 18, 2013 10 11

By

/S/

RONALD O. KAYE

Attorney For Plaintiff

Gabriel Moses Carrillo

12

13 DATED: March 18, 2013 14

By

/S/

RICKEY IVIE, ESQ.

Attorney for Defendants

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

 
 Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 43 Filed 03/20/13 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:193

1 RONALD O. KAYE (No.145051) KEVIN J. LaHUE (No. 237556)
2 KAYE, McLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT 234 E. Colorado Blvd. Suite 230
3 Pasadena CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 844-7660
4 Facsimile: (626) 844-7670 E-mail: rok@kmbllaw.com
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
6 GABRIEL MOSES CARRILLO

7

8

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12-2609

11

GABRIEL MOSES CARRILLO, ) CASE NO. CV

DSF(PJWx)

12

)

Plaintiff,

) ORDER

13 v.

)

)

14 DEPUTY PANTAMITR

)

ZUNGGEEMOGE, DEPUTY SUSSIE)

15 AYALA, DEPUTY FERNANDO )

LUVIANO, DEPUTY NOEL

)

16 WOMACK, SERGEANT ERIC

)

GONZALEZ, CAPTAIN DANIEL )

17 CRUZ, CAPTAIN DUANE HARRIS, )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and )

18 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

)

)

19

)

Defendants,

)

20 _______________________________ )

21 ORDER
22 Having been advised that a Federal criminal Grand Jury investigation out of
23 the Central District of California is pending against Defendants Deputy
24 Zunggeemoge, Deputy Ayala, Deputy Luviano, Deputy Womack and Sergeant
25 Gonzalez, and that these Defendants would invoke their Fifth Amendment Right
26 against self incrimination at a Deposition, and in their responses to Requests for
27 Admissions and / or Interrogatories, the Court hereby finds that GOOD CAUSE
28 HAS BEEN SHOWN and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instant proceedings,

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 43 Filed 03/20/13 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:194

1 including all discovery matters, is stayed, and the trial and all related dates are

2 vacated.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are to file a joint report with the

4 Court by July 12, 2013, advising the Court of the status of the criminal Grand Jury

5 investigation and any settlement negotiations between the parties. If the criminal

6 Grand Jury investigation is no longer pending and there are no criminal charges

7 pending against any of the defendants, the parties are to file a revised proposed

8 Schedule of Trial and Pretrial Dates with the Court by July 12, 2013.

9

10

11 DATED: March 20, 2013

12

13

________________________________

HONORABLE DALE S. FISCHER

14

United States District Judge

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 
 II Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 61 Filed 11/18/13 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:340 'l1I

1

1\
1
11

RONALD 0. KAYE (No. 145051) MARILYN E. BEDNARSKI (No.

105322)

2

KAYE, McLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP 234 East Colorado Boulevard, Smte 230

3 ' Pasadena, California 91101

Telephone: (626) 844-7660

4 Facsimile: (626) 844-7670

5

I, I

E-Mail: E-Mail:

rok@kmbllaw.com MBednarski@kmbllaw.com

NtJ11 I 8 ~13

6 ~~~~·.Attorneys for Plaintiff
7 Gabriel Moses Carrillo

! 8 II

9
11
I0 I
Ill
121
131 v.

UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff,

~ CASE NO. CV 12-02609-DSF(PJWx) ) FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

14 DEPUTY PANTAMITR ZUNGGEEMOGE, DEPUTY SUSSIE
15 AYALA, DEPUTY FERNANDO , LUVIANO, DEPUTY NOEL
16 , WOMACK, DEPUTY ANTHONY REED, SERGEANT ERIC
17 GONZALEZ, CAPTAIN DANIEL CRUZ, CAPTAIN DUANE HARRIS,
18 I COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
19 I

2011

Defendants.

21[\

1)

Vu.iso.lcat.io§n1o9f8C~ivil Rights, 42

2) Violation of LivH Rights, 42

U.S.C. § 1983, Supervisory

Liability.

3) Violation of California Civil

Code IS 52.1;

Assault and Battery;

Supervisory Negligence;

Violation of Civil Rights, 42,

U.S.C. § 1983, Monell

Violations.

!DEMAND FOR JURY TRlALJ

2211

23

24

25

JURISDICTION

26 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the federal law claims action pursuant to Title

27 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction

28 over the state claims and over all Defendants. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 61 Filed 11/18/13 Page 2 of 25 Page ID #:341

1 i Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988 and the state law claims for relief are within the

2 1 supplemental jurisdiction of the Court, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

VENUE

Venue over Plaintiffs claims is proper in the Central District ofCalifomia as

5 ·[·Plaintiffs claims herein arises out of incidents involving deputies of the Los

6

1 ,

Angeles

County

Sheriffs

Depm1ment,

and

the

events

giving

rise

to

the

claim

7 occmTed

Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail in Los Angeles, Califomia,

sl' within Central

ofCalifomia.

28 U.S.C. §l39l(a)(l) and (b)(2).

91 3. Plaintiff filed a Claim in accord with California Government Code§§ 910 et

101 seq., with the State of California on August 4, 2011. Plaintiffs Claim was rejected

'
:~I on October

2011, and this action is timely filed. PARTIES

13

Plaintiff Gabriel Moses CmTillo is, and was at all times relevant hereto, a

14 resident of the County of Los Angeles, and an adult competent to bring this suit in

15 1 this Court

16 ,1 5. Defendant Deputy Pantamitr Zunggeemogc was a Los Angeles County I
171 Sheriffs Department Deputy stationed at the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail

18 i on February 26,2011. The acts of this Defendant, which are the subject of this I
I9\1awsuit, were undertaken in the regular course of his employment for the Los

20 I Angeles County Sheriffs Depm1ment. He is sued in his individual capacity. Upon

21 infonnation and belief aforesaid Defendant is a resident of the County of Los

22 I Angeles.

23 6. Defendant Deputy Sussie Ayala was a Los Angeles County Sheriffs 24 Department Deputy stationed at the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail on

25 February 26,2011. The acts of this Defendant, which are the subject ofthis lawsuit, 26 were undertaken in the regular course of her employment for the Los Angeles 27 County Sheriffs Depm1ment. She is sued in her individual capacity. Upon 2 g information and belief aforesaid Defendant is a resident of the County of Los

-2-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 61 Filed 11/18/13 Page 3 of 25 Page ID #:342

1 I Angeles. 2 7. Defendant Deputy Fernando Luviano was a Los Angeles County Sheriffs

3 Department Deputy stationed at the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail on
4 1 Febmary 26, 2011. The acts of this Defendant, which are the subject of this lawsuit,
'I5 were undertaken the regular course of his employment for the Los Angeles
6 ,[ County Sheriffs Department. He is sued in his individual capacity. Upon 7 11 infom1ation and belief aforesaid Defendant is a resident of the County of Los

81'
9118.

Defendant Deputy Noel Womack was a Los Angeles County Sheriffs

10 I[ Department Deputy stat10ned at the Los Angeles County Men's Central Jml on

11 II Febmary 26, 201 I. The acts of this Defendant,

are the subject of this lawsuit,

!

1211 were undertaken

regular course his employment for the Los Angeles

13 ! County Sheriffs Department. is sued in his individual capacity. Upon I

14

1
I

infmmation and

belief aforesaid Defendant is

a resident of the County of Los

15 [1 Angeles.

16 1[9. Defendant Deputy Anthony Reed was a Los Angeles County Sheriffs

17 [1 Depat1ment

stationed at the Angeles

Men's Central Jail on

18 1 Febmary 26,2011. The acts of this Defendant, which are the subject ofthis lawsuit,

19 [ were undertaken in the regular course of his employment for the Los Angeles

20 County Sheriffs Depanment. He is sued in his individual capacity. Upon

21 infom1ation and bPlief aforesaid Defendant is a resident of the County of Los

22 Angeles.

I
23

10.

Defendant Sergeant Eric Gonzalez was a Sergeant stationed at the Los

24 , Angeles County Men's Central jail on Febmary 26, 2011, and employed by the Los

25 Angeles County Sheriffs Department. The acts of this Defendant, which are the

26 . subject of this lawsuit, were undertaken in the regular course of his employment for

27 the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. He is sued both in his individual and

28 official capacity. Upon information and belief aforesaid Defendant is a resident of

-3-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 61 Filed 11/18/13 Page 4 of 25 Page ID #:343

1 the County of Los Angeles.
2 I 11. Defendant Captain Daniel Cruz was a Captain stationed at the Los Angeles

3 County Men's Central jail employed for the Los Angeles County Sheriffs

4 1 Department. The acts of this Defendant, which are the subject of this lawsuit, were
I
5 · unde11aken in the regular course of his employment for the Los Angeles County
61I Sheriffs Department. is sued in both in his individual and official capacity.

711 Upon information and belief aforesaid Defendant is a resident

County of

8 1 Angeles. 1
91112. Defendant Captain Duane Harris was a Captain stationed at the Los Angeles
>I
10 11 County Men's Central jail employed by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs

II Department. 1 I
12!1 unde1iaken in

acts of this Defendant, · are the subject of this lawsuit, were regular course of his employment for the Los Angeles County

13[ Sheriffs Department. He is sued in both in his individual and official capacity.
i
141 Upon information and belief aforesaid Defendant is a resident of the County of Los

15 Angeles. l6 13. Defendant County of Los Angeles is, and at all times alleged herein was, a

17 public entity, organized existing

the laws of the State of California.

18 14. Plaintiff is infonned and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants sued !9 , herein as DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are other employees of the Los Angeles

20 . County Sheriffs Depmiment and were at all relevant times acting in the course and 21 scope of their employment and agency. Each Defendant is the agent of the other.

22 Plaintiff alleges that each of the Defendants named as a "DOE" was in s0me manner

23 responsible for the acts and omissions alleged herein, and Plaintiff will ask leave of

24 this Court to amend the Complaint to allege such names and responsibility when that 25 \1 information is ascertained.

26

PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

27 15. This action is brought under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and on the Fourth, Fifth 28 and Fomieenth Amendments ofthc United States Constitution, and pursuant to the

-4-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 61 Filed 11/18/13 Page 5 of 25 Page ID #:344

general laws of the United States and of the State of Cali fomia. Plaintiff also alleges

2 that the conduct of each Defendant deprived Plaintiff of s constitutional right to

3 due process under the law, and caused Plaintiff to suffer grievous pain, suffering,

4 anxiety, depression, harm and injury based on his false arrest, wrongful

5 imprisonment, and the excessive force applied against

6 16. Each of the Defendants and Doe Defendants caused and is responsible for the

7

conduct and resulting injury by, inter alia, personally participating in the

8 conduct, or

jointly in concert with others who did so by

9 acqmescmg or failing to take action to prevent the unlawful conduct by

10 intervention, or promulgating policies and procedures or practices pursuant to which

ll the

conduct occun-ed; by failing and refusing to initiate and maintain

2

training, supervision, policies, procedures and protocols; by failing to

13 implement and ensure compliance with policies and procedures to ensure the safety

14 and reasonable security of individuals, such as Plaintiff; and by ratifying the

15 unlawful conduct performed by agents, employees, counselors, staff, deputies and

16 officers under their direction and control.

17 17. Whenever and wherever reference is made in this Complaint to any act by a

18 Defendant, such allegation and reference will also be deemed to mean the acts and

19 failures to act of each Defendant individually, jointly or severally.

20

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

21 A. INCIDENT ALLEGATIONS

22

Background

23 18. On February 26, 2011, Mr. Carrillo was visiting his brother Robert Carrillo

24 who was in custody at the Men's Central Jail in the County of Los Angeles. Robert

25 I Carrillo had recently been arrested by Sheriffs deputies in East Los Angeles, and

26 had been hospitalized for his injuries before being transported to Men's Central Jail.

27 Mr. Carrillo entered the visiting lobby of the Men's Central Jail with his girlfriend,

28 Griselda Torres, and his grandmother, Delores Mejia.

-5-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 61 Filed 11/18/13 Page 6 of 25 Page ID #:345

1

When other visitors who were in line in front of Mr. CmTillo were checking in

2 at the front reception desk, deputies would look at the visitor's identification, and

3 quickly return When examining Mr. Ca!Til!o 's identification, however, several

4 deputies gathered together and whispered to each other. At the time Mr. Can·i!lo had

5 several visible tattoos located on 6 20. While waiting in the visiting lobby, Ms. Ton·es dropped a cellular phone on

7 the floor.

Men's Central

and in the outside patio, signs were posted signs made

9 no reference to possession of a cellular telephone being a criminal offense.

10 21.

response to Ms. Ton·es dropping the cellular telephone, a Sheriff's deputy

11 escorted Ms. Torres to a

"break" room behind the Sheriff's reception desk in

12 the inmate visiting lobby. The break room was approximately l 0 feet by 8 feet, with 13 several chairs and desks, bookshelves, a refrigerator, and a sink. Shm1ly after

14 amvmg m break room, Ms. Tones was handcuffed behind her back. 15 22. While in the break room, deputies questioned Ms. TOJTes about whether she l6 was visiting the with anyone else. Ms. Torres responded her boyfriend, Mr.

17 Carrillo, and grandmother, Ms. Mejia. When asked whether her boyfriend had a

18 cellular phone, Ms. Torres stated that he might have one.

19 23. After learning this information about Mr. Carrillo, Defendant Zunggeemoge

20 and another deputy approached Mr. CaiTillo who was waiting in the visiting lobby 21 and asked him to stand up. Mr. Canillo complied and one of the deputies handcuffed 22 i' Mr. Canillo behind his back. The deputies then escorted Mr. Canillo to the back

23 break room. At no time did Mr. Carrillo fail to follow the deputies instructions. At

24 no time did he resist the deputies.

25 24. As Mr. Ca!Tillo entered the break room with his hands cuffed behind him, 26 Defendant Zunggeemoge shoved him face first into a small refrigerator. In response, 27 Mr. Carrillo asked something to the effect: "what was that for?" to which Defendant 28 Zunggeemoge twisted Mr. Carrillo's hands behind his back and said "shut the fuck

-6-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 61 Filed 11/18/13 Page 7 of 25 Page ID #:346

1 up." Defendant Zunggeemoge then searched Mr. Carrillo and discovered a cellular

2 1 I

telephone.

During these events, Ms. Torres was seated with her hands cuffed behind

31! back in the small room.

4 I . Shortly after discovering Mr. Carrillo's cellular telephone, several of the

sl; deputies left the break room leaving Defendant Deputy Ayala alone with Mr.

611 Carrillo and Ms. Torres. Ms.

asked Defendant Ayala whether she and Mr.

7 II

lo could go to jail for offense, to which Defendant Ayala said "yes." After

8 i hearing Defendant 1

s response, Carrillo told Ms.

to not

to

and told that he was not in handcuffs, things would be

10 II different

11 Ii 26. Upon hearing

Defendant Ayala confronted

Carrillo, ordered him to

12 11 stand up, and yelled his face: "what did you say?" She then radioed a code and, as

13 [1 a result, Defendant Zunggeemoge, Defendant Luviano and several other deputies 14 ]1 entered the break room. As they anived, Defendant Ayala stated something to the
lSI effect: "You know what this home boy said? lfhe wasn't in handcuffs he would take

16 1

on us." Take flight is street vernacular for fight. Mr. Carrillo denied saying

17 this, and response, Defendant Luviano said something to the pff,,rt· "shut the fuck

18 up." Defendant Luviano then added something to the effect: "Let's see what this

19

\ 1

guy's

about

Let's take his handcuffs off and see how tough he is.

Get his fucking

20 girlfriend out of here."

21

The Beating of Mr. Carrino

22 'I 27. Once Ms. ,

was taken out of the room, the deputies threw Mr. Canillo to

23 the floor and began punching and kicking his body and face. Mr. Carrillo's hands

24 were still handcuffed behind his back while he was beaten on the floor. At times he

2S was pulled by his handcuffed hands in order to move his body.

26 28. As Mr. Carrillo squirmed to try to avoid the blows, one of the deputies 27 · kneeled down placing his knee on Mr. CmTillo's back, stopping him from moving. 28 For most of the beating, one deputy was at Mr. CmTillo's feet, holding them with one

-7-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 61 Filed 11/18/13 Page 8 of 25 Page ID #:347

hand and punching his thighs with the other. Another deputy kept his knee pressed

2 against Mr. Ca!Tillo's back and was punching his ribs. A third deputy punched his 3 head and face. Deputies were cursing at him while they kicked and punched him.

4 29. Several times during the beating, the door to the break room opened. As soon 5 as the door was opened, the deputies stopped the beating. When the door was shut, 6 however, the beating resumed.

7 I 30. Mr. Can·illo never resisted throughout

8 I' the beating, deputies

at Mr. Carrillo to

Multiple times throughout at one

9 1' occasion, Mr. Canillo responded

not

" Mr. Carrillo blacked out from

10 ,1 the Deputies' beating.

11 3 I. Defendant

deputies of the Angeles Sheriff's

12 Department stationed at the Men's Central Jail, had a practice during this time period

13 of audibly making statements to the effect of "stop resisting" while they engaged in

14 acts of excessive force against inmates custody, regardless of the fact that the

15 inmates were not resisting the deputies in any manner. On information and belief,

16 deputies at the Men's Central Jail employed this tactic so that witnesses- whether it

17 be percipient witnesses or video I audio recordings- would hear the fabricated

18 justification for the use of force.

19132. At some point during the beating, Defendant Luviano sprayed Mr. CmTillo's

20 face with a 3-5 second burst of Freeze+ P- also known as Pepper Spray, which
21 interfered with his ability to breathe. As Mr. Carrillo gasped for breath, he 22 I' complained to the deputies that he could not breathe. In response, Defendant

23 Luviano said something to the effect of: "if you can talk, you can breathe .... I 24 don't give a fuck if you choke, if you die." Then Defendant Luviano said: "fuck
your gang." The spray which contacted the open wounds on Mr. Carrillo's face

caused him great pain.

27 33. Defendant Luviano, and other deputies of the Los Angeles Sheriff's 28 Department, had a practice during this time period of unnecessarily spraying Freeze

-8-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 61 Filed 11/18/13 Page 9 of 25 Page ID #:348

1 + P- also known as Pepper Spray, in the face and eyes of inmates who had been
2 beaten by the deputies, and were immobilized. On information and belief, 3 Defendant Luviano, and other deputies of the Los Angeles Sheriffs Depmiment, 4 engaged in such spraying to create the appearance of resistance by inmates, and also,

5 6 wounds on their faces.

those with open

7 34. Shortly
81, .

Luviano sprayed Pepper Spray into the face, but while

and gagging on floor,

the deputy's knee on his

9 1l back, a deputy came into break room with towels to elean the floor of

10 II Carrillo's blood.

II II

Shortly thereafter, paramedics came and provided

to Mr.

!211 Can-illo, and then was taken into an interview room

he was videotaped.

J3il 36. Mr. Can·illo was handcuffed during the whole beating- his hands were never

!

14 1 free and remained cuffed together behind his back throughout. At no

did the

15 I deputies ever take the cuffs off Mr. Carrillo's hands.
I J6 37. After the beating, Mr. Can-illo was taken by ambulance to the jail ward at the

17 County Hospital.

he was taken to the Inmate Reception Center, where

18 he was placed for hours in a holding tank. During this time he suffered from

19 , substantial pain.

\
20 i

21 1 38. After being escorted out of the break room by a Sheriff"s deputy, Ms. Tones

22 was taken to the

lobby of the Men's Central Jail. For several hours she was

23 guarded by Sheriffs deputies, the majority of the time with her hands cuffed behind
I
24 1 her back. While she was in custody, she observed multiple deputies mn through the

25 hallway, and watched an ambulance mTive on the scene. Mr. Ton-es believed that

26 the deputies had beaten, or perhaps had killed, Mr. Carrillo.

27 39. As deputies left the break room after the beating, a witness observed the 28 deputies, in pa1iicular Defendant Ayala, laughing and discussing how they would

-9-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 61 Filed 11/18/13 Page 10 of 25 Page ID #:349

1 create a story to characterize the beating as a response to Mr. Carrillo's resistance.

2 Specifically, Defendant Ayala was heard saying something to the effect: "should I

3 say that my jaw hurts ... that my ribs hurt."

4 40. Ultimately, the deputy guarding Ms. Torres emphasized that she needed to

5 make a statement against CatTillo before she could be released. deputy

6 emphasized that Ms. Tones had a job, and a young daughter, and that she should not

7 lose it all for . Carrillo. At first she refused to lie and say something against

8 Carrillo.

, Ms. Tones agreed to write out a statement, repeat statement

9 on video tape in order to released and return to her daughter.

10 41. In the video taped interview Ms.

specifically stated that Mr. Carrillo

11 did not come to Men's Central making any aggressive statements against the

12 Sheriffs Department; that he only came to see his brother.

13 42. On information and belief, after placing Carrillo into custody, Defendants

14 Zunggeemoge, Ayala, Luviano, Womack, Reed, Gonzalez and Does I through 10,

15 met and discussed how they would respond to the beating of Mr. CatTillo. On

!6 inforn1ation and

conesponding to an already existing custom by Sheriffs

17 deputies at the Men's Central Jail, the group agreed to characterize the beating of 18 Mr. Carrillo by stating that Mr. Can·illo initiated the confrontation with the deputies. 19 In particular, the Defendants conspired to create a fictitious story that Defendant 20 Zunggeemoge had uncuffed Mr. Carrillo's right hand in order to fingerprint him, and 21 , while uncuffed, Mr. Carrillo first attempted to escape from the break room, and
:
22 I when stopped, attacked multiple deputies. Further, tl-,c deput1es falsely alleged that 23 Mr. Carrillo deliberately spit on Defendant Luviano.

24 43. In truth and fact, Mr. Carrillo's hands were cuffed throughout the beating in 25 the break room; no effmi was taken to finger print him; he never spat at Defendant 26 Luviano; and he never resisted the deputies.

27 44. After creating this false and fabricated story, Defendants Zunggeemoge, 2g Ayala, Luviano, Womack and Reed wrote false and fabricated Supplemental Reports

-I 0-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 61 Filed 11/18/13 Page 11 of 25 Page ID #:350

in support of Mr. CmTillo 's wrongful arrest, accusing hin> of Resisting a Police 2 Officer, a violation of California Penal Code § 69. 3 45. After reviewing the reports of these defendants, and knowing that these 4 reports were false and fabricated, Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez nonetheless 5 approved repmts, which set in motion . Canillo's wrongful prosecution.

6

7 46. After Mr. Carrillo was arrested, Defendant Zunggeemoge drafted the

8 Probable Cause

Code

9

that document, Defendant Zunggeemoge falsely

10 described the ·u,_;uc.uc

occun·ed the break room, rnisrepresenting the facts

11 by describing

as the initiator and aggressor

On

12 infom1ation and belief, at 2:30p.m. on February 26, 2011, Defendant Zunggeemoge

13 1 signed Probable Cause Detennination (Declaration) under the penalty of perjury.

14 Defendant Zunggeemoge's false description of events

occuned in the break

15 room was pei:Jurous.

16 47. After returning from the hospital, and before being placed custody at 17 Men's Central Jail, Mr. Carrillo was booked
18 February 26, 2011, approximately 1000 feet from the break room where he was 19 beaten. 20 48. Based on Defendant Zunggeemoge's false description of the facts leading up 21 to Mr. Carrillo's arrest, on February 27, 2011 at 11:34 a.m., Superior Court Judge 22 Teresa A. Beaudet found that there was probable cause that Mr. Carrillo committed 23 the crime of Resisting an Executive Officer.
24 49. With false and fabricated charges set against him, Mr. Carrillo retained a bail 25 bondsman and was released on $50,000.00 bail on March 1, 2011. 26 50. Based on the false and fabricated reports provided by Defendants 27 Zunggeemoge, Ayala, Luviano, Womack, and Reed and the knowing approval of 28 these false reports by Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez, on March 2, 2011, the Los

-11-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 61 Filed 11/18/13 Page 12 of 25 Page ID #:351

1 Angeles County District Attorney's Office filed a Criminal Complaint with the 2 California Superior Court against Mr. Carrillo, charging him with: (a) Resisting an 3 Executive Officer, a violation of Penal Code Section 69 - a felony; (b) Escape from

4 An·est by force and violence, a violation of Penal Code Section 836.6(b) - a felony;

5 (c) Battery by Gassing (reflecting Mr. Carrillo's purpo11ed spitting on Defendant 6 Luviano), a violation of Penal Code Section 243.9(a)- a felony; (d) Battery with

7

on a

Officer, a violation of Penal Code Section 243(c)(2)- a felony;

8

(e) Possession a

lll

I

a

of

Code

9 Section 4575(a)- a misdemeanor,

10 51. Based on the filing of these false and fabricated charges, 11 counsel to defend case.

Canillo retained

l2. 52. On April! 2011, a preliminary hearing ex:1minaticm was held by the '
13 California Superior Court to detem1ine if there was probable cause for Mr. Carrillo
14 to face felony charges. The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
15 1 represented the People of the State of California and Mr. Can·illo was represented
!61 by retained counseL At that hearing, Defendants Zunggeemoge, Luviano, and

17 Womack testified under against

Defendants Zunggeemoge,

18 Luviano and Womack provided false testimony at this hearing and committed !9 1 perjury under Califomia law. As a result of this false testimony, the California
!
20 Superior Court held Mr. Canillo to answer the felony charges set out in the
21 Criminal Complaint.

22 53. Based on the findings of the Superior Court, the Los Angeles District 23 Attorney's Office filed a felony Information with the Superior Court against Mr. 24 Carrillo, charging him with: (a) Resisting an Executive Officer, a violation of Penal
sl2 Code Section 69 - a felony; (b) Escape from Arrest by force and violence, a
26 violation of Penal Code Section 836.6(b)- a felony; (c) Battery by Gassing 27 (reflecting Mr. CmTillo's purported spitting on Defendant Luviano), a violation of 28 Penal Code Section 243.9(a)- a felony; (d) Battery with injury on a Peace Officer, a

-12-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 61 Filed 11/18/13 Page 13 of 25 Page ID #:352

violation of Penal Code Section 243(c)(2) - a felony; and (e) Possession of a

2 Wireless Device in Jail I Prison, a violation of Penal Code Section 4575(a)- a

3 misdemeanor. 4 54. These charges subjected Mr. Canillo to the possibility of 14 years in a

5

Prison,

6 Code Section 4575(a)- Possession of a Wireless Device

for a violation of Penal Jail I Prison.

7 55. On July 22, 2011, an evidentiary hearing was held the Los Angeles

8 Superior Court ~u uu..• on Mr. Carrillo's

to suppress the cellular telephone

9 seized from him on

26, 2011, pursuant to Penal Code Section 1538.5. At

10

hearing, Defendant Zunggeemoge testified under oath on behalf of the People

11 I of Califomia. Once again Defendant Zunggeemoge

ded false testimony at this

12 11 hearing and committed

under California law. At that hearing, the People of

l311 the State of California were represented by the Los Angeles County District
ii
14 11 Attorney's Office, and Mr. CaJTillo was represented by retained counsel.

15 lls6. On August 16,201 l, Superior Court Judge William Ryan granted Mr.

li

1611

's suppression motion and suppressed the cellular telephone seized on

]711 f.Phrn

its use as evidence the case.

18 'ls7. On infom1ation and belief, an intemal investigation was initiated by the Los
I 19 Angeles County Sheriffs Department to assess whether deputies involved in Mr.

20 I Canillo' s aiTest -

prosecution including Defendants Zunggeemoge, Luviano,

2 1 Ayala provided false and fabricated evidence and testimony to the District
n 11 Attorney's Office, and whether excessive force was used by the deputies against Mr.

23 1 Carrillo.

24 58. On October 14, 2011, the Los Angeles County District Attomey's Office

25 '1 dismissed all charges pending against Mr. Carrillo that were set out in the
'
26 lnfonnation.

27

\\
1

28 \\

-13-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 61 Filed 11/18/13 Page 14 of 25 Page ID #:353

l B. AS

THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

2

PRACTICE AND CUSTOM OF THE

ANGELES COUNTY

3

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT IN TOLERATING, RATIFYING AND

4

PERMITTING

UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDUCT

5

DEPUTIES AT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTV MEN'S CENTRAL

6

JAIL,

DEFENDANTS ACTED

IMPUNITY IN ENGAGING

7

ACTS OF EXCESSIVE FORCE, FALSIFYING EVIDENCE,

8

BRINGING

CHARGES.

9 59. Pursuant to a consent decree issued in Dennis Ruthoford v. Baca, eta!., CV

10 75-41 11-DDP, ACLU of Southem Califomia prepares an annual report

11 regarding conditions at Angeles County's Men's Central JaiL In relation to the

12 most recent annual report, "Cruel and Unusual Punishment, How a Savage Gang of

13 Deputies Controls County

" the ACLU has disclosed multiple declarations

14 revealing systemic acts of excessive force and fabrication of evidence by sheriff's

15 deputies at Men's Central JaiL Further, the Report cited to the statements of

16 multiple civilians who witnessed the unconstitutional, sadistic abuse of inmates by

17 Sheriff's deputies,

also witnessing the deputies falsely make statements to the

18 victim inmates of "stop resisting," to cover-up their brutal conduct

19 60. Beginning on September 25, 20 II the Los Angeles Times printed a series of

20 articles reporting on "allegations of deputy bmtality and other misconduct in the

21 Los Angeles County jail system." Jails Under Scrutiny Series, LA. Times, Sept 25,

2011-Dec. 25, 2011, available at http://wwwJatimes.ccm1!news/local/la-me-jails-

sg,0,4834651.storygallery. The series provides information regarding, inter alia: the

24 widespread use of excessive force by deputies at the Men's Central Jail; memos 25 detailing the excessive force problem at Men's Central Jail and what SheriffBaca 26 and other supervisors knew about the excessive force problem at Men's Central Jail; 27 an FBI investigation of deputy force at Men's Central Jail; deputy gangs or cliques 28 within Men's Central Jail; and the removal of Defendant Captain Daniel Cruz from

-14-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 61 Filed 11/18/13 Page 15 of 25 Page ID #:354

his position overseeing the Men's Central JaiL

2 61. Several m1icles focus, in particular, on the longstanding nature of the problem

3 of excessive force at Men's Central Jail and what the department has done-or not

4

response. Two

articles are: (.!)Robert Faturechi & Jack Leonard..

5 SheriffLee Boca Was Warned About Jail Deputies' Conduct, Retiree Says, 1

6 I Times, December I, 11 ("Boca Warned"); (2) Jack Leonard & Robert Faturechi,

7 Sheriff's StaffRaised Red Flags About Jail Brutality 2 Years Ago,

Times,

8 9 I 62.

29,2011 to and

Flags"). the time of the beating of Mr. Carrillo and the fabrication

10 of evidence against him, supervisors of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
11 I Department were aware of the existence of the brutal, unconstitutional practices of

12 'I deputies

Men's

Jail. Defendant County ofLos Angeles had a

13

duty to
1

adequately train,

supervise, and control its officers to prevent the deputies'

141 from committing acts of excessive force against individuals within the Men's

15 , Central Jail and fabricating evidence intended to cover-up their acts of excessive

I

~ ~:rce. : I

addition, np.fprlf1 County of Los Angeles had a duty to disseminate to

18 Deputy District Attorneys prosecuting cases in which a deputy was to testify, 19 , including prosecutors who represented Defendant County of Los Angeles during
20 ' Mr. Canillo's case, that deputies assigned to the Men's Central Jail had a practice of
21 engaging in acts of excessive force and fabrication of evidence. The County of Los 22 Angeles' failure to do so resulted in the prosecutors in Mr. Carrillo's case filing 23 criminal charges against him, resulting in Mr. Carrillo having to retain counsel and 24 defend himself of false criminal charges.

25 \\ 26 \\
27 \\ 28 ' \\
-15-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 61 Filed 11/18/13 Page 16 of 25 Page ID #:355

1

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983

3

AGAINST DEFENDANT ZUNGGEEMOGE, DEFENDANT AYALA,

4 DEFENDANT LUVIANO, DEFENDANT WOMACK, DEFENDANT REED,

5 DEFENDANT SERGEANT ERIC

AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10

6 64. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-63 above, as

7 though fully stated herein.

8 65. Defendant Zunggeemoge, Defendant Ayala,

Luviano, Defendant

9 Womack, Defendant

Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez, and Does I through I0,

I0 acting under color of state law, deprived Plaintiff of rights, privileges, and I l immunities secured by Constitution and laws of the United States including the

12 Fourth, Fifth and l='mu·tc•Pnth Amendments

13

a. Subjecting Plaintiff to excessive force and unjustified infliction of

14

hann;

151 16 17 18 19 20
21 ! 22
23 24 25 26 I 66.

c. Falsely anesting Plaintiff for: (a) Resisting an Executive Officer, a violation of Penal Code Section 69 - a felony; (b) Escape from Anest by force and violence, a violation of Penal Code Section 836.6(b)- a felony; (c) Battery by Gassing (reflecting Canillo's purported spitting on Defendant Luviano), a violation of Penal Code Section 243.9(a)- a felony; (d) Battery with injury on a Peace Officer, a violation of Penal Code Section 243(c)(2)- a felony; based on deliberately false police reports; d. Interfering with Plaintiffs right to seek redress for his injuries by covering up for their officer misconduct; e. Denying Plaintiff due process of law, all to Plaintiffs damages as herein above alleged. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts of Defendants,

27 Plaintiff was injured as set forth above, and is entitled to compensatory and punitive

28 damages according to proof

-16-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 61 Filed 11/18/13 Page 17 of 25 Page ID #:356

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983

3

FOR FAILURE TO SUPERVISE, TRAIN, AND TAKE CORRECTIVE

4

MEASURES CAUSING CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION.

5

AGAINST DEFENDANTS SERGEANT GONZALEZ,

6

DEFENDANT CAPTAIN DANIEL CRUZ,

7 8 67.

DEFENDANT CAPTAIN ~m11tt restates and incorporates

0 reference Paragraphs l-66 above, as

9 though

stated herein ..

10 68. At all times material herein, Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez, Defendant

1 1

Daniel

Defendant Captain Duane

Does 1-10, as

12 supervisors of the Los Angeles

under color of

13 had a duty to supervise and control officers under their command within the Los

14 Angeles County Men's Central Jail to ensure that said officers would not violate the

15 constitutionaJ•·iahtc of individuals by using excessive force, fabricating criminal

16 allegations, and testifying falsely in criminal proceedings ..

17

Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez was the supervisor inside the break room when

18 the beating of Mr. Canillo occuned in the visiting section of the Los Angeles

19 County Men's Central on February 26, 2012, and arrived during the beating of

20 Mr. Canilio. Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez had the opportunity and the duty to take

21

of the situation and of the deputies beating Mr. Canillo to prevent an

22 11 unwmTanted use of excessive force, but failed to control the deputies under his
23 ' supervision, and instead ratified and even encouraged the use of force against Mr.

24 Canillo.

25 70. Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez, knowing that the incident repmis and the 26 supplemental repmis of the deputies who engaged in the beating of Mr. Canillo on
27., Febmary 26,2012 were false and fabricated, approved of these false and fabricated
'I28 reports, thereby causing the filing of false charges against Mr. Canillo.
-17-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 61 Filed 11/18/13 Page 18 of 25 Page ID #:357

I 71. Defendant Captain Daniel Cruz, stationed at the Los Angeles County Men's 2 Central Jail until December of2010, and Defendant Captain Duane Hanis, stationed 3 at the Los Angeles County Jail on February 26, 2011, knew or should have known 4 of a history and propensity and pattem at the time of this incident for deputies 5 assigned to the Men's Central Jail to engage in acts of excessive force and creating

7 particular, Defendant Captain Cruz and Defendant Captain Hanis knew or should

8 have known about 9 force, and fabrication of evidence,

Defendant Ayala's history of engaging

I0 wrongful detention practices and fabrication of evidence. As the Captains of the

Captain Cruz and Defendant Captain Harris failed to 12 comply implementing policies and 13 force and the creation of false and fabricated reports not occur; failed to train and

14 , ensure that deputies refrain from acts of excessive force and the creation of false
15 I and fabricated reports.

16 72. As a direct and proximate eause thereof, Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez,

l 7 · Defendant Captain

Defendant Captain

and supervising Does 1-1 0

18 failed to supervise and control Defendant Zunggeemoge, Defendant Ayala,

19 Defendant Luviano, Defendant Womack, Defendant Reed, Defendant Sergeant 20 Gonzalez, and subordinate Does I through 10, and by doing so, permitted 21 Defendant Zunggeemoge, Defendant Ayala, Defendant Luviano, Defendant

22 1 Womack, Defendant Reed, Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez, and subordinate Does l 23 through I 0, to unlawfully engage in excessive force and the falsification of evidence 24 against Mr. Canillo.

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 61 Filed 11/18/13 Page 19 of 25 Page ID #:358

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE§ 52.1

3 AGAINST INDIVIDUALLY NAMED DEFENDANT ZUNGGEEMOGE,

4 DEFENDANT AYALA, DEFENDANT LUVIANO, DEFENDANT WOMACK,

5

REED, DEFENDANT SERGEANT ERIC GONZALEZ, DOES

6 1

10

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.

7. 73. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference Paragraphs l-72 above, as

8 I though fully stated herein.

91 74. The County

Angeles is liable for

101 California Government Code Section 8 I 5.2(a). Furthermore, the County of Los

1 1

I
!

Angeles

is

liable

under Califomia

Government

Code

Section

815.6.

12 I 75. The

States Constitution, Amendment IV, Amendment and

13

i
':

Amendment

XIV,

and

the

Califomia Constitution,

At1iele

l

§

13,

guarantee the

right

14! of persons to be free from excessive force and to be free from having false and
sl1 fabricated charges filed against them. Defendants, by engaging in the wrongful

161 conduct alleged herein, interfered or attempted to interfere by threats, intimidation,

17' and/or coercion,

Plaintiffs exercise or enjoyment these rights, thus giving

18 rise to claims for damages pursuant to California Civil Code § 52.1 (b).

19 1 76. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts of defendants,
I
20 Plaintiff was injured as set forth above, and is entitled to statutory damages under

21 1 Califomia Civil Code § 52, as well as compensatory and punitive damages

22 . according to proof.
I 23. \\

24 \\

25! \\

26 \\

27 \\

28 \\

-19-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 61 Filed 11/18/13 Page 20 of 25 Page ID #:359

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

ASSAULT AND BATTERY

3

AGAINST INDIVIDUALLY NAMED DEFENDANT ZUNGGEEMOGE,

4 DEFENDANT AYALA, DEFENDANT LUVIANO, DEFENDANT WOMACK,

5 DEFENDANT

DEFENDANT SERGEANT ERIC GONZALEZ, DOES

6 1 THROUGH 10 AND

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,

7 77. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference Paragraphs l-76 above, as 8 though fully stated herein ..

9 78. The County of Angeles is liable for the violations of employees under

I0 Califomia Govemment Code Section 815.2(a). Furthermore the County of Los

II Angeles is liable under

Govemment Code Section 815.6.

12 79. Defendant Zunggeemoge, Defendant Ayala,

Luviano, Defendant

13 Womack, Defendant Reed, Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez, and Does 1 through I0,

14 acting within the scope of their employment as law enforcement officers for the Los
15 I Angeles County Sheriffs Department, assaulted and battered Plaintiff causing

16 mJury.

17 80. As a direct and proximate

of the aforementioned acts of defendants,

18 I' Plaintiff was injured as set forth above, and is entitled to compensatory and punitive

19 damages according to proof.

20

FIFTH CLAP<I FOR RELIEF

21

NFGUGENCE

22 1

AGAINST DEFENDANTS SE:Q.GEANT GONZALEZ,

23

DEFENDANT CAPTAIN DANIEL CRUZ,

24

DEFENDANT CAP'll~AlN DUANE HARRIS and DOES 1-10

25 81. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-80 above, as

26 though fully stated herein.

27 '182. Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez, Defendant Captain Daniel Cmz, Defendant

28 Captain Duane Hanis and Doe supervisors 1-10, acting within the course and scope -20-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 61 Filed 11/18/13 Page 21 of 25 Page ID #:360

1 of their employment had a duty to assure the competence of their employee/agents 2 Defendants and Does 1-1 0, but breached their duty and were negligent in the 3 performance of their duties by selecting, training, reviewing, supervising, failing to 4 supervise, evaluating the competency and retaining their defendant law enforcement 5 offieers, and/or employees and/or agents. This breach of the duty of careful

6 selection, training, review, supervision, periodic evaluation of competency, and

7 retention of such enforcement officers and /or employees and /or agents created

8 an unreasonable of harm to persons such as Mr. Carrillo.

9 83. '-'""·"u"'" Sergeant Gonzalez, Defendant Captain Daniel Cruz, Defendant

I0 Captain Duane

and Doe supervisors l-1 0 breached their duty of care to

II observe, report, mcmittor 12 and/or employees and

discipline their defendant

enforcement officers,

13 84. As a direct legal result of the aforesaid negligence, carelessness and

14 unskillfulness of Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez, Defendant Captain Daniel Cruz,

15 Defendant Captain Duane

and Doe supervisors 1-1 0, and each of them, and

16 as a

of their breach of duty of care to Mr. Carrillo, suffered the damages as

17 alleged

18

19

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

20 II

DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS-- 42 U.S.C. §1983

21

MONELL LIABILITY

22 i AGAINST DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DEFENDANT

23 CAPTAIN DANIEL CRUZ IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, DEFENDANT

24

CAPTAIN DUANE HARRIS IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACHY

25

AND DOES 1 - 10.

26 85. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-84 above, as

27 though fully stated herein.
28

-21-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 61 Filed 11/18/13 Page 22 of 25 Page ID #:361

I I 86. Plaintiff is infonned and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times herein
2 mentioned, Defendant County of Los Angeles, Defendant Daniel Cruz, Defendant 3 Duane Harris and Does 1 - I 0, with deliberate indifference, and conscious and 4 reckless disregard to the safety, security and constitutional and statutory rights of

5 i Plaintiff, engaged the unconstitutional conduct and omissions, which consist of

6 the following customs and/or policies:

7

a. The knowing presentation of false evidence by deputies;

8

b. The deliberately indifferent nrc•cc>nt"'tir.n of

evidence deputies;

9

c.

presentation of false evidence by

in reckless disregard

10

the truth or the rights of the accused;

II

d. Subjecting

. Carrillo, to unreasonable uses of

12

force against

persons;

13 i
i

e. Selecting, retaining, and assigning deputies with demonstrable

14 II•!

propensities for excessive force, violence, .and other misconduct;

15

f. Failing to adequately train, supervise, and control deputies in the field

161
I

of Jaw enforcement, including the use of force;

17

Failing to adequately discipline deputies involved in misconduct,

18 !

including excessive force and dishonesty;

19

h. Condoning and encouraging officers in the belief that they can violate

20

the rights of persons such as Gabriel Canillo with impunity, and that

21 I

such conduct will not adversely affect their opportunities for promotion

'

22

and other employment benefits;

23

I. Knowingly failing to disband deputy gangs within the Los Angeles

24

County Sheriffs Depa11ment which engage in unconstitutional conduct

25

against individuals at the Men' Central Jail, including, among other

26

things, the fabrication of evidence in criminal cases and engaging in

27

acts of excessive force

28

-22-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 61 Filed 11/18/13 Page 23 of 25 Page ID #:362

1

J

Condoning and encouraging deputies in the belief that they can violate

the rights of persons such as Mr. Carrillo with impunity, and that such

3

conduct will not adversely affect their opportunities for promotion and

4 i

other employment benefits; and

s!

k. Condoning and encouraging the fabrication of evidence including but

61

not limited to the filing of materially false police reports, and/or

71

making false statements to prosecution authorities to obtain the filing

8

Of false Ntcn·G<'C

wl91

The

inactions of the Angeles County Sheriff's Department set

forth in ~[•,] 59-63 were known or should have been known to the policy makers

1l responsible the I
J2 l I

Angeles County Sheriff's Depmtment and occurred with the recun·ing constitutional violations elaborated

13 I above, and/or to the strong likelihood that constitutional rights would be violated as
141 a result of failing to train, supervise or discipline in areas where the need for such
1s 'r training and supervision was obvious.

161 88.

of

Angeles County Sheriffs Department set forth herein

17 i were a motivating force behind the violations of Mr. Carrillo's constitutional rights

18 as set forth in this complaint

19 1 89. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant County of Los Angeles' acts

20 and omissions, condoning, encouraging, ratifying and deliberately ignoring the

21 1 pattern and practice of Defendants and Does 1 - 10 acts and omissions, Plaintiff
I
22 1.' sustained injury and damage as proved.

23 11

DAMAGES

241 90. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts, practices, policies and

251 decisions of Defendant Zunggeemoge, Defendant Ayala, Defendant Luviano,
261. Defendant Womack, Defendant Reed, Defendant Sergeant Gonzalez, Defendant

271 Captain Daniel Cruz, Defendant Captain Duane Harris, Defendant County of Los
'I
28 Angeles and Does 1 through 10, Plaintiff has suffered great mental and physical
-23-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 61 Filed 11/18/13 Page 24 of 25 Page ID #:363
I

1 I 1

pain,

physical

injury,

suffering,

anguish,

fright,

nervousness,

anxiety,

shock,

I,

'I2 humiliation, indignity, embanassment, harm to reputation, and apprehension, which

3 have caused Plaintiff to sustain damages in a sum to be detem1ined at triaL

4191. All Defendants acted outside the scope of their jurisdiction and without

5 authorization of law, and, separately and in concert, the aforementioned acts of the

6 , Defendants, and each of

was willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive, with

7 I reckless disregard or with deliberate indifference with the intent to deprive Plaintiff

8 his

111

the aforementioned rights

damages in an amount to be

I0 proven at the trial of this matter.

11 92,

reason of afore described acts omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff

12 was

against false and fabricated

I3 criminal charges, thereby incurring damages by way of attorney fees,

14 93, By reason on the afore described acts and omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff 15 was required to retain an attorney to prosecute the within action, and to render legal

16 assistance to Plaintiff that he might vindicate the Joss and impaim1ent ofhis rights,

17 I and by reason thereof, Plaintiff requests payment Defendants of a reasonable sum

18 ' for attomey's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

19

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

20 94. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendant

21 Zunggeemoge, Defendant Ayala, Defeo;dant Luviano, Defendant Womack,

22 \[ Defendant Reed, Defendant Sergeant Go:1zalez, Defendant Captain Cruz, Defendant 23 Captain Harris, Defendant County of Los Angeles, and Does 1 through 10, and each 24 of them, jointly and severally, as described and limited in the Causes of Action set 25 fmih above, as follows: 26

27

1. For general and compensatory damages according to proof;

28

2. For special damages according to proof;

-24-

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 61 Filed 11/18/13 Page 25 of 25 Page ID #:364

3.

and punitive damages against individual Defendant in

an amount according to proof;

4. For costs of suit reasonable attorneys' fees permitted pursuant to

42 U.S. C., § l 988; and

5.

further relief as the court may dee1n just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,

KAYE, McLANE & BEDNARSKI,

13, 2013 0
""'""" "

By:_n;-;R""O"'N"'-A1/L"fDS.710Rn.o'KrwrAl~dY'TKE~aLve"-?_ _ _ _ _ __

Attomeys for Plaintiff

JURY DEMAND Trial by jury of all issues is demanded.
McLANE & BEDNARSKI, LLP

By:_]"R);O~/fN)SA~/L'-1DRR-o7n0a~l.""dKi7KA~aYyy;Ee;;,-_ _ _ _ __
Attorneys for Plaintiff

26

27

28

,I'·,I

-25-

 
 Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 106 Filed 08/29/14 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:1032

1 RONALD O. KAYE (No.145051) MARILYN E. BEDNARSKI (No. 105322)
2 KEVIN J. LaHUE (No. 237556) KAYE, McLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT
3 234 E. Colorado Blvd. Suite 230 Pasadena, CA 91101
4 Telephone: (626) 844-7660 Facsimile: (626) 844-7670
5 E-mail: rok@kmbllaw.com E-mail: mbednarski@kmbllaw.com
6 E-mail: klahue@kmbllaw.com

7 Attorneys for Plaintiff, GABRIEL MOSES CARRILLO
8

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11

12 GABRIEL MOSES CARRILLO,
13

14

Plaintiff,

15

v.

16 DEPUTY PANTAMITR

ZUNGGEEMOGE, DEPUTY SUSSIE 17 AYALA, DEPUTY FERNANDO

18

LUVIANO, DEPUTY NOEL WOMACK, SERGEANT ERIC

19 GONZALEZ, CAPTAIN DANIEL

CRUZ, CAPTAIN DUANE HARRIS,

20 DEPUTY ANTHONY REED

21

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

22 Defendants.
23

CASE NO. CV 12-02609 DSF(PJWx) [Honorable Dale S. Fischer]
JOINT STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

24

25

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Plaintiff

26 Gabriel Moses Carrillo, through his counsel, Ronald O. Kaye, and Defendants

27 Deputy Zunggeemoge, Deputy Ayala, Deputy Luviano, Deputy Womack, Deputy

28 Reed, Sergeant Gonzalez, Retired Captain Cruz, Captain Harris, through their

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

Case 2:12-cv-02609-DSF-PJW Document 106 Filed 08/29/14 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:1033

1 counsel of record, Gilbert Nishimura, and the County of Los Angeles, through its

2 counsel of record, Rickey Ivie, to dismiss with prejudice this entire action pursuant

3 to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with each party to bear its

4 own fees and costs, except as otherwise set forth in the parties’ settlement agreement

5 and release.

6

Respectfully submitted,

7

KAYE, McLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP

8

9 DATED: August 27, 2014

By: /S/ Ronald Kaye

10

RONALD O. KAYE

11

MARILYN E. BEDNARSKI KEVIN J. LAHUE

12

Attorneys for Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo

13 _____________________________________________________________________

14 DATED: August 27, 2014 15

By: /S/ Rickey Ivie RICKEY IVIE DAVIDA FRIEMAN

16

Attorneys for Defendant County of Los Angeles

17

18 DATED: August 27, 2014
19 20 21 22 23 24

By: /S/ Gilbert Nishimura______________________ Attorneys for Defendants DEPUTY PANTAMITR ZUNGGEEMOGE, DEPUTY SUSSIE AYALA, DEPUTY FERNANDO LUVIANO, DEPUTY NOEL WOMACK, SERGEANT ERIC GONZALEZ, CAPTAIN DANIEL CRUZ, CAPTAIN DUANE HARRIS, DEPUTY ANTHONY REED

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES

2

 
 Case: 2:12-cv-2609 As of: 07/14/2015 08:28 PM PDT 1 of 12
(PJWx),CLOSED,DISCOVERY,MANADR,PROTORD,STAYED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division − Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:12−cv−02609−DSF−PJW

Gabriel Moses Carrillo v. Pantamitr Zunggeemoge et al Assigned to: Judge Dale S. Fischer Referred to: Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/27/2012 Date Terminated: 08/29/2014 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Gabriel Moses Carrillo

represented by Kevin J LaHue Kaye McLane Bednarski and Litt LLP 234 East Colorado Boulevard Suite 230 Pasadena, CA 91101 626−844−7660 Fax: 626−844−7670 Email: klahue@kmbllaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marilyn E Bednarski Kaye McLane Bednarski and Litt 234 East Colorado Boulevard Suite 230 Pasadena, CA 91101 626−844−7660 Ext 102 Fax: 626−844−7670 Email: mbednarski@kmbllaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ronald O Kaye Kaye McLane and Bednarski LLP 234 East Colorado Boulevard Suite 230 Pasadena, CA 91101 626−844−7660 Fax: 626−844−7670 Email: rok@kmbllaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Deputy Pantamitr Zunggeemoge in his individiual capacity

represented by Gilbert M Nishimura Seki Nishimura and Watase LLP 605 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90015 213−481−2869 Fax: 213−481−2871 Email: gnishimura@snw−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rickey Ivie Ivie McNeill and Wyatt APC 444 South Flower Street Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−489−0028 Fax: 213−489−0552 Email: rivie@imwlaw.com TERMINATED: 02/28/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:12-cv-2609 As of: 07/14/2015 08:28 PM PDT 2 of 12

Defendant Deputy Sussie Ayala in her individiual capacity
Defendant Deputy Fernando Luviano in his individiual capacity
Defendant Deputy Noel Womack in his individiual capacity
Defendant Sergeant Eric Gonzalez in his individiual capacity
Defendant Sergeant Eric Gonzalez official capacity TERMINATED: 11/18/2013 Defendant Captain Daniel Cruz in his individiual capacity
Defendant Captain Daniel Cruz official capacity TERMINATED: 11/18/2013 Defendant Captain Duane Harris in his individiual capacity
Defendant Captain Duane Harris official capacity TERMINATED: 11/18/2013

represented by Rickey Ivie (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gilbert M Nishimura (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rickey Ivie (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gilbert M Nishimura (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rickey Ivie (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/28/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gilbert M Nishimura (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rickey Ivie (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Rickey Ivie (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Rickey Ivie (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Rickey Ivie (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Rickey Ivie (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Rickey Ivie (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:12-cv-2609 As of: 07/14/2015 08:28 PM PDT 3 of 12

Defendant County of Los Angeles 1 through 10 inclusive
Defendant Does 1 through 10 inclusive Defendant Deputy Anthony Reed an individual

represented by Davida M Frieman Ivie McNeil and Wyatt 444 South Flower Street 18th Fl Los Angeles, CA 90071 213−489−0028 Fax: 213−489−0552 Email: dfrieman@imwlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rickey Ivie (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Berta A Blen Ivie, McNeill & Wyatt 444 S. Flower St., 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 213 489 0028 Fax: 213 489 0552 Email: bblen@imwlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/27/2012
03/27/2012
03/27/2012 03/27/2012 03/28/2012
04/05/2012

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Defendants Sussie Ayala, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz(official capacity), Daniel Cruz(in his individiual capacity), Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Eric Gonzalez(official capacity), Eric Gonzalez(in his individiual capacity), Duane Harris(in his individiual capacity), Duane Harris(official capacity), Fernando Luviano, Noel Womack, Pantamitr Zunggeemoge. Case assigned to Judge Dale S. Fischer for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Patrick J Walsh.(Filing fee $ 350 PAID.) Jury Demanded., filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo.(et) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/28/2012: # 1 Ntc of Asgmt, # 2 Summons, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet) (mg). (Entered: 03/27/2012)
21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint − (Discovery) 1 as to Defendants Sussie Ayala, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz(official capacity), Daniel Cruz(in his individiual capacity), Eric Gonzalez(official capacity), Eric Gonzalez(in his individiual capacity), Duane Harris(in his individiual capacity), Duane Harris(official capacity), Fernando Luviano, Noel Womack, Pantamitr Zunggeemoge. (et) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
2 CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. (et) (mg). (Entered: 03/27/2012)
3 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT−DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (et) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
TEXT ONLY ENTRY: INITIAL STANDING ORDER FOR CASES ASSIGNED TO JUDGE DALE S. FISCHER. The Court refers counsel the Courts Standing Order found on the Courts website under Judge Fischers Procedures and Schedules. Read the Order carefully. It governs this case and differs in some respects from the Local Rules. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(dp) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 03/28/2012)
4 ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 08−05 (Related Case) filed. Transfer of case declined by Judge George H Wu, for the reasons set forth on this order. Related Case No. CV 10−08011 GW(PLAx) (rn) (Entered: 04/05/2012)

Case: 2:12-cv-2609 As of: 07/14/2015 08:28 PM PDT 4 of 12

04/30/2012
04/30/2012
04/30/2012
04/30/2012
04/30/2012
04/30/2012 04/30/2012 04/30/2012 04/30/2012 04/30/2012 04/30/2012
04/30/2012

5 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo, upon Defendant Pantamitr Zunggeemoge served on 4/20/2012, answer due 5/11/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Deputy Soffa, Designated to Accept Service in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and no service by mail was executed. Original Summons NOT returned. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
6 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo, upon Defendant Sussie Ayala served on 4/20/2012, answer due 5/11/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Deputy Soffa, Designated to Accept Service in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and no service by mail was executed. Original Summons NOT returned. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
7 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo, upon Defendant Fernando Luviano served on 4/20/2012, answer due 5/11/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Deputy Soffa, Designated to Accept Service in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and no service by mail was executed. Original Summons NOT returned. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
8 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo, upon Defendant Noel Womack served on 4/20/2012, answer due 5/11/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Deputy Soffa, Designated to Accept Service in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and no service by mail was executed. Original Summons NOT returned. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
9 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo, upon Defendant Eric Gonzalez(official capacity) served on 4/20/2012, answer due 5/11/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Deputy R. Webb (#218046), Designated to Accept Service in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and no service by mail was executed. Original Summons NOT returned. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
10 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. correcting Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days), Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days) 5 (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
11 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. correcting Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days), Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days) 6 (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
12 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. correcting Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days), Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days) 7 (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
13 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. correcting Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days), Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days) 8 (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
14 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. correcting Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days), Service of Summons and Complaint Returned Executed (21 days) 9 (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
15 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo, upon Defendant Pantamitr Zunggeemoge served on 4/25/2012, answer due 5/16/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Deputy Soffa, Designated to Accept Service in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and no service by mail was executed. Original Summons NOT returned. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
16 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo, upon Defendant Sussie Ayala served on 4/25/2012, answer due 5/16/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Deputy Soffa, Designated to Accept Service in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and no service by mail was executed. Original Summons NOT returned. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/30/2012)

Case: 2:12-cv-2609 As of: 07/14/2015 08:28 PM PDT 5 of 12

04/30/2012
04/30/2012
04/30/2012
04/30/2012
04/30/2012
04/30/2012
05/22/2012 05/23/2012 05/24/2012 05/30/2012 05/30/2012 06/01/2012

17 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo, upon Defendant Fernando Luviano served on 4/25/2012, answer due 5/16/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Deputy Soffa, Designated to Accept Service in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and no service by mail was executed. Original Summons NOT returned. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
18 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo, upon Defendant Noel Womack served on 4/25/2012, answer due 5/16/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Deputy Soffa, Designated to Accept Service in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and no service by mail was executed. Original Summons NOT returned. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
19 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo, upon Defendant Eric Gonzalez(official capacity) served on 4/26/2012, answer due 5/17/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Deputy R. Webb (#218046), Designated to Accept Service in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and no service by mail was executed. Original Summons NOT returned. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
20 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo, upon Defendant Daniel Cruz(official capacity) served on 4/27/2012, answer due 5/18/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Lieutenant Vince Carter, Designated to Accept Service in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and no service by mail was executed. Original Summons NOT returned. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
21 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo, upon Defendant Duane Harris(official capacity) served on 4/25/2012, answer due 5/16/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Michael E. Thatcher (#223404), Designated to Accept Service in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and no service by mail was executed. Original Summons NOT returned. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
22 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo, upon Defendant County of Los Angeles served on 4/23/2012, answer due 5/14/2012. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Gilbert Valle, Deputy County Clerk, Designated to Accept Service in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and no service by mail was executed. Original Summons NOT returned. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
23 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Dale S. Fischer. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 6/11/2012. (vdr) (Entered: 05/22/2012)
24 REQUEST for Entry of Default against Defendants All Defendants filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proofs of Service)(Bednarski, Marilyn) (Entered: 05/23/2012)
25 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY Re: REQUEST for Entry of Default against Defendants All Defendants 24 . The Clerk cannot enter the requested relief as The proofs of service are lacking required information: the statute, type of service and notice of mailing of documents not indicated. (shb) (Entered: 05/24/2012)
26 ANSWER to Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 with JURY DEMAND filed by Defendants County of Los Angeles.(Frieman, Davida) (Entered: 05/30/2012)
27 Defendants' Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendants County of Los Angeles, (Frieman, Davida) (Entered: 05/30/2012)
TEXT ONLY ENTRY: ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Dale S. Fischer. The Court refers counsel to the Courts Scheduling Conference Order found on the Courts website under Judge Fischers Procedures and Schedules contained in the Judges Requirements tab. The Joint Report must include the completed Schedule of Pretrial and Trial dates. Scheduling Conference set for 8/20/2012 11:00 AM before Judge Dale S. Fischer. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH

Case: 2:12-cv-2609 As of: 07/14/2015 08:28 PM PDT 6 of 12

07/26/2012 07/30/2012 08/03/2012
08/06/2012 08/06/2012
10/24/2012 10/25/2012
10/25/2012 10/31/2012 01/30/2013 02/12/2013 02/12/2013

THIS ENTRY.(dp) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 06/01/2012)
28 REPORT of JOINT RULE 26(f) SCHEDULING CONFERENCE REPORT filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. (Attachments: # 1 Schedule of Trial and Pretrial Dates, # 2 Exhibit A)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 07/26/2012)
29 INITIAL DISCLOSURE of PURSUANT TO RULE 26 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles (Frieman, Davida) (Entered: 07/30/2012)
30 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE. The Court takes the Scheduling Conference off calendar and establishes the case management dates as proposed by the parties in their Joint Rule 26(f) Report, as further described in the Schedule of Pretrial and Trial dates. (See Order re Trial for specific dates and times.) THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(dp) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 08/03/2012)
31 ORDER/REFERRAL to ADR Procedure No 3 by Judge Dale S. Fischer. Case ordered to a private mediator based upon a stipulation of the parties or by the court order. ADR Proceeding to be held no later than 7/15/2013. (vdr) (Entered: 08/07/2012)
32 ORDER REGARDING JURY TRIAL: I. E−FILING REQUIREMENTS II. DEADLINES: A. Adding Parties or Amending Pleadings: 6/3/13; B. Discovery Cut−off: 6/3/13; C. Expert Witness Exchange Deadline: Initial: 6/10/13; Rebuttal: 6/24/13; Cut−off: 7/8/13;D. Motion Hearing Cut−off: 7/1/13; E. ADR Cut−off: 7/15/13; F. Final Pretrial Conference: 9/9/13 @ 3:00 pm; G. Trial Date: 10/8/13@ 8:30 am (6 day estimate)III. TRIAL PREPARATION IV. CONDUCT OF ATTORNEYS AND PARTIES (See document for further details) Judge Dale S. Fischer. (ir) (Entered: 08/07/2012)
33 STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Defendants County of Los Angeles.(Frieman, Davida) (Entered: 10/24/2012)
34 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Stipulation for Protective Order 33 . The following error(s) was found: Proposed Document was not submitted as a separate attachment.Other error(s) with document(s) are specified below. Per General Order 05−07, Discovery−related matters (i.e. Protective Orders) shall be presented to the Magistrate Judge; L.R. 52−4.1. A separate Order shall be electronically filed with any stipulation, application, motion or request of the parties requiring an order for the court. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (afe) (Entered: 10/25/2012)
35 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh, Indicate showing of "Good Cause FCRP 26 (c)(1). Submit Proposed Order together with Stipulation as one document and e−mail to PJW Chambers (pjw_chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov) in Word or Word Perfect version − no need to re−file RE: Stipulation for Protective Order 33 (afe) (Entered: 10/25/2012)
36 PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. re Stipulation for Protective Order 33 . (afe) (Entered: 11/02/2012)
37 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Marilyn E Bednarski counsel for Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. Changing firm name to Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt. Filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo (Bednarski, Marilyn) (Entered: 01/30/2013)
38 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Kevin J LaHue counsel for Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. Changing firm name to Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt. Changing e−mail to klahue@kmbllaw.com. Filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Carrillo (LaHue, Kevin) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
39 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Kevin J LaHue counsel for Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. Changing firm name to Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt. Changing e−mail to klahue@kmbllaw.com. Filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Carrillo

Case: 2:12-cv-2609 As of: 07/14/2015 08:28 PM PDT 7 of 12

02/12/2013 02/12/2013
03/19/2013 03/20/2013 07/08/2013 07/08/2013 07/12/2013
07/12/2013 07/12/2013 07/12/2013 07/15/2013 07/15/2013

(LaHue, Kevin) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
40 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Information for attorney Ronald O Kaye counsel for Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. Changing firm name to Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt. Changing e−mail to rok@kmbllaw.com. Filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Carrillo (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
41 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice of Change of Attorney Information (G−06), Notice of Change of Attorney Information (G−06) 38 . The following error(s) was found: Document submitted in the wrong case.Case number is incorrect or missing. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (ak) (Entered: 02/13/2013)
42 Joint STIPULATION to Stay Case pending Completion of Investigation; Settlement Negotiations filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 03/19/2013)
43 ORDER by Judge Dale S. Fischer: the instant proceedings, including all discovery matters, is stayed, and the trial and all related dates are vacated. Joint Status Report due by 7/12/2013. (rne) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
44 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Lifting Stay filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. Motion set for hearing on 8/5/2013 at 01:30 PM before Judge Dale S. Fischer. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 07/08/2013)
45 DECLARATION of Ronald O. Kaye In Support Of MOTION for Order for Lifting Stay 44 filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 07/08/2013)
46 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: (IN CHAMBERS) NOTICE: Judge Dale S. Fischer is participating in a pilot program regarding the submission of sealed documents. Effective July 8, 2013, all proposed documents related to under seal filings must be submitted via e−mail to the Judge's Chambers e−mail at DSF_Chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov. Please refer to the judge's pilot program procedures for detailed instructions for submission of sealed documents. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(dp) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 07/12/2013)
47 STATUS REPORT OF COUNSEL (JOINT) RE: STATUS OF GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION AND SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS filed by Defendants Sussie Ayala, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz, Eric Gonzalez, Duane Harris, Fernando Luviano, Noel Womack, Pantamitr Zunggeemoge, Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. (Frieman, Davida) (Entered: 07/12/2013)
48 NOTICE of Under Seal Filing filed Sussie Ayala, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz(official capacity), Does, Eric Gonzalez(in his individiual capacity), Duane Harris(in his individiual capacity), Fernando Luviano, Noel Womack, Pantamitr Zunggeemoge (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order)(Frieman, Davida) (Entered: 07/12/2013)
49 NOTICE OF LODGING filed OF DECLARATION OF BRIAN HERSHMAN TO BE FILED UPON GRANT OF DEFENDANTS' APPLICATION TO FILE DECLARATION UNDER SEAL re Notice of Under Seal Filing, 48 (Frieman, Davida) (Entered: 07/12/2013)
50 OPPOSITION Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay Imposed on March 20, 2013 re: MOTION for Order for Lifting Stay 44 filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Davida M. Frieman in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay Imposed on March 20, 2013)(Frieman, Davida) (Entered: 07/15/2013)
51 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: (IN CHAMBERS) NOTICE: Judge Dale S. Fischer is participating in a pilot program regarding the submission of sealed documents. Effective July 8, 2013, all proposed documents related to under seal filings must be

Case: 2:12-cv-2609 As of: 07/14/2015 08:28 PM PDT 8 of 12

07/16/2013 07/16/2013 07/22/2013 07/31/2013 08/12/2013 08/19/2013
08/19/2013
11/13/2013 11/15/2013 11/18/2013
11/18/2013 11/27/2013

submitted via e−mail to the Judge's Chambers e−mail at DSF_Chambers@cacd.uscourts.gov. Please refer to the judge's pilot program procedures for detailed instructions for submission of sealed documents. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY.(dp) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 07/15/2013)
52 ORDER by Judge Dale S. Fischer: granting Application to File Declaration of Brian Hershman Under Seal. (rne) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
53 SEALED DOCUMENT− DECLARATION of Brian Hershman filed Under Seal. (mat) (Entered: 07/18/2013)
54 REPLY in support of MOTION for Order for Lifting Stay 44 filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
55 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge Dale S. Fischer: granting 44 Motion to Life Stay. Scheduling conference set for August 19, 2013. See Minute Order for specifics. (dp) (Entered: 07/31/2013)
56 Joint Proposed Schedule of Pretrial and Trial Dates filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Schedule, # 2 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
57 MINUTES OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: Scheduling Conference held before Judge Dale S. Fischer. The matter is called and counsel state their appearances. The Court and counsel discuss status. The Court establishes the case management dates as stated on the record. (See Order re Trial for specific dates and times.) These dates and requirements are firm. The Court is very unlikely to grant continuances unless the parties establish good cause through a concrete showing. Failure to complete discovery in a timely manner does not constitute good cause, nor does the fact that a settlement conference is pending. Court Reporter: Pamela Batalo. (shb) (Entered: 08/21/2013)
58 ORDER RE JURY TRIAL by Judge Dale S. Fischer: The court sets the following deadlines and hearings: Amended Pleadings due by 11/25/2013., Discovery cut−off 3/31/2014., Expert Witness Exchange Deadline − Initial 4/23/2014; Rebuttal 5/6/2014, Witness Cut−Off by 5/23/2014., Motions due by 4/14/2014., ADR Cut−Off 4/29/2014; Final Pretrial Conference set for 6/24/2014 at 03:00 PM before Judge Dale S. Fischer., Jury Trial set for 7/22/2014 at 08:30 AM before Judge Dale S. Fischer.) (shb) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
59 STIPULATION to to Amend Complaint − (Discovery),, 1 filed by plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 First Amended Complaint)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
60 ORDER by Judge Dale S. Fischer, GRANTING Stipulation to Amend Complaint adding Deputy Anthony Reed as a defendant in this action 59 . (shb) (Entered: 11/15/2013)
61 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants Sussie Ayala, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz(official capacity), Does, Eric Gonzalez(individual capacity), Duane Harris(in his individiual capacity), Fernando Luviano, Noel Womack, Pantamitr Zunggeemoge, Anthony Reed; Party Duane Harris (official capacity), Daniel Cruz (official capacity) and Eric Gonzalez (official capacity) terminated amending Complaint − (Discovery),, 1 ; Jury Demand;, filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo (shb) (shb). (Entered: 11/21/2013)
62 21 DAY Summons Issued re First Amended Complaint,, 61 as to Defendants Sussie Ayala, County of Los Angeles, Daniel Cruz(in his individiual capacity), Eric Gonzalez(in his individiual capacity), Duane Harris(in his individiual capacity), Fernando Luviano, Anthony Reed, Noel Womack, Pantamitr Zunggeemoge. (shb) (Main Document 62 replaced on 11/22/2013) (shb). (Entered: 11/22/2013)
63 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo, upon Defendant Anthony Reed served on 11/25/2013, answer due 12/16/2013. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon Deputy Anthony Santillo, authorized to accept service of process in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure by substituted service at business address and no service by mail was executed. Original Summons NOT returned. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 11/27/2013)

Case: 2:12-cv-2609 As of: 07/14/2015 08:28 PM PDT 9 of 12

12/03/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/23/2013 12/27/2013 12/31/2013 01/06/2014 01/15/2014 01/16/2014
01/27/2014 01/29/2014
01/30/2014

64 ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Defendants County of Los Angeles.(Frieman, Davida) (Entered: 12/03/2013)
65 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for Motion for a Protective order and/or A Stay of Civil Proceedings filed by Defendants Motion for a Protective Order and/or A Stay of Civil Proceedings County of Los Angeles. Motion set for hearing on 1/27/2014 at 01:30 PM before Judge Dale S. Fischer. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Ivie, Rickey) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
66 STIPULATION for Order Stipulation to Shorten Time to Hear Defendants Motion for Protective Order and/or Stay of Civil Proceedings filed by Defendants County of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Ivie, Rickey) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
67 ORDER by Judge Dale S. Fischer: re Granting Stipulation 66 to Shorten Time to Hear Defendants Motion for Protective Order and/or a Stay of Civil Proceedings. The hearing on Motion for Protective Order and/or Stay 65 is ADVANCED from 1/27/2014 01:30 PM to 1/6/2014 01:30 PM. See order for advanced briefing schedule. (rne) (Entered: 12/23/2013)
68 OPPOSITION to MOTION for Order for Motion for a Protective order and/or A Stay of Civil Proceedings 65 filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ronald Kaye in Support, # 2 Exhibit No. 1)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 12/27/2013)
69 REPLY Reply to Opposition filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles. (Frieman, Davida) (Entered: 12/31/2013)
70 MINUTES OF Hearing on Motion for Protective Order or for a Stay of CivilProceedings. Motion Hearing held before Judge Dale S. Fischer: The matter is called and counsel state their appearances. The Court hears oral argument. For the reasons stated in the Opposition and on the record, the Court denies the motion. Court Reporter: Pamela Batalo. (shb) (Entered: 01/07/2014)
71 STIPULATION for Order IMPOSE DEPOSITION SCHEDULE FOR DEFENDANTS INDICTED IN PARALLEL CRIMINAL CASE: CR 13−574−GHK filed by plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 01/15/2014)
72 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh, Granting Stipulation, 71 . GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the depositions of Defendants Deputy Zunggeemoge, Deputy Luviano, Deputy Womack, and Sergeant Gonzalez will proceed as follows: 1. February 4, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.: Deposition of Defendant Zunggeemonge; 2. February 6, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.: Deposition of Defendant Gonzalez; 3. February 11, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.: Deposition of Defendant Womack; and 4. February 13, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.: Deposition of Defendant Luviano.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if any of these Defendants should request acontinuance of his deposition from these agreed upon dates, that Defendant can only do so by Court Order issued in advance of the deposition, upon a showing of good cause to the Court to justify the continuance. All other depositions in the case will proceed after these four depositions are completed. (ca) (Entered: 01/16/2014)
73 STIPULATION to Continue Trial and Related Dates from July 22, 2014 to September 2, 2014 filed by plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 01/27/2014)
74 ORDER by Judge Dale S. Fischer, re Stipulation to Continue Hearings and Deadlines 73 . Discovery Cut−off May 12, 2014; Initial Expert Witness Exchange Deadline May 19, 2014; Rebuttal Expert Exchange Deadline June 2, 2014; Expert Discovery Cut−off June 16, 2014; Motions Hearing Deadline (Other than Motions InLimine) June 2, 2014 at 8:30 a.m.; ADR Cut−off June 9, 2014; Pretrial Conference August 4, 2014 at 3:00 p.m.; Trial (6 day estimate) September 2, 2014at 8:30 a.m. All other matters referenced in the Court Order Re Jury Trial (Dkt. No. 58) remain unchanged. (shb) (Entered: 01/29/2014)
75 STIPULATION to Continue Deposition Date of Defendant Deputy Zunggeemoge and Deputy Luviano from Deputy Zunggeemoge from February 4, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.; and Deputy Luviano from February 13, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. to Deputy Zunggeemoge to February 25, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.; and Deputy Luviano to February 27, 2014 at 10:00

Case: 2:12-cv-2609 As of: 07/14/2015 08:28 PM PDT 10 of 12

02/05/2014 02/07/2014
02/07/2014 02/07/2014 02/07/2014
02/07/2014 02/10/2014 02/10/2014 02/10/2014 02/10/2014

a.m. filed by Defendants County of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Frieman, Davida) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
76 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh, The deposition of Deputy Zunggeemoge shall be continued from February 6, 2016 to February 25, 2014. The deposition of Deputy Luviano shall be continued from February 13, 2014 to February 27, 2014. re Stipulation to Continue, 75 (lmh) (Entered: 02/05/2014)
77 MINUTE ORDER Setting Settlement Conference (In Chambers) by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: This matter having been referred to Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh for a settlement conference, IT IS ORDERED that a settlement conference be held on February 26, 2014, at 11:00 a.m., 312 N. Spring Street, Courtroom 23 (3rd Floor), Los Angeles, CA. The parties, lead trial counsel, andpersons whose consent is necessary to conclude a settlement are required to attend the settlement conference. If a proposed settlement must be presented for approval to a board or committee, the person who is responsible for making a recommendation to the board or committee must be present (or available by telephone if granted permission by the court). Each side shall submit a settlement conference statement directly to Judge Walsh's chambers by fax ((213) 894−5734) not later than two (2) court days before the conference. These statements are to be exchanged with opposing counsel. (See document for complete details) (ca) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
78 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Deposition from February 6, 2014 to March 4, 2014 filed by Defendant County of Los Angeles, Eric Gonzalez(in his individiual capacity). (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Proposed Order on Exparte Application to Continue Deposition)(Ivie, Rickey) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
79 opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Deposition from February 6, 2014 to March 4, 2014 78 ; Declaration of Counsel; Proposed Order filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
80 MINUTE ORDER RE: Defendant Gonzalez's Ex Parte Application to Continue Deposition by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: Before the Court is Defendant Gonzalez's ex parte application to continue his deposition from February 6th to March 4th. Plaintiff opposes the continuance, but, recognizing that the February 6th date has come and gone, argues that the rescheduled date should be February 20, 2014, not March 4th. He contends that this will give Defendant's counsel adequate time to prepare for the deposition and still allow Plaintiff to depose him before the settlement conference now scheduled for February26, 2014. The Court grants Defendant's ex parte application in part and continues the deposition from February 6, 2014, to February 20, 2014. Since it appears that the parties have already agreed to resolve the court reporters appearance fee, the Court need not address that issue, 78 , (ca) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
81 STIPULATION to Continue Deposition Date of Defendant Deputy Noel Womack from 02/11/2014 at 10:00 a.m. to 02/19/2014 at 1:00 p.m. filed by Defendants County of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Ivie, Rickey) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
82 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Admit Report of Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. Motion set for hearing on 3/10/2014 at 01:30 PM before Judge Dale S. Fischer. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
83 DECLARATION of Ronald O. Kaye In Support Of MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Admit Report of Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence 82 filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
84 DECLARATION of Kevin LaHue In Support Of MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Admit Report of Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence 82 filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
85 ORDER RE: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DEPOSITION DATE OF DEFENDANT DEPUTY NOELWOMACK by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN: The deposition of Defendant Deputy Noel Womack

Case: 2:12-cv-2609 As of: 07/14/2015 08:28 PM PDT 11 of 12

02/13/2014 02/13/2014 02/13/2014 02/13/2014 02/14/2014 02/18/2014 02/18/2014 02/18/2014
02/18/2014 02/19/2014
02/20/2014 02/20/2014 02/24/2014

shall be continued fromFebruary 11, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. to February 19, 2014 at 1:00 p.m., 81 . (ca) (Entered: 02/10/2014)
86 REQUEST to Substitute attorney GILBERT M. NISHIMURA in place of attorney RICKEY IVIE filed by Defendant Noel Womack. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order on Request for Appproval of Substitution of Attorney)(Attorney Gilbert M Nishimura added to party Noel Womack(pty:dft))(Nishimura, Gilbert) (Entered: 02/13/2014)
87 JOINT STIPULATION to EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Deposition from February 6, 2014 to March 4, 2014 78 filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. (LaHue, Kevin) (Entered: 02/13/2014)
88 DECLARATION of Davida M. Frieman In support of EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Deposition from February 6, 2014 to March 4, 2014 78 filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. (LaHue, Kevin) (Entered: 02/13/2014)
89 DECLARATION of Kevin LaHue In support of EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Deposition from February 6, 2014 to March 4, 2014 78 filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9)(LaHue, Kevin) (Entered: 02/13/2014)
90 NOTICE OF ERRATA filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. correcting Joint Stipulation re Discovery Motion 87 (LaHue, Kevin) (Entered: 02/14/2014)
91 REQUEST to Substitute attorney GILBERT M. NISHIMURA in place of attorney RICKEY IVIE filed by DEFENDANT Fernando Luviano. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order on Request for Approval of Substitution of Attorney)(Attorney Gilbert M Nishimura added to party Fernando Luviano(pty:dft))(Nishimura, Gilbert) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
92 REQUEST to Substitute attorney GILBERT M. NISHIMURA in place of attorney RICKEY IVIE filed by DEFENDANT Pantamitr Zunggeemoge. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order on Request for Approval of Substitution of Attorney)(Attorney Gilbert M Nishimura added to party Pantamitr Zunggeemoge(pty:dft))(Nishimura, Gilbert) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
93 STIPULATION to Continue DEPOSITION DATES OF DEFENDANT DEPUTIES WOMACK, ZUNGGEEMOGE, LUVIANO AND SGT. GONZALEZ filed by DEFENDANTS Eric Gonzalez(in his individiual capacity), Fernando Luviano, Noel Womack, Pantamitr Zunggeemoge. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re Stipulation to Continue Deposition Dates of Defendant Deputies Womack, Zungtgeemoge, Luviano and Sgt. Gonzalez)(Attorney Gilbert M Nishimura added to party Eric Gonzalez(pty:dft))(Nishimura, Gilbert) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
94 Opposition in opposition re: MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Admit Report of Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence 82 Opposition filed by Defendant Anthony Reed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Attorney Berta A Blen added to party Anthony Reed(pty:dft))(Blen, Berta) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
95 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Declaration (Motion related) 88 . The following error(s) was found: Title page is missing. In response to this notice the court may order (1) an amended or correct document to be filed (2) the document stricken or (3) take other action as the court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the court directs you to do so. (shb) (Entered: 02/20/2014)
96 Memorandum filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(LaHue, Kevin) (Entered: 02/20/2014)
97 ORDER RE STIPULATION TO CONTINUE DEPOSITION DATES OF DEFENDANT DEPUTIES WOMACK, ZUNGGEEMOGE, LUVIANO AND SGT. GONZALEZ by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh, re Stipulation to Continue, 93 . (ca) (Entered: 02/20/2014)
98 REPLY In Support of MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Admit Report of Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence 82 filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. (Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 02/24/2014)

Case: 2:12-cv-2609 As of: 07/14/2015 08:28 PM PDT 12 of 12

02/24/2014 02/26/2014 02/27/2014
02/27/2014
02/28/2014 02/28/2014 02/28/2014 08/29/2014

99 DECLARATION of Ronald O. Kaye In Support Of MOTION IN LIMINE (#1) to Admit Report of Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence 82 filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 02/24/2014)
101 MINUTES OF Settlement Conference held before Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh: The Court confers with counsel off the record. Case settles.Court Recorder: CS 02/26/2014. (ca) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
100 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE PAPER CHAMBERS COPIES : Document No.94 filed on 2/18/14 fails to comply with Local Rule 5−4.5, which requires that mandatory chambers copies be provided in paper format to the assigned judge. The filing party is ordered to provide paper copies of the filing(s) no later than 12:00 noon 2/27/14. Further failure to adhere to the Local Rules and this Court's standing order may result in future sanctions. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (dp) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 02/27/2014)
102 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL. The Court has been advised that this action has been settled in its entirety. All pending matters are removed from the Courts calendar. An Order to Show Cause re Dismissal is set for 9/22/14 ar 11:00 am The filing of a stipulation for dismissal or consent judgment on or before that date shall be a sufficient response to this Order to Show Cause. Counsel are reminded to file mandatory paper chambers copies. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (dp) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 02/27/2014)
103 ORDER by Judge Dale S. Fischer: granting 92 Request to Substitute Attorney Gilbert M. Nishimura in place and instead of Rickey Ivie for defendant Pantamitr Zunggeemoge. (lc) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
104 ORDER by Judge Dale S. Fischer: granting 91 Request to Substitute Attorney in place and instead of Rickey Iv for defendant Fernando Luviano. (lc) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
105 ORDER by Judge Dale S. Fischer: granting 86 Request to Substitute Attorney Gilbert N Mishimura. Attorney Rickey Ivie terminated (shb) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
106 Joint STIPULATION to Dismiss Case pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed by Plaintiff Gabriel Moses Carrillo. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kaye, Ronald) (Entered: 08/29/2014)