Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 1 of 36

1 Mark E. Merin (State Bar No. 043849)

Paul H. Masuhara (State Bar No. 289805) 2 LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

3 1010 F Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814

4 Telephone: (916) 443-6911 Facsimile: (916) 447-8336

5 E-Mail:

mark@markmerin.com

paul@markmerin.com 6

7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ,
8 DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

12 THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY,
13 on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly 14 situated persons,

15

Plaintiffs,

16 vs.

Case No.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

17 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN,
18 and DOE 1 to 125,
19 Defendants.
20

21

INTRODUCTION

22

This class action is brought by THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA,

23 and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, for

24 damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief enjoining and declaring unconstitutional the

25 deprivations of the federal and state constitutional rights caused by the CITY OF SACRAMENTO and

26 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, and their officials and personnel, who subjected Plaintiffs

27 and the class to a policy or custom of unreasonable and excessive use of force by firing rubber bullets to

28 strike and injure non-violent demonstrators exercising their constitutional freedom of speech. 1
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 2 of 36

1

JURISDICTION & VENUE

2

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331

3 (in that they arise under the United States Constitution), and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) (in that the action is

4 brought to address deprivations, under color of state authority, of rights, privileges, and immunities

5 secured by the United States Constitution). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction of the state law

6 claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

7

2. Venue is proper in the United State District Court for the Eastern District of California

8 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendants are located in the Eastern District of California and

9 because the acts and/or omissions described herein occurred in the Eastern District of California.

10

3. Intradistrict venue is proper in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of

11 California pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 120(d) because the claims asserted herein arise from acts and/or

12 omissions which occurred in the County of Sacramento, California.

13

PARTIES

14

4. Plaintiff THONGXY PHANSOPHA is a resident of the County of Sacramento,

15 California.

16

5. Plaintiff JOSHUA RUIZ is a resident of the County of Sacramento, California.

17

6. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA is a resident of the County of Sacramento, California.

18

7. Plaintiff ELISABETH CROUCHLEY is a resident of the County of Sacramento,

19 California.

20

8. Defendant CITY OF SACRAMENTO is a “public entity” within the definition of Cal.

21 Gov. Code § 811.2.

22

9. Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT is a “public entity” within the

23 definition of Cal. Gov. Code § 811.2.

24

10. Defendant DANIEL HAHN is, and at all times material herein was, a law enforcement

25 officer and Police Chief for Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE

26 DEPARTMENT, acting within the scope of that employment. Defendant DANIEL HAHN is sued in his

27 individual capacity.

28

11. Defendants DOE 1 to 125 are and/or were agents or employees of Defendants CITY OF

2

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 3 of 36

1 SACRAMENTO and/or SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT and acted within the scope of that

2 agency or employment and under color of state law. The true and correct names of Defendants DOE 1 to

3 125 are not now known and they are identified by their fictitious names. Plaintiffs THONGXY

4 PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY will substitute the

5 true and correct names of Defendants DOE 1 to 125 when ascertained.

6

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

7

12. At all times relevant herein, all wrongful acts described were performed under color of

8 state law and/or in concert with or on behalf of those acting under the color of state law.

9

13. On May 26, 2020, George Floyd, a black man, was murdered by Minneapolis police

10 officer Derek Chauvin, a white man. Chauvin knelt on Floyd’s neck for almost nine minutes, as Floyd

11 gasped for air, begged for mercy, and told the officer he could not breathe. Three other Minneapolis

12 police officers looked on, without intervention or protest, as Chauvin slowly killed Floyd. Floyd’s killing

13 was captured on camera and went “viral.”

14

14. Floyd’s murder is consistent with a longstanding, ongoing pattern of cases where

15 minorities—and, most-often, black men—are subject to disproportionate force and sometimes killed by

16 law enforcement without justification. For example, and in addition to Floyd, some other highly

17 publicized and recent killings by law enforcement include Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Eric Garner,

18 Philando Castile, Joseph Mann, Stephon Clark, and Breonna Taylor.

19

15. Nationwide outcry, protest, and demonstration immediately resulted from Floyd’s killing,

20 with many around the country disgusted by and fed-up with law enforcement’s all-too-frequent resort to

21 deadly force without accountability. Thousands took to the streets to express their constitutional rights to

22 freedom of speech and petition against government officials who either participated in police violence or

23 idly stood-by while fellow officers engaged in such misconduct.

24

16. Many protests have occurred, and are continuing to occur, in Sacramento, California.

25

17. Demonstrating the very same propensity for the use of unjustified violence that gave rise

26 to these recent nationwide demonstrations, Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s

27 officers took to the streets in droves, armed for war against their own citizenry, and employed severe and

28 unjustified excessive force against peaceful, non-violent demonstrators. 3
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 4 of 36

1

THONGXY PHANSOPHA

2

18. On or about the final hours of May 30, 2020, and/or the early hours of May 31, 2020,

3 Plaintiff THONGXY PHANSOPHA (pronouns: they/them) was attending a demonstration occurring in

4 downtown Sacramento near 21st and J Streets.

5

19. A police line of Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s officers

6 advanced to J and 21st Streets, where a standoff between protestors and police remained for some time.

7

20. Plaintiff THONGXY PHANSOPHA was peacefully demonstrating in front of the police

8 line when officers, including Defendants DOE 1 to 25, began indiscriminately to fire their weapons into

9 the crowd of protestors.

10

21. Plaintiff THONGXY PHANSOPHA observed that several protestors were directly struck

11 with projectiles fired by Defendants DOE 1 to 25.

12

22. Defendants DOE 1 to 25 were targeting the heads of protestors, intending severely to

13 injure them.

14

23. Plaintiff THONGXY PHANSOPHA was shot at and hit no less than seven times,

15 including being struck with a gas canister and six rubber bullets.

16

24. Plaintiff THONGXY PHANSOPHA was struck with a gas canister and three rubber

17 bullets in the head and face, nearly killing them.

18

25. Plaintiff THONGXY PHANSOPHA was struck with three rubber bullets above the waist.

19

26. Plaintiff THONGXY PHANSOPHA fell to the ground, incapacitated and bleeding

20 severely from the head.

21

27. Defendants DOE 1 to 25 continued to fire-on Plaintiff THONGXY PHANSOPHA, even

22 after they fell to the ground, defenseless and injured.

23

28. Plaintiff THONGXY PHANSOPHA is unable to identify the officers who shot them due

24 to Defendants DOE 1 to 25’s uniforms and equipment which obscured their identity. On information and

25 belief, Defendants DOE 1 to 25’s indistinguishable uniforms and equipment were employed, at least in

26 part, for the purpose of hiding officers’ identities and avoiding accountability.

27

29. Plaintiff THONGXY PHANSOPHA was admitted to the hospital for numerous and

28 severe injuries caused by the multiple injuries resulting from the projectiles fired at them. 4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 5 of 36

1

30. Plaintiff THONGXY PHANSOPHA sustained numerous cuts, bumps, and bruises from

2 the projectiles.

3

31. Plaintiff THONGXY PHANSOPHA’s face was severely injured and a video of some

4 injuries sustained can be viewed at the following location: <https://youtu.be/jEh_2vc3tf8>.

5

32. Plaintiff THONGXY PHANSOPHA required two emergency, life-saving brain surgeries

6 because of the injuries they sustained.

7

33. Plaintiff THONGXY PHANSOPHA continues to experience pain and discomfort

8 resulting from their injuries.

9

34. Plaintiff THONGXY PHANSOPHA wishes to attend further demonstrations, when they

10 are healthy enough to do so. Plaintiff THONGXY PHANSOPHA is hesitant, however, based on the

11 experience and excessive force to which they were subjected.

12

JOSHUA RUIZ

13

35. On or about May 31, 2020, Plaintiff JOSHUA RUIZ (pronouns: he/him) was attending a

14 demonstration occurring in downtown Sacramento near Capitol Avenue and L Street.

15

36. Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s officers, including Defendants

16 DOE 26 to 50, began indiscriminately to fire their weapons into the crowd of protestors, without

17 justification.

18

37. Defendants DOE 26 to 50 fired projectiles directly at the demonstrators, severely injuring

19 many.

20

38. Plaintiff JOSHUA RUIZ was struck several times with projectiles, all over his body.

21

39. Plaintiff JOSHUA RUIZ fell to the ground after initially being struck by projectiles.

22

40. Defendants DOE 26 to 50 continued to fire-on and to strike Plaintiff JOSHUA RUIZ with

23 projectiles, even as he lay on the ground, defenseless and injured.

24

41. Plaintiff JOSHUA RUIZ is unable to identify the officers who shot him due to Defendants

25 DOE 26 to 50’s uniforms and equipment which obscured their identity. On information and belief,

26 Defendants DOE 26 to 50’s indistinguishable uniforms and equipment were employed, at least in part,

27 for the purpose of hiding officers’ identities and avoiding accountability.

28

42. Plaintiff JOSHUA RUIZ was admitted to the hospital for numerous and severe injuries

5

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 6 of 36

1 caused by his multiple injuries caused by the projectiles fire at him.

2

43. Plaintiff JOSHUA RUIZ sustained numerous cuts, bumps, and bruises from the

3 projectiles. Plaintiff JOSHUA RUIZ’s liver was found to have been lacerated due to the force with which

4 a projectile struck him.

5

44. Plaintiff JOSHUA RUIZ was hospitalized for multiple days due to his injuries. Plaintiff

6 JOSHUA RUIZ continues to experience pain and discomfort resulting from his injuries.

7

45. Plaintiff JOSHUA RUIZ wishes to attend further demonstrations, when he is healthy

8 enough to do so. Plaintiff JOSHUA RUIZ is hesitant, however, based on the experience and excessive

9 force to which he was subjected.

10

DANIEL GARZA

11

46. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA (pronouns: he/him) is a National Lawyers Guild (“NLG”)

12 Legal Observer who has observed demonstrations across the United States since 2012. Plaintiff DANIEL

13 GARZA is the “Know Your Rights” and NLG Legal Observer trainer for the Sacramento Chapter of the

14 NLG. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA served 6-years in the United States Navy with two deployments to

15 OIF/OEF aboard the U.S.S. Nimitz (CVN-68).

16

47. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA was acting in his capacity as an NLG Legal Observer to

17 observe demonstrations occurring in the downtown-area of Sacramento, at all relevant times.

18

48. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA was wearing a neon-green hat prominently displaying the

19 words “National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer.” NLG Legal Observers, and their neon-green hats, are

20 internationally recognized as observer non-participants and are extended the same rights and access as

21 are members of the press.

22

49. Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT and its officers have long-known

23 of the role and presence of NLG Legal Observers at protest demonstrations—including, for example, the

24 demonstrations held at Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s headquarters located at

25 5303 Franklin Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95820, on May 29, 2020.

26

50. On or about May 30, 2020, Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA was conducting legal observation

27 near the Sacramento County Main Jail.

28

51. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA observed Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department officers

6

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 7 of 36

1 use flash-bang grenades and tear gas and fire irritant chemicals at protesters.

2

52. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA followed the protesters as they moved from I and 7th Streets

3 to K Street.

4

53. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA followed the demonstration down J Street from 7th Street until

5 it reached 19th Street. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA began to film the interaction between the protestors

6 and police with a camera and an iPhone held in both hands, simultaneously live-streaming the recordings

7 to Facebook.

8

54. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA observed a police line form and advance towards the

9 protestors.

10

55. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA was off to the side of the demonstration, in a parking lot west

11 of 2020 J Street (SNAHC Building), as the police line marched past.

12

56. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA was behind the police line, after it moved forward towards the

13 demonstration.

14

57. Defendant DOE 51, an officer, told Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA to move in front of the

15 police line.

16

58. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA refused Defendant DOE 51’s requests, recognizing that the

17 officers were preparing to fire on the protesters near the police line. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA did not

18 want to be exposed to line-of-fire of officers’ projectile or chemical weapons.

19

59. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA told Defendant DOE 51, “We are not part of them” (the

20 demonstration) and “We are not interfering.”

21

60. Defendants DOE 51 to 75, the line of officers, forced Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA to move

22 in front of the police line and into the line-of-fire, through physical intimidation, brandishing of weapons,

23 display of force, and an overwhelming police presence.

24

61. Defendants DOE 51 to 75 deployed flash-bang grenades and tear gas while pushing the

25 police lines forward.

26

62. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA advanced down J Street with the protesters.

27

63. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA donned a military-style gas mask which permitted him to

28 observe the demonstration without the gas affecting him. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA continued to wear 7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 8 of 36

1 his high-visibility neon-green hat identifying him as a non-participant NLG Legal Observer.

2

64. The police line, including Defendants DOE 51 to 75, advanced to J and 21st Streets,

3 where a standoff between protestors and police remained for some time.

4

65. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA spent the majority of his time standing on the sidewalk in

5 front of 2100 J Street (First United Methodist Church).

6

66. Defendants DOE 51 to 75 fired their weapons directly at the protesters and several

7 protestors fell to the ground as they were shot.

8

67. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA left the sidewalk to assist injured persons who had been shot

9 and were unable to move without assistance.

10

68. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA assisted at least one person who had been shot in the face with

11 projectiles, causing incapacitation and severe bleeding.

12

69. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA was not fired-upon by Defendants DOE 51 to 75 when he

13 assisted injured persons from the street to the sidewalk, leading him to believe that the officers

14 recognized that he was not a threat.

15

70. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA continued filming the line of officers on his camera and live-

16 streaming on Facebook with his iPhone, with a camera in each hand.

17

71. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA was on the sidewalk about 30 feet from the police line.

18

72. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA observed that someone from behind and to the right of his

19 location threw an object towards the police line. The object was thrown high above the police line and

20 the landed far behind the police line, without striking any officer.

21

73. Defendant DOE 52 lifted his rifle, in reaction to the object being thrown and landing

22 behind the police line.

23

74. Defendant DOE 52 aimed his firearm at Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA and fired.

24

75. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA was struck on the left side of his forehead with a projectile.

25

76. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA fell to the ground, crying-out in pain. A recording can be

26 found at the following location:

27 <https://www.facebook.com/danny.garza.167/videos/10222535335080905/>.

28

77. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA felt severe pain and blood trickling from his face.

8

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 9 of 36

1

78. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA had been concussed by the projectile that had struck his head.

2

79. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA stood up, walked to the police line, and confronted the officer

3 who he believed had shot him.

4

80. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA repeatedly asked for the officer to identify his badge number.

5

81. An officer responded “#1011.” Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA does not know if the officer

6 who provided the badge number is Defendant DOE 52, the officer responsible for shooting him in the

7 face.

8

82. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA walked towards J and 22nd Streets, where his partner

9 observed his injuries and determined he needed to go to the hospital.

10

83. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA’s speech and thinking became noticeably impaired.

11

84. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA was left in the care of a nursing student known as “Raven”

12 and a tall man who identified himself as a physician, as his partner left to retrieve a vehicle.

13

85. Raven and the physician assisted Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA in retreating further into a

14 parking lot to the east of 2100 J Street.

15

86. Raven and the physician sat Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA on the lower rungs of stairs that

16 attached to the building. They cleaned Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA’s head wound.

17

87. Defendants DOE 51 to 75 advanced east on J Street, perpendicular to Plaintiff DANIEL

18 GARZA’s location.

19

88. Raven and the physician attempted to apply a bandage to Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA’s

20 head.

21

89. Defendants DOE 51 to 75 again fired their weapons at Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA, Raven,

22 and the physician, while they were treating Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA’s injuries.

23

90. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA, Raven, and the physician were each hit with pepper-balls.

24

91. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA, Raven, and the physician were cornered behind the stairs of

25 the building without any ability to escape Defendants DOE 51 to 75’s continuous assault.

26

92. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA, Raven, and the physician repeatedly yelled “Medic! Medic!

27 Don’t shoot!”

28

93. Raven was temporarily blinded by the pepper-balls fired and she sustained at least two

9

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 10 of 36

1 impact marks on her right bicep from pepper-ball impacts.

2

94. Defendants DOE 51 to 75 deployed flash-bang grenades.

3

95. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA and the medics attempted to retreat from their cover behind

4 the stairs but, again, were immediately fired-upon by Defendants DOE 51 to 75.

5

96. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA, Raven, and the physician were eventually able to walk to the

6 front of 2200 K Street (Temple Coffee), from where Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA was transported to the

7 Sacramento Veterans Affairs Hospital by a woman named Claire.

8

97. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA continues to experience pain, swelling, and severe

9 discoloration to the left side of his face where he was shot, including his left eye swelling shut.

10

98. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA has experienced significant difficulties with his short-term

11 memory, focus, speech, comprehension, and cognition and exhibits symptoms consistent with a traumatic

12 brain injury.

13

ELISABETH CROUCHLEY

14

99. On or about the early morning hours of May 31, 2020, Plaintiff ELISABETH

15 CROUCHLEY (pronouns: she/her) was attending a demonstration occurring in downtown Sacramento

16 near 20th and J Streets.

17

100. Plaintiff ELISABETH CROUCHLEY was peacefully demonstrating about 25 feet from a

18 police line of Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s officers, including Defendants

19 DOE 76 to 100.

20

101. Defendants DOE 76 to 100 began indiscriminately to fire their weapons into the crowd of

21 protestors.

22

102. Plaintiff ELISABETH CROUCHLEY observed that several protestors were directly

23 struck with projectiles fired by the officers.

24

103. Plaintiff ELISABETH CROUCHLEY turned to run away from Defendants DOE 76 to

25 100’s line-of-fire.

26

104. As Plaintiff ELISABETH CROUCHLEY was running away from the officers, she was

27 struck with a rubber bullet on her right buttock and with a bean-bag to the back of her neck.

28

105. Plaintiff ELISABETH CROUCHLEY was yelling, “Don’t shoot! Don’t shoot!,” as she

10

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 11 of 36

1 ran away with both of her hands raised above her head.

2

106. Defendants DOE 76 to 100 shot Plaintiff ELISABETH CROUCHLEY with an additional

3 four rubber bullets, striking her on the back of the head, back, hip, and foot.

4

107. Plaintiff ELISABETH CROUCHLEY was admitted to the emergency room at Sutter

5 General Hospital.

6

108. Plaintiff ELISABETH CROUCHLEY required immediate medical treatment for her

7 injuries, including two staples to the back of her head to close the laceration where she had been struck

8 with a rubber bullet.

9

109. The attending nurse filed a police report on Plaintiff ELISABETH CROUCHLEY’s

10 behalf because they are a mandatory reporter.

11

110. Plaintiff ELISABETH CROUCHLEY sustained severe bruising from the impact injuries

12 she sustained.

13

111. Plaintiff ELISABETH CROUCHLEY continues to experience pain and discomfort

14 resulting from her injuries.

15

POLICY AND CUSTOM ALLEGATIONS

16

112. Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s

17 Chief of Police, Defendant DANIEL HAHN, is a final policy-making authority under state law and

18 Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s General Orders. See Cal. Gov. Code §

19 38630(a); <https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Police/Transparency/General-Orders>. Defendant

20 DANIEL HAHN has served as Chief of Police since August 2017.

21

113. Defendants DOE 101 to 125 possess policy-making authority, based on the delegation of

22 authority from Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

23 and/or DANIEL HAHN.

24

POLICIES

25

114. Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT maintains General Order 532.11

26 “Crowd & Riot Control Manual,” available at: <https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-

27 /media/Corporate/Files/Police/Transparency/RMs/RM-53211-Crowd-and-Riot-as-of-1298.pdf?la=en>.

28 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, 11
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 12 of 36

1 and DOE 101 to 125’s policies, including General Order 532.11, ch. 2, sec. (A)(3)(e), authorizes officers

2 to use force against non-threatening demonstrations: “If a display of officers accompanied by a dispersal

3 order does not result in voluntary dispersal, more forceful action may be employed.”

4

115. Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT maintains General Order 580.02

5 “Use of Force,” available at: <https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-

6 /media/Corporate/Files/Police/Transparency/GO/Section-500/GO-58002-Use-of-Force-6820.pdf?la=en>.

7 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN,

8 and DOE 101 to 125’s policies, including General Order 580.02(A)(8)(c), defines projectile weapons

9 fired by officers at persons to be “Less Lethal Force.” In reality, projectile weapons have the ability to

10 severely injure, permanently disable, and kill targets. See “Death, injury and disability from kinetic

11 impact projectiles in crowd-control settings: a systematic review,” available at:

12 <https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/12/e018154>.

13

116. Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT maintains General Order 580.12

14 “Less Lethal Weapons,” according to General Order 580.02(E)(3)(f). Defendant SACRAMENTO

15 POLICE DEPARTMENT does not make its General Order 580.12 “Less Lethal Weapons” publicly

16 available. See <https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Police/Transparency/General-Orders>.

17

CUSTOMS

18

117. Use of Unconstitutional Tactics in Response to Demonstration/Protest: Defendants CITY

19 OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to

20 125 maintain an unofficial custom whereby their officers are permitted to employ unconstitutional tactics

21 against persons in or around the area of a demonstration/protest—particularly as it relates to

22 demonstrations/protests concerning the subject of police violence. This custom proximately caused

23 Defendants DOE 1 to 100’s unconstitutional actions against Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA,

24 JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY. In addition to the incidents

25 giving rise to this action, evidence of the existence of this custom is reflected by the circumstances in

26 Coburn v. City of Sacramento, E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:19-cv-00888-TLN-AC. In the Coburn case, a

27 demonstration protesting the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office’s refusal to prosecute the

28 police officers responsible for shooting and killing an unarmed black man, Stephon Clark, in his 12
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 13 of 36

1 grandmother’s backyard, occurred on March 4, 2019. Hundreds of law enforcement officers, including

2 Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s officers, corralled, “kettled,” and trapped 84

3 persons (including participants and non-participants, such as legal observers and press members) on a

4 highway overpass, impeding the demonstrations’ movement and preventing and persons from leaving the

5 scene. The officers then declared an unlawful assembly and used force unconstitutionally to detain,

6 arrest, and book all trapped persons. The law enforcement agencies, including Defendants CITY OF

7 SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, agreed to settle the claims that

8 resulted from a civil rights lawsuit pursuant to a stipulated class action settlement agreement. Defendants

9 CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT agreed to pay at least

10 $414,000.00 to settle the action.

11

118. Use of Unreasonable and Excessive Force/Failure to Train, Supervise, or Discipline:

12 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN,

13 and DOE 101 to 125 maintain an unofficial custom whereby their officers are permitted to use

14 unreasonable and excessive force against persons with whom they come into contact, without meaningful

15 consequence, discipline, or corrective action. Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO

16 POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125’s failure to investigate and to

17 discipline officers in the face of widespread constitutional violations has resulted in use of force with

18 impunity. This custom proximately caused Defendants DOE 1 to 100’s use of force against Plaintiffs

19 THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY. In

20 addition to the incidents giving rise to this action, evidence of the existence of this custom is reflected by:

21

a. The California Department of Justice’s “Report & Recommendations” issued on

22 January 29, 2019. See <https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/spd-report.pdf>. Therein,

23 numerous and “significant deficiencies” are identified and recommendations provided in reference to

24 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s use of force

25 policies and training. For example, Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s use of force

26 policies “should affirm the importance of proportionality”; “should prohibit certain problematic uses of

27 force”; and should “[r]equir[e] officers to intervene during a use of force incident when the force used is

28 outside of departmental policy.” Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE 13
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 14 of 36

1 DEPARTMENT’s use of force training “should place greater emphasis on teaching officers to have a

2 ‘guardian’ mindset”; and “should ensure its use of force training emphasizes critical-decision making

3 skills and require such training annually for all staff, regardless of rank.”

4

b. Numerous incidents involving allegations of unreasonable and excessive uses of

5 force by Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s officers which were substantiated by

6 significant settlements, for example:

7

i.

Clark v. City of Sacramento, E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB

8 (Alleging that two police officers shot an unarmed man, Stephon Clark, to death on March 18, 2018,

9 while he hid in his grandmother’s backyard. The resulting lawsuit was partially settled for $2,400,000).

10

ii.

Cain v. City of Sacramento, E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:17-cv-00848-JAM-DB

11 (Alleging that a police officer grabbed, tackled, and punched a man for jaywalking on April 10, 2017,

12 without realizing the beating was recorded. The resulting lawsuit was settled for $550,000.

13 <https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article228710949.html>).

14

iii.

Hernandez v. City of Sacramento, E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:17-cv-02311-JAM-

15 DB (Alleging that three police officers chased an unarmed man who had been loitering in front of a

16 convenience store into a hospital where he was then tased, beaten, and pinned to ground until he

17 asphyxiated to the point of coma on March 6, 2017. The resulting lawsuit was settled for $5,200,000.

18 <https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article231173283.html>).

19

iv.

Mann v. City of Sacramento, E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:16-cv-01847-WBS-DB

20 (Alleging that a mentally-ill man was falsely reported to have a gun when two police officers

21 unsuccessfully attempted to run-over the man with their patrol vehicle and, after failing to do so, exited

22 the vehicle, pursued the man on foot as he fled, cornered the man, and shot him to death on July 11,

23 2016. The resulting lawsuit was settled for $719,000.

24 <www.sacbee.com/news/local/article130391109.html>).

25

v.

Namoca v. City of Sacramento, E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:16-cv-02283-TLN-

26 EFB (Alleging that two police officers falsely accused a minor of “tampering” with a mailbox, tackled

27 him to the ground and dislocated his shoulder, and unlawfully detained him in the back of a police car for

28 nearly an hour while conducting pretextual records searches before finally releasing him when it became 14
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 15 of 36

1 apparent that no lawful justification for the arrest could be found on June 7, 2016. The resulting lawsuit

2 was settled for $40,000. <https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article228710949.html>).

3

vi.

Thompson v. City of Sacramento, E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:18-cv-00806-KJM-

4 DB (Alleging that a police officer slammed a woman face-first into the frame of a patrol vehicle multiple

5 times, breaking her nose and the orbital around her eye on April 10, 2016. The resulting lawsuit was

6 settled).

7

vii.

Halcomb v. City of Sacramento, E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:14-cv-02796-MCE-

8 DB (Alleging that three police officers broke into the wrong residence seeking the subject of an arrest

9 warrant who lived at a different address and used excessive and unreasonable force against the resident

10 when he confronted the intruders on August 8, 2014. The resulting lawsuit was settled for $220,000, after

11 it was discovered that a police officer lied about the existence of a warrant.

12 <http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article147296244.html>. On March 7, 2018, in response to a

13 subsequent citizen complaint against the officer who lied under oath, Defendant DANIEL HAHN found

14 “no violation of Police Department rules or regulations” by the officer that lied, under oath, about the

15 existence of a warrant).

16

RATIFICATION

17

119. On information and belief, Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO

18 POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125 will fail and/or refuse to hold their

19 officers accountable for the unreasonable and excessive uses of force against Plaintiffs THONGXY

20 PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY.

21

120. On information and belief, Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO

22 POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125 will determine that the unreasonable

23 and excessive uses of force against Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL

24 GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY were justified and/or in compliance with Defendant

25 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s policies and general orders, based on the customs

26 described above.

27

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

28

121. Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

15

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 16 of 36

1 DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125 deprived Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

2 DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly

3 situated persons, of their civil rights including, but is not limited to, being subject to uses of force,

4 without a sufficient governmental interest. Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

5 DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY’s injuries resulted from policy or custom, a lack of

6 proper training, and/or were ratified by policymaking officials, including Defendants CITY OF

7 SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125.

8

122. Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

9 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY seek to represent the alleged class of non-threatening demonstration

10 attendees who were and/or will be subject to unconstitutional conduct by Defendants CITY OF

11 SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125.

12

123. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1), the members of the class are so numerous that joinder

13 of all members is impractical, as there are at least 40 class members, on information and belief.

14

124. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2), there are many facts common to the class including,

15 but not limited to, whether Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

16 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125 deprived Plaintiffs and the class of theirs rights

17 and/or had policies or customs permitting or deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs and the class’s rights,

18 including:

19

a. indiscriminate and unreasonable uses of force against attendees at demonstrations;

20

b. retaliation against attendees at demonstrations concerning police violence; and/or

21

c. discrimination against attendees at demonstrations concerning police violence.

22

125. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2), there are many questions of law common to the class

23 including, but are not limited to, whether Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO

24 POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125 deprived Plaintiffs of theirs rights

25 and/or had policies or customs permitting or deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs’ rights, including:

26

(a) Violations of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits

27

unreasonable and excessive force;

28

(b) Violations of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits

16

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 17 of 36

1

indiscriminate and unintentional uses of force;

2

(c) Violations of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits retaliation in

3

response to protected activity;

4

(d) Violations of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits

5

unequal treatment of persons under the law;

6

(e) Violations of Article I, Section 13 of the California Constitution, which prohibits

7

unreasonable and excessive force;

8

(f) Violations of Article I, Section 7(a) of the California Constitution, which prohibits

9

indiscriminate and unintentional uses of force

10

(g) Violations of Article I, Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the California Constitution, which prohibits

11

retaliation in response to protected activity;

12

(h) Violations of Article I, Section 7(a) of the California Constitution, which prohibits

13

unequal treatment of persons under the law; and

14

(i) Violations of the Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1, for each of the reasons described in subdivisions

15

(a) through (h), above.

16

126. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 23(a)(3), proposed representative Plaintiffs THONGXY

17 PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY’s claims are

18 typical of the class they seek to represent, and share the same interests and suffered the same types of

19 injuries as the putative class members, where the alleged claims are based upon the same legal theories

20 and similar facts.

21

127. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4), proposed representative Plaintiffs THONGXY

22 PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY are prepared

23 fairly and adequately to protect the interests of the class, and their interests are consistent with, and not

24 antagonistic to, the interests of the class.

25

128. On information and belief, identities of the members of the class may be ascertained from

26 records maintained by Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE

27 DEPARTMENT, such as police or force reports; or from records maintained by third-parties, such as

28 hospital records. 17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 18 of 36

1

129. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A), prosecutions of separate actions by individual

2 members of the class would create a risk that inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to

3 individual members of the class would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties

4 opposing the class.

5

130. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(B), prosecutions of separate actions by individual

6 members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent adjudications with respect to individual members

7 of the putative class which would, as a practical matter, substantially impair or impede the interests of the

8 other members of the putative class to protect their interests.

9

131. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

10 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125 have acted on

11 grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate the final injunctive or declaratory

12 relief with respect to the class as a whole.

13

132. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the questions of law and fact, as alleged above, are

14 common to class members and predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.

15

133. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), a class action is superior to other available methods

16 for the fair and equitable adjudication of the controversy between the parties.

17

134. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(A), the interests of members of the class in

18 individually controlling the prosecution of a separate action is low, where most class members would be

19 unable individually to prosecute any action at all, for example, where the amounts at stake for members

20 of the class may be so small that separate suits would be impracticable, or where most members of the

21 class may not be able to find counsel to represent them.

22

135. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(B), there exists no other litigation concerning the

23 controversy that has already begun by or against class members, on information and belief.

24

136. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(C), it is desirable to concentrate all litigation in one

25 forum because it will promote judicial efficiency to resolve the common questions of law and fact in one

26 forum, rather than in multiple forums.

27

137. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(D), there are not likely to be significant difficulties in

28 managing a class action in this case. 18
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 19 of 36

1

138. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2), upon certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3),

2 Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH

3 CROUCHLEY contemplate that individual notice will be given to members of the class at their last-

4 known address by first-class U.S. mail, informing members of the class to the following: (1) the

5 pendency of the class action and the issues common to the class; (2) the nature of the action; (3) a class

6 member’s right to “opt-out” of the action within a given time, in which event the class member will not

7 be bound by a decision rendered in the class action; (4) a class member’s right, if the class member does

8 not “opt-out,” to be represented by the class member’s own counsel and to enter an appearance in the

9 case, otherwise the class member will be represented by representative Plaintiffs THONGXY

10 PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY and their counsel;

11 and (5) the class member’s right, if the class member does not “opt-out,” to share in any recovery in

12 favor of the class, and conversely to be bound by any judgment on the common issues adverse to the

13 class.

14

EQUITABLE ALLEGATIONS

15

139. There is an actual controversy between Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA

16 RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of

17 similarly situated persons, and Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

18 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 125 concerning the threat of unreasonable and

19 excessive uses of force by Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s office pursuant to

20 execution of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

21 DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125’s policies or customs concerning permitting indiscriminate uses

22 of force against attendees at demonstrations. Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

23 DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly

24 situated persons, seek a judicial determination of their rights and duties and a declaration as to and

25 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN,

26 and DOE 1 to 125’s constitutional obligations.

27

140. On information and belief, as a direct consequence of Defendants DOE 1 to 100’s past

28 conduct and Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, 19
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 20 of 36

1 DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125’s failure to act and to restrain their officers from using similarly-

2 unconstitutional uses of force, Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL

3 GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated

4 persons, have suffered and will continue to suffer violations of their constitutional rights resulting in

5 irreparable harm, including the chilling of free speech and right to petition.

6

FIRST CLAIM

7

Unreasonable and Excessive Force

8

(U.S. Const., Amend. IV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

9

141. This Claim is asserted by Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

10 DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly

11 situated persons, against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

12 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 125.

13

142. Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

14 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, reallege

15 and incorporate the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 140, to the extent relevant, as if fully set

16 forth in this Claim.

17

143. Individual Claims: Defendants DOE 1 to 100, acting or purporting to act under color of

18 state law and in the performance of their official duties as law enforcement officers, used unreasonable

19 and excessive force against Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA,

20 and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, or failed to intercede and/or were integral participants to the use of

21 unreasonable and excessive force, in violation of rights protected by the Fourth Amendment (as

22 incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment) of the U.S. Constitution.

23

144. Cass Claims: Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

24 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125, acting or purporting to act under color of state

25 law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and inaction resulting in

26 the violation of the rights of Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA,

27 and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons,

28 protected by the Fourth Amendment (as incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment) of the U.S. 20
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 21 of 36

1 Constitution.

2

145. Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 125’s actions and inactions were motivated by

3 evil motive or intent, involved reckless or callous indifference to constitutionally protected rights, or

4 were wantonly or oppressively done.

5

146. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

6 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 125’s actions and

7 inactions, Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH

8 CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, suffered injuries

9 entitling them to receive compensatory damages and equitable (declaratory and injunctive) relief against

10 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN,

11 and DOE 1 to 125; and punitive damages against Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 125.

12

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

13 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, pray for

14 relief as hereunder appears.

15

SECOND CLAIM

16

Unreasonable and Excessive Force

17

(U.S. Const., Amend. XIV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

18

147. This Claim is asserted by Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

19 DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly

20 situated persons, against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

21 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 125.

22

148. Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

23 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, reallege

24 and incorporate the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 140, to the extent relevant, as if fully set

25 forth in this Claim.

26

149. Individual Claims: Defendants DOE 1 to 100, acting or purporting to act in the

27 performance of their official duties as law enforcement officers, engaged in conscience-shocking conduct

28 by employing potentially-lethal force with the purpose to harm and/or deliberate indifference and without 21
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 22 of 36

1 regard to the known or obvious risks of injury to Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

2 DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, or failed to intercede and/or were integral

3 participants to the potentially-lethal force, in violation of rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment

4 of the U.S. Constitution

5

150. Class Claims: Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

6 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125, acting or purporting to act under color of state

7 law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and inaction resulting in

8 the violation of the rights of Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA,

9 and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons,

10 protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

11

151. Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 125’s actions and inactions were motivated by

12 evil motive or intent, involved reckless or callous indifference to constitutionally protected rights, or

13 were wantonly or oppressively done.

14

152. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

15 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 125’s actions and

16 inactions, Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH

17 CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, suffered injuries

18 entitling them to receive compensatory damages and equitable (declaratory and injunctive) relief against

19 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN,

20 and DOE 1 to 125; and punitive damages against Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 125.

21

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

22 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, pray for

23 relief as hereunder appears.

24

THIRD CLAIM

25

Retaliation

26

(U.S. Const., Amend. I; 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

27

153. This Claim is asserted by Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

28 DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly 22
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 23 of 36

1 situated persons, against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

2 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 125.

3

154. Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

4 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, reallege

5 and incorporate the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 140, to the extent relevant, as if fully set

6 forth in this Claim.

7

155. Individual Claims: Defendants DOE 1 to 100, acting or purporting to act under color of

8 state law and in the performance of their official duties as law enforcement officers, retaliated against

9 Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH

10 CROUCHLEY for engaging in constitutionally protected activity with intent to inhibit that activity, or

11 failed to intercede and/or were integral participants to the retaliation, in violation of rights protected by

12 the First Amendment (as incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment) of the U.S. Constitution.

13

156. Class Claims: Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

14 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125, acting or purporting to act under color of state

15 law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and inaction resulting in

16 the violation of the rights of Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA,

17 and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons,

18 protected by the First Amendment (as incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment) of the U.S.

19 Constitution.

20

157. Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 125’s actions and inactions were motivated by

21 evil motive or intent, involved reckless or callous indifference to constitutionally protected rights, or

22 were wantonly or oppressively done.

23

158. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

24 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 125’s actions and

25 inactions, Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH

26 CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, suffered injuries

27 entitling them to receive compensatory damages and equitable (declaratory and injunctive) relief against

28 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, 23
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 24 of 36

1 and DOE 1 to 125; and punitive damages against Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 125.

2

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

3 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, pray for

4 relief as hereunder appears.

5

FOURTH CLAIM

6

Equal Protection

7

(U.S. Const., Amend. XIV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

8

159. This Claim is asserted by Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

9 DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly

10 situated persons, against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

11 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 125.

12

160. Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

13 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, reallege

14 and incorporate the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 140, to the extent relevant, as if fully set

15 forth in this Claim.

16

161. Individual Claims: Defendants DOE 1 to 100, acting or purporting to act under color of

17 state law and in the performance of their official duties as law enforcement officers, discriminated

18 against Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH

19 CROUCHLEY in using force against them based on an animus towards attendees at demonstrations

20 concerning police violence and accountability, without a rational relationship to any legitimate state

21 interest, or failed to intercede and/or were integral participants to the discriminatory uses of force, in

22 violation of rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

23

162. Class Claims: Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

24 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125, acting or purporting to act under color of state

25 law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and inaction resulting in

26 the violation of the rights of Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA,

27 and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons,

28 protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 24
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 25 of 36

1

163. Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 125’s actions and inactions were motivated by

2 evil motive or intent, involved reckless or callous indifference to constitutionally protected rights, or

3 were wantonly or oppressively done.

4

164. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

5 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 125’s actions and

6 inactions, Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH

7 CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, suffered injuries

8 entitling them to receive compensatory damages and equitable (declaratory and injunctive) relief against

9 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN,

10 and DOE 1 to 125; and punitive damages against Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 125.

11

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

12 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, pray for

13 relief as hereunder appears.

14

FIFTH CLAIM

15

Unreasonable and Excessive Force

16

(Cal. Const., Art. I, § 13)

17

165. This Claim is asserted by Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

18 DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly

19 situated persons, against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

20 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125.

21

166. Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

22 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, reallege

23 and incorporate the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 140, to the extent relevant, as if fully set

24 forth in this Claim.

25

167. Cass Claims: Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

26 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125, acting or purporting to act under color of state

27 law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and inaction resulting in

28 the violation of the rights of Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, 25
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 26 of 36

1 and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons,

2 protected by Article I, Section 13 of the California Constitution.

3

168. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

4 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125’s actions and

5 inactions, Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH

6 CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, suffered injuries

7 entitling them to receive equitable (declaratory and injunctive) relief against Defendants CITY OF

8 SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125.

9

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

10 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, pray for

11 relief as hereunder appears.

12

SIXTH CLAIM

13

Unreasonable and Excessive Force

14

(Cal. Const., Art. I, § 7(a))

15

169. This Claim is asserted by Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

16 DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly

17 situated persons, against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

18 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125.

19

170. Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

20 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, reallege

21 and incorporate the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 140, to the extent relevant, as if fully set

22 forth in this Claim.

23

171. Class Claims: Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

24 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125, acting or purporting to act under color of state

25 law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and inaction resulting in

26 the violation of the rights of Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA,

27 and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons,

28 protected by Article I, Section 7(a) of the California Constitution. 26
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 27 of 36

1

172. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

2 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125’s actions and

3 inactions, Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH

4 CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, suffered injuries

5 entitling them to receive equitable (declaratory and injunctive) relief against Defendants CITY OF

6 SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125.

7

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

8 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, pray for

9 relief as hereunder appears.

10

SEVENTH CLAIM

11

Retaliation

12

(Cal. Const., Art. I, §§ 1, 2, 3)

13

173. This Claim is asserted by Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

14 DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly

15 situated persons, against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

16 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 125.

17

174. Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

18 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, reallege

19 and incorporate the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 140, to the extent relevant, as if fully set

20 forth in this Claim.

21

175. Class Claims: Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

22 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125, acting or purporting to act under color of state

23 law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and inaction resulting in

24 the violation of the rights of Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA,

25 and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons,

26 protected by Article I, Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the California Constitution.

27

176. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

28 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125’s actions and 27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 28 of 36

1 inactions, Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH

2 CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, suffered injuries

3 entitling them to receive equitable (declaratory and injunctive) relief against Defendants CITY OF

4 SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125.

5

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

6 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, pray for

7 relief as hereunder appears.

8

EIGHTH CLAIM

9

Equal Protection

10

(Cal. Const., Art. I, § 7(a))

11

177. This Claim is asserted by Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

12 DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly

13 situated persons, against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

14 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 125.

15

178. Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

16 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, reallege

17 and incorporate the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 140, to the extent relevant, as if fully set

18 forth in this Claim.

19

179. Class Claims: Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

20 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125, acting or purporting to act under color of state

21 law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and inaction resulting in

22 the violation of the rights of Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA,

23 and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons,

24 protected by Article I, Section 7(a) of the California Constitution.

25

180. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

26 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125’s actions and

27 inactions, Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH

28 CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, suffered injuries 28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 29 of 36

1 entitling them to receive equitable (declaratory and injunctive) relief against Defendants CITY OF

2 SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125.

3

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

4 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, pray for

5 relief as hereunder appears.

6

NINTH CLAIM

7

Rehabilitation Act

8

(29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq.)

9

181. This Claim is asserted by Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

10 DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly

11 situated persons, against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE

12 DEPARTMENT.

13

182. Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

14 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, reallege

15 and incorporate the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 140, to the extent relevant, as if fully set

16 forth in this Claim.

17

183. Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT

18 each qualify as a “public entity” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(A) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.

19 On information and belief, Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE

20 DEPARTMENT receive federal financial assistance. Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA

21 RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of

22 similarly situated persons, at all times material herein, were regarded as having a physical or mental

23 impairment that substantially limited one or more major life activities; or perceived to have a physical or

24 mental impairment.

25

184. Individual Claims: Defendants DOE 1 to 100, acting or purporting to act in the

26 performance of their official duties as law enforcement officers, failed reasonably to accommodate

27 Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH

28 CROUCHLEY’s disabilities and personally utilized, failed to intercede and prevent, and/or were integral 29
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 30 of 36

1 participants to excessive and unreasonable force used against them because of their apparent or perceived

2 disabilities, in violation of their rights protected by the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq.

3

185. Class Claims: Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

4 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125, acting under color of state law and as policy-

5 making authorities, knew or should have known that law enforcement officers under their command,

6 including Defendants DOE 1 to 100, were inadequately trained, supervised, or disciplined resulting from

7 either the lack of proper training, pursuant to policy, or the result of the lack of policy, resulting in the

8 violation of the rights of Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

9 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, protected

10 by the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq.

11

186. Defendants DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125’s actions and inactions were motivated

12 by evil motive or intent, involved reckless or callous indifference to statutorily protected rights, or were

13 wantonly or oppressively done.

14

187. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

15 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 125’s actions and

16 inactions, Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH

17 CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, suffered injuries

18 entitling them to receive nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages and equitable (declaratory and

19 injunctive) relief against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE

20 DEPARTMENT.

21

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

22 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, pray for

23 relief as hereunder appears.

24

TENTH CLAIM

25

Americans With Disabilities Act

26

(42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.)

27

188. This Claim is asserted by Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

28 DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly 30
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 31 of 36

1 situated persons, against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE

2 DEPARTMENT.

3

189. Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

4 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, reallege

5 and incorporate the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 140, to the extent relevant, as if fully set

6 forth in this Claim.

7

190. Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT

8 each qualify as a “public entity” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.

9 Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH

10 CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, at all times material

11 herein, were regarded as having a physical or mental impairment that substantially limited one or more

12 major life activities; or perceived to have a physical or mental impairment.

13

191. Individual Claims: Defendants DOE 1 to 100, acting or purporting to act in the

14 performance of their official duties as law enforcement officers, failed reasonably to accommodate

15 Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH

16 CROUCHLEY’s disabilities and personally utilized, failed to intercede and prevent, and/or were integral

17 participants to excessive and unreasonable force used against them because of their apparent or perceived

18 disabilities, in violation of their rights protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §

19 12101, et seq.

20

192. Class Claims: Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

21 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125, acting under color of state law and as policy-

22 making authorities, knew or should have known that law enforcement officers under their command,

23 including Defendants DOE 1 to 100, were inadequately trained, supervised, or disciplined resulting from

24 either the lack of proper training, pursuant to policy, or the result of the lack of policy, resulting in the

25 violation of the rights of Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

26 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, protected

27 by the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.

28

193. Defendants DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125’s actions and inactions were motivated

31

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 32 of 36

1 by evil motive or intent, involved reckless or callous indifference to statutorily protected rights, or were

2 wantonly or oppressively done.

3

194. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

4 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 125’s actions and

5 inactions, Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH

6 CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, suffered injuries

7 entitling them to receive nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages and equitable (declaratory and

8 injunctive) relief against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE

9 DEPARTMENT.

10

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

11 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, pray for

12 relief as hereunder appears.

13

ELEVENTH CLAIM

14

Bane Act

15

(Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1)

16

195. This Claim is asserted by Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

17 DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly

18 situated persons, against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

19 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125.

20

196. Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

21 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, reallege

22 and incorporate the allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 140, to the extent relevant, as if fully set

23 forth in this Claim.

24

197. U.S. Const., Amend. IV & Cal. Const., Art. I, § 13 Claims: Defendants CITY OF

25 SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125,

26 acting or purporting to act under color of state law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies

27 or customs of action and inaction resulting in the violation of the rights of Plaintiffs THONGXY

28 PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of 32
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 33 of 36

1 themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, protected by the Fourth Amendment (as

2 incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment) of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of

3 the California Constitution.

4

198. Cal. Const., Amend. XIV & Cal. Const., Art. I, § 7(a) Claims: Defendants CITY OF

5 SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125,

6 acting or purporting to act under color of state law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies

7 or customs of action and inaction resulting in the violation of the rights of Plaintiffs THONGXY

8 PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of

9 themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.

10 Constitution and Article I, Section 7(a) of the California Constitution.

11

199. Cal. Const., Amend. I & Cal. Const., Art. I, §§ 1, 2, 3 Claims: Defendants CITY OF

12 SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125,

13 acting or purporting to act under color of state law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies

14 or customs of action and inaction resulting in the violation of the rights of Plaintiffs THONGXY

15 PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of

16 themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, protected by the First Amendment (as incorporated

17 through the Fourteenth Amendment) of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the

18 California Constitution.

19

200. Cal. Const., Amend. XIV & Cal. Const., Art. I, § 7(a) Claims: Defendants CITY OF

20 SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125,

21 acting or purporting to act under color of state law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies

22 or customs of action and inaction resulting in the violation of the rights of Plaintiffs THONGXY

23 PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of

24 themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.

25 Constitution and Article I, Section 7(a) of the California Constitution.

26

201. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

27 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125’s actions and

28 inactions, Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH 33
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 34 of 36

1 CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, suffered injuries

2 entitling them to receive statutory penalties and equitable (declaratory and injunctive) relief against

3 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN,

4 and DOE 101 to 125.

5

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

6 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, pray for

7 relief as hereunder appears.

8

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

9

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and

10 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, seek

11 Judgment as follows:

12

1. For issuance of a judgment declaring that Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

13 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125’s actions, inactions,

14 and/or policies or customs complained of herein unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution and the

15 California Constitution;

16

2. For entry of a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants CITY OF

17 SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 125’s

18 prospective actions, inactions, and/or policies or customs complained of herein in violation of the U.S.

19 Constitution, the California Constitution, and Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1;

20

3. For an award of compensatory, general, and special damages against Defendants CITY

21 OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 125,

22 according to proof at trial;

23

4. For an award of exemplary or punitive damages against Defendants DANIEL HAHN and

24 DOE 1 to 125, in an amount sufficient to deter and to make an example of them, because their actions

25 and/or inactions were motivated by evil motive or intent, involved reckless or callous indifference to

26 constitutionally protected rights, or were wantonly or oppressively done;

27

5. For an award of statutory penalties against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

28 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 101 to 125, pursuant to Cal. 34
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 35 of 36

1 Civ. Code § 52.1 and any other statute as may be applicable;

2

6. For an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, 29

3 U.S.C. § 794, 42 U.S.C. § 12205, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5, and any other

4 statute as may be applicable; and

5

7. For an award of any other further relief, as the Court deems fair, just, and equitable.

6 Dated: June 18, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

7

8

By: __________________________________

9

Mark E. Merin

10

Paul H. Masuhara LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

11

1010 F Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814

12

Telephone:

(916) 443-6911

Facsimile:

(916) 447-8336

13

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14

THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 35
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 36 of 36

1

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

2

A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED by Plaintiffs THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

3 DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly

4 situated persons.

5 Dated: June 18, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

6

7

By: __________________________________

8

Mark E. Merin

9

Paul H. Masuhara LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

10

1010 F Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814

11

Telephone:

(916) 443-6911

Facsimile:

(916) 447-8336

12

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

13

THONGXY PHANSOPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 36
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Phansopha v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________

JS 44 (Rev. 0)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB Document 1-1 Filed 06/18/20 Page 1 of 1

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as

provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the

purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

IT.H(aO)NGPXLYAIPNHTAINFSFOSPHA, JOSHUA RUIZ, DANIEL GARZA, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

CDITEYFOEFNSDAACNRTASMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 125
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Sacramento
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Mark E. Merin & Paul H. Masuhara Law office of Mark E. Merin 1010 F Street, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 443-6911

Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

u 1 U.S. Government Plaintiff

u 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only)

and One Box for Defendant)

PTF DEF

PTF DEF

Citizen of This State

u 1 u 1 Incorporated or Principal Place

u 4 u4

of Business In This State

u 2 U.S. Government Defendant

u 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

Citizen of Another State

u 2 u 2 Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State

u 5 u5

Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country

u 3 u 3 Foreign Nation

u 6 u6

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

CONTRACT

TORTS

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER STATUTES

u 110 Insurance

PERSONAL INJURY

PERSONAL INJURY u 625 Drug Related Seizure

u 422 Appeal 28 USC 158

u 120 Marine

u 310 Airplane

u 365 Personal Injury -

of Property 21 USC 881 u 423 Withdrawal

u 130 Miller Act

u 315 Airplane Product

Product Liability

u 690 Other

28 USC 157

u 140 Negotiable Instrument

Liability

u 367 Health Care/

u 150 Recovery of Overpayment u 320 Assault, Libel &

Pharmaceutical

PROPERTY RIGHTS

& Enforcement of Judgment

Slander

Personal Injury

u 820 Copyrights

u 151 Medicare Act

u 330 Federal Employers’

Product Liability

u 830 Patent

u 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans

Liability u 340 Marine

u 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product

u 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application

(Excludes Veterans)

u 345 Marine Product

Liability

u 840 Trademark

u 153 Recovery of Overpayment

Liability

PERSONAL PROPERTY

LABOR

SOCIAL SECURITY

of Veteran’s Benefits

u 350 Motor Vehicle

u 370 Other Fraud

u 710 Fair Labor Standards

u 861 HIA (1395ff)

u 160 Stockholders’ Suits

u 355 Motor Vehicle

u 371 Truth in Lending

Act

u 862 Black Lung (923)

u 190 Other Contract

Product Liability

u 380 Other Personal

u 720 Labor/Management

u 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))

u 195 Contract Product Liability u 360 Other Personal

Property Damage

Relations

u 864 SSID Title XVI

u 196 Franchise

Injury

u 385 Property Damage

u 740 Railway Labor Act

u 865 RSI (405(g))

u 362 Personal Injury -

Product Liability

u 751 Family and Medical

Medical Malpractice

Leave Act

REAL PROPERTY

CIVIL RIGHTS

PRISONER PETITIONS u 790 Other Labor Litigation

FEDERAL TAX SUITS

u 210 Land Condemnation

u 440 Other Civil Rights

Habeas Corpus:

u 791 Employee Retirement

u 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff

u 220 Foreclosure

u 441 Voting

u 463 Alien Detainee

Income Security Act

or Defendant)

u 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment u 442 Employment

u 510 Motions to Vacate

u 871 IRS—Third Party

u 240 Torts to Land

u 443 Housing/

Sentence

26 USC 7609

u 245 Tort Product Liability

Accommodations

u 530 General

u 290 All Other Real Property u 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - u 535 Death Penalty

IMMIGRATION

Employment

Other:

u 462 Naturalization Application

u 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - u 540 Mandamus & Other u 465 Other Immigration

Other

u 550 Civil Rights

Actions

u 448 Education

u 555 Prison Condition

u 560 Civil Detainee -

Conditions of

Confinement

u 375 False Claims Act u 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
3729(a)) u 400 State Reapportionment u 410 Antitrust u 430 Banks and Banking u 450 Commerce u 460 Deportation u 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations u 480 Consumer Credit u 485 Telephone Consumer
Protection Act u 490 Cable/Sat TV u 850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange u 890 Other Statutory Actions u 891 Agricultural Acts u 893 Environmental Matters
u 895 Freedom of Information
Act u 896 Arbitration u 899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision u 950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

u 1 Original

u 2 Removed from

Proceeding

State Court

u 3 Remanded from Appellate Court

u 4 Reinstated or u 5 Transferred from

Reopened

Another District

(specify)

u 6 Multidistrict Litigation Transfer

u 8 Multidistrict Litigation Direct File

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 U.S.C. § 1983; 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Excessive Force; Retaliation; Equal Protection; Rehabilitation Act; Americans with Disabilities Act

VII. REQUESTED IN u CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

DEMAND $

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

COMPLAINT:

UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.

JURY DEMAND: u Yes u No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)

IF ANY

(See instructions):
JUDGE

DOCKET NUMBER

DATE
06/18/2020
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
/s/ Mark E. Merin

RECEIPT #

AMOUNT

APPLYING IFP

JUDGE

MAG. JUDGE

 
 U.S. District Court Eastern District of California - Live System (Sacramento) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Ruiz et al v. City of Sacramento et al Assigned to: Senior Judge William B. Shubb Referred to: Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 06/18/2020 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Thongxy Phansopha TERMINATED: 08/14/2020

represented by Mark E. Merin Law Office of Mark E. Merin 1010 F Street Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 916-443-6911 Fax: 916-447-8336 Email: mark@markmerin.com

Paul Hajime Masuhara , III Law Office of Mark E. Merin 1010 F Street Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 916-443-6911 Fax: 916-447-8336 Email: paul@markmerin.com

Plaintiff Joshua Ruiz

represented by Mark E. Merin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul Hajime Masuhara , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Daniel Garza

represented by Mark E. Merin (See above for address)

Plaintiff Elisabeth Crouchley
Plaintiff Steven Passal
Plaintiff John Ruffner
Plaintiff Jennifer Loret de Mola

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Hajime Masuhara , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark E. Merin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Hajime Masuhara , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark E. Merin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Hajime Masuhara , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark E. Merin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Hajime Masuhara , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark E. Merin (See above for address)

Plaintiff Russell Vreeland
Plaintiff Anthony Pires
V. Defendant City of Sacramento

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Hajime Masuhara , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark E. Merin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Hajime Masuhara , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Mark E. Merin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Hajime Masuhara , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Chance Louis Trimm Sacramento City Attorney's Office 915 I Street Suite 4010 Sacramento, CA 95814-2604 916-808-7277 Fax: 916-808-7455 Email: ctrimm@cityofsacramento.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Sacramento Police Department
Defendant Daniel Hahn

Date Filed # Docket Text

06/18/2020

1 COMPLAINT against all Defendants by all Plaintiffs. (Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0972-8948199) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Merin, Mark) (Entered: 06/18/2020)

06/18/2020

2 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *City of Sacramento, Daniel Hahn, Sacramento Police Department* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Mark E. Merin* *Law Office of Mark E. Merin* *1010 F Street, Suite 300* *Sacramento, CA 95814*. (Benson, A.) (Entered: 06/18/2020)

06/18/2020

3 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; Initial Scheduling Conference set for 10/13/2020 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5 (WBS) before Senior Judge William B. Shubb. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form, # 2 VDRP) (Benson, A.) (Entered: 06/18/2020)

08/14/2020

4 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against City of Sacramento, Daniel Hahn, Sacramento Police Department by Daniel Garza, Joshua Ruiz, Elisabeth Crouchley, Steven Passal, John Ruffner, Jennifer Loret de Mola, Russell Vreeland, Anthony Pires.(Merin, Mark) (Entered: 08/14/2020)

08/21/2020 5 SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED: City of Sacramento served on 8/14/2020, answer due 9/4/2020. (Merin, Mark) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

09/01/2020 6 ANSWER with Jury Demand by City of Sacramento. Attorney Trimm, Chance Louis added.(Trimm, Chance) (Entered: 09/01/2020)

09/10/2020 7 AMENDED ANSWER with Jury Demand by City of Sacramento.(Trimm, Chance) Modified on 9/11/2020 (Tupolo, A). (Entered: 09/10/2020)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt
09/20/2020 20:04:00

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse:2563377:0

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages:

4

Cost:

Kempa
2:20-cv01229-WBSEFB
0.40

 
 Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 1 of 51

1 Mark E. Merin (State Bar No. 043849)

Paul H. Masuhara (State Bar No. 289805) 2 LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

3 1010 F Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814

4 Telephone: (916) 443-6911 Facsimile: (916) 447-8336

5 E-Mail:

mark@markmerin.com

paul@markmerin.com 6

7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ,
8 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES,
9 JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

13 DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH
14 CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN
15 RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly
16 situated persons,

17

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

18 vs.

19 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO
POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, 20 and DOE 1 to 225,

21

Defendants.

22

INTRODUCTION

23

This class action is brought by DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY,

24 STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER

25 LORET DE MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, for damages,

26 declaratory relief, and injunctive relief enjoining and declaring unconstitutional the deprivations of the

27 federal and state constitutional rights caused by the CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO

28 POLICE DEPARTMENT, and their officials and personnel, who subjected Plaintiffs and the class to a 1
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 2 of 51

1 policy or custom of unreasonable and excessive use of force by firing impact weapons to strike and injure

2 non-violent demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights to freedom of speech.

3

JURISDICTION & VENUE

4

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331

5 (in that they arise under the United States Constitution), and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) (in that the action is

6 brought to address deprivations, under color of state authority, of rights, privileges, and immunities

7 secured by the United States Constitution). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction of the state law

8 claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

9

2. Venue is proper in the United State District Court for the Eastern District of California

10 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendants are located in the Eastern District of California and

11 because the acts and/or omissions described herein occurred in the Eastern District of California.

12

3. Intradistrict venue is proper in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of

13 California pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 120(d) because the claims asserted herein arise from acts and/or

14 omissions which occurred in the County of Sacramento, California.

15

EXHAUSTION

16

4. On June 15, 2020, DANIEL GARZA submitted a government claim to the CITY OF

17 SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT concerning his individual claims

18 asserted in this action. On July 30, 2020, the government claim was rejected as a matter of law. See Cal.

19 Gov. Code § 912.4(c).

20

5. On June 23, 2020, JOSHUA RUIZ submitted a government claim to the CITY OF

21 SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT concerning his individual claims

22 asserted in this action. On August 7, 2020, the government claim was rejected as a matter of law. See

23 Cal. Gov. Code § 912.4(c).

24

6. On June 23, 2020, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY submitted a government claim to the

25 CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT concerning her individual

26 claims asserted in this action. On August 7, 2020, the government claim was rejected as a matter of law.

27 See Cal. Gov. Code § 912.4(c).

28

7. On June 25, 2020, DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, and ELISABETH CROUCHLEY

2

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 3 of 51

1 submitted a class government claim to the CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE

2 DEPARTMENT concerning the class claims asserted in this action. On August 10, 2020, the class

3 government claim was rejected as a matter of law. See Cal. Gov. Code § 912.4(c).

4

PARTIES

5

8. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA is a resident of the County of Sacramento, California.

6

9. Plaintiff JOSHUA RUIZ is a resident of the County of Sacramento, California.

7

10. Plaintiff ELISABETH CROUCHLEY is a resident of the County of Sacramento,

8 California.

9

11. Plaintiff STEVEN PASSAL is a resident of the County of Sacramento, California.

10

12. Plaintiff RUSSELL VREELAND is a resident of the County of Sacramento, California.

11

13. Plaintiff ANTHONY PIRES is a resident of the County of Sacramento, California.

12

14. Plaintiff JOHN RUFFNER is a resident of the County of Sacramento, California.

13

15. Plaintiff JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA is a resident of the County of Sacramento,

14 California.

15

16. Defendant CITY OF SACRAMENTO is a “public entity” within the definition of Cal.

16 Gov. Code § 811.2.

17

17. Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT is a “public entity” within the

18 definition of Cal. Gov. Code § 811.2.

19

18. Defendant DANIEL HAHN is, and at all times material herein was, a law enforcement

20 officer and Police Chief for Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE

21 DEPARTMENT, acting within the scope of that employment. Defendant DANIEL HAHN is sued in his

22 individual capacity.

23

19. Defendants DOE 1 to 225 are and/or were agents or employees of Defendants CITY OF

24 SACRAMENTO and/or SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT and acted within the scope of that

25 agency or employment and under color of state law. Defendants DOE 1 to 225’s true and correct names

26 are not now known and they are identified by their fictitious names. Defendants DOE 1 to 225’s fictitious

27 names will be substituted for their true and correct names when ascertained.

28 \ \ \

3
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 4 of 51

1

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

2

20. At all times relevant herein, all wrongful acts described were performed under color of

3 state law and/or in concert with or on behalf of those acting under the color of state law.

4

21. On May 26, 2020, George Floyd, a black man, was murdered by Minneapolis police

5 officer Derek Chauvin, a white man. Chauvin knelt on Floyd’s neck for almost nine minutes, as Floyd

6 gasped for air, begged for mercy, and told the officer he could not breathe. Three other Minneapolis

7 police officers looked on, without intervention or protest, as Chauvin slowly killed Floyd. Floyd’s killing

8 was captured on camera and went “viral.”

9

22. George Floyd’s murder is consistent with a longstanding, ongoing pattern of cases where

10 minorities—and, most-often, black men—are subject to disproportionate force and sometimes killed by

11 law enforcement without justification. For example, and in addition to George Floyd, some other highly

12 publicized and recent killings by law enforcement include Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Eric Garner,

13 Philando Castile, Joseph Mann, Stephon Clark, and Breonna Taylor.

14

23. Nationwide outcry, protest, and demonstration immediately resulted from George Floyd’s

15 killing, with many around the country disgusted by and fed-up with law enforcement’s all-too-frequent

16 resort to deadly force without accountability. Thousands took to the streets to express their constitutional

17 rights to freedom of speech and petition against government officials who either participated in police

18 violence or idly stood-by while fellow officers engaged in such misconduct.

19

24. Many protests have occurred, and are continuing to occur, in Sacramento, California.

20

25. Demonstrating the very same propensity for the use of unjustified violence that gave rise

21 to these recent nationwide demonstrations, Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s

22 officers took to the streets in droves, armed for war against their own citizenry, and employed severe and

23 unjustified excessive force against peaceful, non-violent demonstrators.

24

Daniel Garza

25

26. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA is a National Lawyers Guild (“NLG”) Legal Observer who

26 has observed demonstrations across the United States since 2012. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA is the

27 “Know Your Rights” and NLG Legal Observer trainer for the Sacramento Chapter of the NLG. Plaintiff

28 DANIEL GARZA served 6-years in the United States Navy with two deployments to OIF/OEF aboard 4
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 5 of 51

1 the U.S.S. Nimitz (CVN-68).

2

27. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA was acting in his capacity as an NLG Legal Observer to

3 observe demonstrations occurring in the downtown-area of Sacramento, at all relevant times.

4

28. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA was wearing a neon-green hat prominently displaying the

5 words “National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer.” NLG Legal Observers, and their neon-green hats, are

6 internationally recognized as observer non-participants and are extended the same rights and access as

7 are members of the press.

8

29. Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT and its officers have long-known

9 of the role and presence of NLG Legal Observers at protest demonstrations—including, for example, the

10 demonstrations held at Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s headquarters located at

11 5303 Franklin Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95820, on May 29, 2020.

12

30. On or about May 30, 2020, Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA was conducting legal observation

13 near the Sacramento County Main Jail.

14

31. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA observed Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department officers

15 use flash-bang grenades and tear gas and fire irritant chemicals at protesters.

16

32. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA followed the protesters as they moved from I and 7th Streets

17 to K Street.

18

33. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA followed the demonstration down J Street from 7th Street until

19 it reached 19th Street. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA began to film the interaction between the protestors

20 and police with a camera and an iPhone held in both hands, simultaneously live-streaming the recordings

21 to Facebook.

22

34. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA observed a police line form and advance towards the

23 protestors.

24

35. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA was off to the side of the demonstration, in a parking lot west

25 of 2020 J Street (SNAHC Building), as the police line marched past.

26

36. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA was behind the police line, after it moved forward towards the

27 demonstration.

28

37. Defendant DOE 1, an officer, told Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA to move in front of the

5

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 6 of 51

1 police line.

2

38. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA refused Defendant DOE 1’s requests, recognizing that the

3 officers were preparing to fire on the protesters near the police line. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA did not

4 want to be exposed to line-of-fire of officers’ projectile or chemical weapons.

5

39. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA told Defendant DOE 1, “We are not part of them” (the

6 demonstration) and “We are not interfering.”

7

40. Defendants DOE 1 to 25, the line of officers, forced Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA to move

8 in front of the police line and into the line-of-fire, through physical intimidation, brandishing of weapons,

9 display of force, and an overwhelming police presence.

10

41. Defendants DOE 1 to 25 deployed flash-bang grenades and tear gas while pushing the

11 police lines forward.

12

42. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA advanced down J Street with the protesters.

13

43. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA donned a military-style gas mask which permitted him to

14 observe the demonstration without the gas affecting him. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA continued to wear

15 his high-visibility neon-green hat identifying him as a non-participant NLG Legal Observer.

16

44. The police line, including Defendants DOE 1 to 25, advanced to J and 21st Streets, where

17 a standoff between protestors and police remained for some time.

18

45. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA spent the majority of his time standing on the sidewalk in

19 front of 2100 J Street (First United Methodist Church).

20

46. Defendants DOE 1 to 25 fired their weapons directly at the protesters and several

21 protestors fell to the ground as they were shot.

22

47. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA left the sidewalk to assist injured persons who had been shot

23 and were unable to move without assistance.

24

48. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA assisted at least one person who had been shot in the face with

25 projectiles, causing incapacitation and severe bleeding.

26

49. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA was not fired-upon by Defendants DOE 1 to 25 when he

27 assisted injured persons from the street to the sidewalk, leading him to believe that the officers

28 recognized that he was not a threat. 6
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 7 of 51

1

50. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA continued filming the line of officers on his camera and live-

2 streaming on Facebook with his iPhone, with a camera in each hand.

3

51. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA was on the sidewalk about 30 feet from the police line.

4

52. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA observed that someone from behind and to the right of his

5 location threw an object towards the police line. The object was thrown high above the police line and

6 the landed far behind the police line, without striking any officer.

7

53. Defendant DOE 2 lifted his rifle, in reaction to the object being thrown and landing

8 behind the police line.

9

54. Defendant DOE 2 aimed his firearm at Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA and fired.

10

55. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA was struck on the left side of his forehead with a projectile.

11

56. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA fell to the ground, crying-out in pain. A recording can be

12 found at the following location:

13 <https://www.facebook.com/danny.garza.167/videos/10222535335080905/>.

14

57. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA felt severe pain and blood trickling from his face.

15

58. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA had been concussed by the projectile that had struck his head.

16

59. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA stood up, walked to the police line, and confronted the officer

17 who he believed had shot him.

18

60. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA repeatedly asked for the officer to identify his badge number.

19

61. An officer responded “#1011.” Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA does not know if the officer

20 who provided the badge number is Defendant DOE 2, the officer responsible for shooting him in the

21 face.

22

62. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA walked towards J and 22nd Streets, where his partner

23 observed his injuries and determined he needed to go to the hospital.

24

63. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA’s speech and thinking became noticeably impaired.

25

64. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA was left in the care of a nursing student known as “Raven”

26 and a tall man who identified himself as a physician, as his partner left to retrieve a vehicle.

27

65. Raven and the physician assisted Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA in retreating further into a

28 parking lot to the east of 2100 J Street. 7
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 8 of 51

1

66. Raven and the physician sat Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA on the lower rungs of stairs that

2 attached to the building. They cleaned Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA’s head wound.

3

67. Defendants DOE 1 to 25 advanced east on J Street, perpendicular to Plaintiff DANIEL

4 GARZA’s location.

5

68. Raven and the physician attempted to apply a bandage to Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA’s

6 head.

7

69. Defendants DOE 1 to 25 again fired their weapons at Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA, Raven,

8 and the physician, while they were treating Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA’s injuries.

9

70. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA, Raven, and the physician were each hit with pepper-balls.

10

71. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA, Raven, and the physician were cornered behind the stairs of

11 the building without any ability to escape Defendants DOE 1 to 25’s continuous assault.

12

72. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA, Raven, and the physician repeatedly yelled “Medic! Medic!

13 Don’t shoot!”

14

73. Raven was temporarily blinded by the pepper-balls fired and she sustained at least two

15 impact marks on her right bicep from pepper-ball impacts.

16

74. Defendants DOE 1 to 25 deployed flash-bang grenades.

17

75. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA and the medics attempted to retreat from their cover behind

18 the stairs but, again, were immediately fired-upon by Defendants DOE 1 to 25.

19

76. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA, Raven, and the physician were eventually able to walk to the

20 front of 2200 K Street (Temple Coffee), from where Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA was transported to the

21 Sacramento Veterans Affairs Hospital by a woman named Claire.

22

77. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA continues to experience pain, swelling, and severe

23 discoloration to the left side of his face where he was shot, including his left eye swelling shut.

24

78. Plaintiff DANIEL GARZA has experienced significant difficulties with his short-term

25 memory, focus, speech, comprehension, and cognition and exhibits symptoms consistent with a traumatic

26 brain injury.

27

Joshua Ruiz

28

79. On or about May 31, 2020, Plaintiff JOSHUA RUIZ was attending a demonstration

8

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 9 of 51

1 occurring in downtown Sacramento near Capitol Avenue and L Street.

2

80. Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s officers, including Defendants

3 DOE 26 to 50, began indiscriminately to fire their weapons into the crowd of protestors, without

4 justification.

5

81. Defendants DOE 26 to 50 fired projectiles directly at the demonstrators, severely injuring

6 many.

7

82. Plaintiff JOSHUA RUIZ was struck several times with projectiles, all over his body.

8

83. Plaintiff JOSHUA RUIZ fell to the ground after initially being struck by projectiles.

9

84. Defendants DOE 26 to 50 continued to fire-on and to strike Plaintiff JOSHUA RUIZ with

10 projectiles, even as he lay on the ground, defenseless and injured.

11

85. Plaintiff JOSHUA RUIZ is unable to identify the officers who shot him due to Defendants

12 DOE 26 to 50’s uniforms and equipment which obscured their identity. On information and belief,

13 Defendants DOE 26 to 50’s indistinguishable uniforms and equipment were employed, at least in part,

14 for the purpose of hiding officers’ identities and avoiding accountability.

15

86. Plaintiff JOSHUA RUIZ was admitted to the hospital for numerous and severe injuries

16 caused by his multiple injuries caused by the projectiles fire at him.

17

87. Plaintiff JOSHUA RUIZ sustained numerous cuts, bumps, and bruises from the

18 projectiles. Plaintiff JOSHUA RUIZ’s liver was found to have been lacerated due to the force with which

19 a projectile struck him.

20

88. Plaintiff JOSHUA RUIZ was hospitalized for multiple days due to his injuries. Plaintiff

21 JOSHUA RUIZ continues to experience pain and discomfort resulting from his injuries.

22

89. Plaintiff JOSHUA RUIZ wishes to attend further demonstrations, when he is healthy

23 enough to do so. Plaintiff JOSHUA RUIZ is hesitant, however, based on the experience and excessive

24 force to which he was subjected.

25

Elisabeth Crouchley

26

90. On or about the early hours of May 31, 2020, Plaintiff ELISABETH CROUCHLEY was

27 attending a demonstration occurring in downtown Sacramento near 20th and J Streets.

28

91. Plaintiff ELISABETH CROUCHLEY was peacefully demonstrating about 25 feet from a

9

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 10 of 51

1 police line of Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s officers, including Defendants

2 DOE 51 to 75.

3

92. Defendants DOE 51 to 75 began indiscriminately to fire their weapons into the crowd of

4 protestors.

5

93. Plaintiff ELISABETH CROUCHLEY observed that several protestors were directly

6 struck with projectiles fired by the officers.

7

94. Plaintiff ELISABETH CROUCHLEY turned to run away from Defendants DOE 51 to

8 75’s line-of-fire.

9

95. As Plaintiff ELISABETH CROUCHLEY was running away from the officers, she was

10 struck with an impact weapon on her right buttock and with a bean-bag to the back of her neck.

11

96. Plaintiff ELISABETH CROUCHLEY was yelling, “Don’t shoot! Don’t shoot!,” as she

12 ran away with both of her hands raised above her head.

13

97. Defendants DOE 51 to 75 shot Plaintiff ELISABETH CROUCHLEY with an additional

14 four impact weapons, striking her on the back of the head, back, hip, and foot.

15

98. Plaintiff ELISABETH CROUCHLEY was admitted to the emergency room at Sutter

16 General Hospital.

17

99. Plaintiff ELISABETH CROUCHLEY required immediate medical treatment for her

18 injuries, including two staples to the back of her head to close the laceration where she had been struck

19 with an impact weapon.

20

100. The attending nurse filed a police report on Plaintiff ELISABETH CROUCHLEY’s

21 behalf.

22

101. Plaintiff ELISABETH CROUCHLEY sustained severe bruising from the impact injuries

23 she sustained.

24

102. Plaintiff ELISABETH CROUCHLEY continues to experience pain and discomfort

25 resulting from her injuries.

26

Steven Passal

27

103. On or about the early hours of May 31, 2020, Plaintiff SEVEN PASSAL was present near

28 a demonstration occurring in downtown Sacramento near 21st and J Streets. 10
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 11 of 51

1

104. Plaintiff SEVEN PASSAL heard commotion as Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE

2 DEPARTMENT’s officers, including Defendants DOE 76 to 100, forcibly moved demonstrators.

3

105. Plaintiff SEVEN PASSAL observed a standoff between the demonstrators and Defendants

4 DOE 76 to 100 from a sidewalk.

5

106. Plaintiff SEVEN PASSAL had no involvement in demonstration and was merely

6 observing the demonstration as a non-participant.

7

107. Plaintiff SEVEN PASSAL observed and heard a flashbang grenade explode near his head.

8

108. Plaintiff SEVEN PASSAL was struck from behind three times by impact weapons fired

9 by Defendants DOE 76 to 100.

10

109. Plaintiff SEVEN PASSAL was struck on the tailbone, on the back of his arm, and on the

11 back of his head.

12

110. Plaintiff SEVEN PASSAL could not afford to go to the hospital.

13

111. Plaintiff SEVEN PASSAL experienced headaches, back issues, and nightly trouble

14 sleeping since he sustained the injuries.

15

112. Plaintiff SEVEN PASSAL continues to experience pain and discomfort resulting from his

16 injuries.

17

Russell Vreeland

18

113. On or about the early hours of May 31, 2020, Plaintiff RUSSELL VREELAND was

19 present at a demonstration occurring in downtown Sacramento near 21st and J Streets.

20

114. Plaintiff RUSSELL VREELAND was struck by an impact weapon fired by Defendant

21 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s officers, including Defendants DOE 101 to 125.

22

115. Plaintiff RUSSELL VREELAND was struck in the abdomen.

23

116. Plaintiff RUSSELL VREELAND sustained bruising, pain, and a hematoma lasting several

24 weeks.

25

117. Plaintiff RUSSELL VREELAND continues to experience pain and discomfort resulting

26 from his injuries, including anxiety, depression, and insomnia related to the event.

27

Anthony Pires

28

118. On or about the early hours of May 31, 2020, Plaintiff ANTHONY PIRES was observing

11

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 12 of 51

1 a demonstration occurring in downtown Sacramento near the Sacramento Convention Center on J Street

2 and 13th Streets.

3

119. Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s officers, including Defendants

4 DOE 126 to 150, were lined up and blocking J Street with a barrier.

5

120. Plaintiff ANTHONY PIRES walked down the street and stood approximately 30 to 40

6 feet away from the officers.

7

121. Plaintiff ANTHONY PIRES was observing the demonstration and capturing video

8 recordings with his cell phone.

9

122. Plaintiff ANTHONY PIRES stood off to the side of the demonstration, separate from

10 demonstrators.

11

123. Defendants DOE 126 to 150 ordered persons to move away.

12

124. Plaintiff ANTHONY PIRES complied with the officers’ commands to move.

13

125. Defendants DOE 126 to 150 began to move forward, towards the demonstrators.

14

126. Demonstrators began to disperse, moving away from the advancing officers.

15

127. Defendants DOE 126 to 150 started firing into the crowd of demonstrators.

16

128. Plaintiff ANTHONY PIRES put his hands up and walked towards the sidewalk.

17

129. Plaintiff ANTHONY PIRES observed Defendants DOE 126 to 150 shooting various

18 persons with impact weapons.

19

130. Plaintiff ANTHONY PIRES attempted to record persons being shot by Defendants DOE

20 126 to 150.

21

131. Defendant DOE 126 shot Plaintiff ANTHONY PIRES with an impact weapon, without

22 provocation.

23

132. Plaintiff ANTHONY PIRES was struck by impact weapons on his chest and on the back

24 of his leg.

25

133. Plaintiff ANTHONY PIRES’s chest injury felt as though someone had hit him with a

26 baseball bat.

27

134. Plaintiff ANTHONY PIRES sustained bruising, pain, and soreness associated with his

28 injuries. 12
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 13 of 51

1

135. Plaintiff ANTHONY PIRES continues to experience pain and discomfort resulting from

2 his injuries, including anxiety among crowds.

3

John Ruffner

4

136. On or about the later hours of May 30, 2020, or the early hours of May 31, 2020, Plaintiff

5 JOHN RUFFNER was on J Street near 15th Street in downtown Sacramento.

6

137. Plaintiff JOHN RUFFNER was demonstrating, holding his hands up while standing near

7 Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s officers, including Defendants DOE 151 to 175.

8

138. Plaintiff JOHN RUFFNER observed a demonstrator on the ground being shot by several

9 officers with impact weapons.

10

139. Plaintiff JOHN RUFFNER approached the injured demonstrator, with his hands held in

11 the air.

12

140. Plaintiff JOHN RUFFNER motioned to Defendants DOE 151 to 175 that he was going to

13 help move the injured demonstrator from the ground and out of harm’s way.

14

141. Defendants DOE 151 to 175 opened fire on Plaintiff JOHN RUFFNER, without warning.

15

142. Plaintiff JOHN RUFFNER was struck by several impact weapons fired by Defendants

16 DOE 151 to 175.

17

143. Plaintiff JOHN RUFFNER was knocked to the ground by the force of the impact weapons

18 that struck him.

19

144. Plaintiff JOHN RUFFNER was struck on the back by an impact weapon, as he was lying

20 facedown on the ground.

21

145. Plaintiff JOHN RUFFNER was dragged away by other demonstrators, as Defendants

22 DOE 151 to 175 continued to fire impact weapons at Plaintiff JOHN RUFFNER and others

23 demonstrators.

24

146. Plaintiff JOHN RUFFNER attempted to stand on his own multiple times but was unable

25 to do so because he was experiencing severe cramps.

26

147. Plaintiff JOHN RUFFNER was eventually able to regain his ability to walk.

27

148. Plaintiff JOHN RUFFNER witnesses numerous persons shot by officers with impact

28 weapons, without cause. 13
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 14 of 51

1

149. Plaintiff JOHN RUFFNER believed that the officers were going to kill demonstrators.

2

150. Plaintiff JOHN RUFFNER eventually went to the hospital with other demonstrators

3 injured by impact weapons.

4

151. Plaintiff JOHN RUFFNER sustained bruising, pain, and soreness associated with his

5 injuries.

6

152. Plaintiff JOHN RUFFNER continues to experience pain and discomfort resulting from his

7 injuries.

8

Jennifer Loret de Mola

9

153. On or about the later hours of May 30, 2020, or the early hours of May 31, 2020, Plaintiff

10 JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA was on J Street near 15th Street in downtown Sacramento.

11

154. Plaintiff JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA was a participant in a demonstration.

12

155. Plaintiff JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA held her hands up as she faced Defendant

13 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s officers, including Defendants DOE 176 to 200.

14

156. Plaintiff JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA’s mask accidentally slipped down, off her face,

15 without her noticing.

16

157. Defendant DOE 176 shouted at Plaintiff JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA: “Put on your

17 mask!”

18

158. Plaintiff JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA immediately complied, reset her mask, and said:

19 “I’m sorry.”

20

159. Defendant DOE 176 shot Plaintiff JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA with an impact

21 weapon, in the ribs, from approximately six feet away.

22

160. Plaintiff JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA was winded by the shot and fell to the sidewalk.

23

161. Plaintiff JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA had difficultly standing, straightening, and

24 walking.

25

162. Defendants DOE 176 to 200 began indiscriminately to shoot at demonstrators.

26

163. Plaintiff JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA sustained bruising, pain, and soreness associated

27 with her injuries.

28

164. Plaintiff JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA continues to experience pain and discomfort

14

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 15 of 51

1 resulting from her injuries.

2

POLICY AND CUSTOM ALLEGATIONS

3

165. Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s

4 Chief of Police, Defendant DANIEL HAHN, is a final policy-making authority under state law and

5 Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s General Orders. See Cal. Gov. Code §

6 38630(a); <https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Police/Transparency/General-Orders>. Defendant

7 DANIEL HAHN has served as Chief of Police since August 2017.

8

166. Defendants DOE 201 to 225 possess policy-making authority, based on the delegation of

9 authority from Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

10 and/or DANIEL HAHN.

11

POLICIES

12

167. Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT maintains General Order 532.11

13 “Crowd & Riot Control Manual,” available at: <https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-

14 /media/Corporate/Files/Police/Transparency/RMs/RM-53211-Crowd-and-Riot-as-of-1298.pdf?la=en>.

15 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN,

16 and DOE 201 to 225’s policies, including General Order 532.11, chapter 2, section (A)(3)(e), authorizes

17 officers to use force against non-threatening demonstrations: “If a display of officers accompanied by a

18 dispersal order does not result in voluntary dispersal, more forceful action may be employed.”

19

168. Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT maintains General Order 580.02

20 “Use of Force,” available at: <https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-

21 /media/Corporate/Files/Police/Transparency/GO/Section-500/GO-58002-Use-of-Force-6820.pdf?la=en>.

22 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN,

23 and DOE 201 to 225’s policies, including General Order 580.02(A)(8)(c), defines projectile weapons

24 fired by officers at persons to be “Less Lethal Force.” In reality, projectile weapons have the ability to

25 severely injure, permanently disable, and kill targets. See “Death, injury and disability from kinetic

26 impact projectiles in crowd-control settings: a systematic review,” available at:

27 <https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/12/e018154>.

28

169. Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT maintains General Order 580.12

15

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 16 of 51

1 “Less Lethal Weapons,” according to General Order 580.02(E)(3)(f). Defendant SACRAMENTO

2 POLICE DEPARTMENT does not make its General Order 580.12 “Less Lethal Weapons” publicly

3 available. See <https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Police/Transparency/General-Orders>.

4

CUSTOMS

5

170. Use of Unconstitutional Tactics in Response to Demonstration/Protest: Defendants CITY

6 OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to

7 225 maintain an unofficial custom whereby their officers are permitted to employ unconstitutional tactics

8 against persons in or around the area of a demonstration/protest—particularly as it relates to

9 demonstrations/protests concerning the subject of police violence. This custom proximately caused

10 Defendants DOE 1 to 200’s unconstitutional actions against Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA

11 RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES,

12 JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they

13 seek to represent. In addition to the incidents giving rise to this action, evidence of the existence of this

14 custom is reflected by the circumstances in Coburn v. City of Sacramento, E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:19-cv-

15 00888-TLN-AC. In the Coburn case, a demonstration protesting the Sacramento County District

16 Attorney’s Office’s refusal to prosecute the police officers responsible for shooting and killing an

17 unarmed black man, Stephon Clark, in his grandmother’s backyard, occurred on March 4, 2019.

18 Hundreds of law enforcement officers, including Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE

19 DEPARTMENT’s officers, corralled, “kettled,” and trapped 84 persons (including participants and non-

20 participants, such as legal observers and press members) on a highway overpass, impeding the

21 demonstrations’ movement and preventing and persons from leaving the scene. The officers then

22 declared an unlawful assembly and used force unconstitutionally to detain, arrest, and book all trapped

23 persons. The law enforcement agencies, including Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and

24 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, agreed to settle the claims that resulted from a civil rights

25 lawsuit pursuant to a stipulated class action settlement agreement. Defendants CITY OF

26 SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT agreed to pay at least $414,000.00 to

27 settle the action.

28

171. Use of Unreasonable and Excessive Force/Failure to Train, Supervise, or Discipline:

16

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 17 of 51

1 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN,

2 and DOE 201 to 225 maintain an unofficial custom whereby their officers are permitted to use

3 unreasonable and excessive force against persons with whom they come into contact, without meaningful

4 consequence, discipline, or corrective action. Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO

5 POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to 225’s failure to investigate and to

6 discipline officers in the face of widespread constitutional violations has resulted in use of force with

7 impunity. This custom proximately caused Defendants DOE 1 to 200’s use of force against Plaintiffs

8 DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL

9 VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA, and the class

10 of similarly situated persons they seek to represent. In addition to the incidents giving rise to this action,

11 evidence of the existence of this custom is reflected by:

12

a. The California Department of Justice’s “Report & Recommendations” issued on

13 January 29, 2019. See <https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/spd-report.pdf>. Therein,

14 numerous and “significant deficiencies” are identified and recommendations provided in reference to

15 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s use of force

16 policies and training. For example, Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s use of force

17 policies “should affirm the importance of proportionality”; “should prohibit certain problematic uses of

18 force”; and should “[r]equir[e] officers to intervene during a use of force incident when the force used is

19 outside of departmental policy.” Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE

20 DEPARTMENT’s use of force training “should place greater emphasis on teaching officers to have a

21 ‘guardian’ mindset”; and “should ensure its use of force training emphasizes critical-decision making

22 skills and require such training annually for all staff, regardless of rank.”

23

b. Numerous incidents involving allegations of unreasonable and excessive uses of

24 force by Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s officers which were substantiated by

25 significant settlements, for example:

26

i.

Clark v. City of Sacramento, E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:19-cv-00171-JAM-EFB

27 (Alleging that two police officers shot an unarmed man, Stephon Clark, to death on March 18, 2018,

28 while he hid in his grandmother’s backyard. The resulting lawsuit was partially settled for $2,400,000). 17
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 18 of 51

1

ii.

Cain v. City of Sacramento, E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:17-cv-00848-JAM-DB

2 (Alleging that a police officer grabbed, tackled, and punched a man for jaywalking on April 10, 2017,

3 without realizing the beating was recorded. The resulting lawsuit was settled for $550,000.

4 <https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article228710949.html>).

5

iii.

Hernandez v. City of Sacramento, E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:17-cv-02311-JAM-

6 DB (Alleging that three police officers chased an unarmed man who had been loitering in front of a

7 convenience store into a hospital where he was then tased, beaten, and pinned to ground until he

8 asphyxiated to the point of coma on March 6, 2017. The resulting lawsuit was settled for $5,200,000.

9 <https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article231173283.html>).

10

iv.

Mann v. City of Sacramento, E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:16-cv-01847-WBS-DB

11 (Alleging that a mentally-ill man was falsely reported to have a gun when two police officers

12 unsuccessfully attempted to run-over the man with their patrol vehicle and, after failing to do so, exited

13 the vehicle, pursued the man on foot as he fled, cornered the man, and shot him to death on July 11,

14 2016. The resulting lawsuit was settled for $719,000.

15 <www.sacbee.com/news/local/article130391109.html>).

16

v.

Namoca v. City of Sacramento, E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:16-cv-02283-TLN-

17 EFB (Alleging that two police officers falsely accused a minor of “tampering” with a mailbox, tackled

18 him to the ground and dislocated his shoulder, and unlawfully detained him in the back of a police car for

19 nearly an hour while conducting pretextual records searches before finally releasing him when it became

20 apparent that no lawful justification for the arrest could be found on June 7, 2016. The resulting lawsuit

21 was settled for $40,000. <https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article228710949.html>).

22

vi.

Thompson v. City of Sacramento, E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:18-cv-00806-KJM-

23 DB (Alleging that a police officer slammed a woman face-first into the frame of a patrol vehicle multiple

24 times, breaking her nose and the orbital around her eye on April 10, 2016. The resulting lawsuit was

25 settled).

26

vii.

Halcomb v. City of Sacramento, E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:14-cv-02796-MCE-

27 DB (Alleging that three police officers broke into the wrong residence seeking the subject of an arrest

28 warrant who lived at a different address and used excessive and unreasonable force against the resident 18
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 19 of 51

1 when he confronted the intruders on August 8, 2014. The resulting lawsuit was settled for $220,000, after

2 it was discovered that a police officer lied about the existence of a warrant.

3 <http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article147296244.html>. On March 7, 2018, in response to a

4 subsequent citizen complaint against the officer who lied under oath, Defendant DANIEL HAHN found

5 “no violation of Police Department rules or regulations” by the officer that lied, under oath, about the

6 existence of a warrant).

7

RATIFICATION

8

172. On information and belief, Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO

9 POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to 225 have failed and/or refused to hold

10 their officers accountable for the unreasonable and excessive uses of force against Plaintiffs DANIEL

11 GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND,

12 ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA, and the class of similarly

13 situated persons they seek to represent.

14

173. On information and belief, Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO

15 POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to 225 have determined that the unreasonable

16 and excessive use of force against Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH

17 CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER,

18 and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent,

19 was justified and/or in compliance with Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s policies

20 and general orders, based on the customs described above.

21

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

22

174. Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

23 DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to 225 deprived Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

24 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN

25 RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to

26 represent, of their civil rights including, but not limited to, the right to freedom of expression and speech

27 and the right against being subject to uses of unreasonable and excessive force. Plaintiffs DANIEL

28 GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, 19
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 20 of 51

1 ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA, and the class of similarly

2 situated persons they seek to represent, were injured as a resulted of a policy or custom, a lack of proper

3 training, and/or were ratified by policymaking officials, including Defendants CITY OF

4 SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to 225.

5

175. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

6 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

7 MOLA seek to represent a class of non-threatening demonstration attendees who were and/or will be

8 subject to unconstitutional conduct carried out by Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

9 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to 225.

10

176. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1), the members of the class are so numerous that joinder

11 of all members is impractical, as there are at least 40 class members, on information and belief.

12

177. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2), there are many facts common to the class including,

13 but not limited to, whether Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

14 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to 225 deprived Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA,

15 JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND,

16 ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA, and the class of similarly

17 situated persons they seek to represent, of theirs rights and/or had policies or customs permitting or

18 deliberately indifferent to constitutional and civil rights, including:

19

a. indiscriminate and unreasonable uses of force against attendees at demonstrations;

20

b. retaliation against attendees at demonstrations concerning police violence; and/or

21

c. discrimination against attendees at demonstrations concerning police violence.

22

178. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2), there are many questions of law common to the class

23 including, but are not limited to, whether Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO

24 POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to 225 deprived Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA,

25 JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND,

26 ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA, and the class of similarly

27 situated persons they seek to represent, of theirs rights and/or had policies or customs permitting or

28 deliberately indifferent to constitutional and civil rights, including: 20
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 21 of 51

1

(a) Violations of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits

2

unreasonable and excessive force;

3

(b) Violations of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits

4

indiscriminate and unintentional uses of force;

5

(c) Violations of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits retaliation in

6

response to protected activity;

7

(d) Violations of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits

8

unequal treatment of persons under the law;

9

(e) Violations of Article I, Section 13 of the California Constitution, which prohibits

10

unreasonable and excessive force;

11

(f) Violations of Article I, Section 7(a) of the California Constitution, which prohibits

12

indiscriminate and unintentional uses of force

13

(g) Violations of Article I, Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the California Constitution, which prohibits

14

retaliation in response to protected activity;

15

(h) Violations of Article I, Section 7(a) of the California Constitution, which prohibits

16

unequal treatment of persons under the law; and

17

(i) Violations of the Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1, for each of the reasons described in subdivisions

18

(a) through (h), above.

19

179. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 23(a)(3), proposed representative Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA,

20 JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND,

21 ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA’s claims are typical of the

22 class they seek to represent, and share the same interests and suffered the same types of injuries as the

23 putative class members, where the alleged claims are based upon the same legal theories and similar

24 facts.

25

180. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4), proposed representative Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA,

26 JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND,

27 ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA are prepared fairly and

28 adequately to protect the interests of the class, and their interests are consistent with, and not antagonistic 21
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 22 of 51

1 to, the interests of the class.

2

181. On information and belief, identities of the members of the class may be ascertained from

3 records maintained by Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE

4 DEPARTMENT, such as police or force reports; and/or from records maintained by third parties, such as

5 hospitals or medical care providers.

6

182. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A), prosecutions of separate actions by individual

7 members of the class would create a risk that inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to

8 individual members of the class would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties

9 opposing the class.

10

183. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(B), prosecutions of separate actions by individual

11 members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent adjudications with respect to individual members

12 of the putative class which would, as a practical matter, substantially impair or impede the interests of the

13 other members of the putative class to protect their interests.

14

184. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

15 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to 225 have acted on

16 grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate the final injunctive or declaratory

17 relief with respect to the class as a whole.

18

185. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the questions of law and fact, as alleged above, are

19 common to class members and predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.

20

186. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), a class action is superior to other available methods

21 for the fair and equitable adjudication of the controversy between the parties.

22

187. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(A), the interests of members of the class in

23 individually controlling the prosecution of a separate action is low, where most class members would be

24 unable individually to prosecute any action at all, for example, where the amounts at stake for members

25 of the class may be so small that separate suits would be impracticable, or where most members of the

26 class may not be able to find counsel to represent them.

27

188. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(B), there exists no other litigation concerning the

28 controversy that has already begun by or against class members, on information and belief. 22
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 23 of 51

1

189. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(C), it is desirable to concentrate all litigation in one

2 forum because it will promote judicial efficiency to resolve the common questions of law and fact in one

3 forum, rather than in multiple forums.

4

190. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(D), there are not likely to be significant difficulties in

5 managing a class action in this case.

6

191. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2), upon certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3),

7 Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL,

8 RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA

9 contemplate that individual notice will be given to members of the class at their last-known address by

10 first-class U.S. mail, informing members of the class to the following: (1) the pendency of the class

11 action and the issues common to the class; (2) the nature of the action; (3) a class member’s right to “opt-

12 out” of the action within a given time, in which event the class member will not be bound by a decision

13 rendered in the class action; (4) a class member’s right, if the class member does not “opt-out,” to be

14 represented by the class member’s own counsel and to enter an appearance in the case, otherwise the

15 class member will be represented by representative Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

16 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN

17 RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA and their counsel; and (5) the class member’s right, if

18 the class member does not “opt-out,” to share in any recovery in favor of the class, and conversely to be

19 bound by any judgment on the common issues adverse to the class.

20

EQUITABLE ALLEGATIONS

21

192. There is an actual controversy between Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

22 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN

23 RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to

24 represent, and Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

25 DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225 concerning the threat of unreasonable and excessive uses of force

26 by Defendant SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT’s officers pursuant to execution of Defendants

27 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE

28 201 to 225’s policies or customs concerning permitting indiscriminate uses of force against attendees at 23
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 24 of 51

1 demonstrations. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

2 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

3 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, seek a judicial determination of

4 their rights and duties and a declaration as to and Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

5 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225’s constitutional

6 obligations.

7

193. On information and belief, as a direct consequence of Defendants DOE 1 to 225’s past

8 conduct and Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

9 DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to 225’s failure to act and to restrain their officers from using similarly-

10 unconstitutional uses of force, Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH

11 CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER,

12 and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent,

13 have suffered and will continue to suffer violations of their constitutional and civil rights resulting in

14 irreparable harm, including the chilling of free speech, right to petition, and right to be free from

15 unreasonable and excessive uses of force.

16

FIRST CLAIM

17

Unreasonable and Excessive Force

18

(U.S. Const., Amend. IV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

19

194. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

20 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

21 MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, assert this Claim against

22 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN,

23 and DOE 1 to 225.

24

195. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 193 are realleged and incorporated, to the

25 extent relevant, as if fully set forth in this Claim.

26

196. Individual Claims: Defendants DOE 1 to 200, acting or purporting to act under color of

27 state law and in the performance of their official duties as law enforcement officers, used unreasonable

28 and excessive force against Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, 24
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 25 of 51

1 STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER

2 LORET DE MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, or failed to

3 intercede and/or were integral participants to the use of unreasonable and excessive force, in violation of

4 rights protected by the Fourth Amendment (as incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment) of the

5 U.S. Constitution.

6

197. Cass Claims: Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

7 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to 225, acting or purporting to act under color of state

8 law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and inaction resulting in

9 harm to Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

10 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

11 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, in violation of rights protected

12 by the Fourth Amendment (as incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment) of the U.S. Constitution.

13

198. Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions were motivated by

14 evil motive or intent, involved reckless or callous indifference to constitutionally protected rights, or

15 were wantonly or oppressively done.

16

199. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

17 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

18 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, were injured as a direct and

19 proximate result of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

20 DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions, entitling them to receive compensatory

21 damages and equitable (declaratory and injunctive) relief against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

22 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225; and punitive damages

23 against Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225.

24

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY,

25 STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER

26 LORET DE MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, pray for relief as

27 hereunder appears.

28 \ \ \

25
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 26 of 51

1

SECOND CLAIM

2

Unreasonable and Excessive Force

3

(U.S. Const., Amend. XIV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

4

200. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

5 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

6 MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, assert this Claim against

7 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN,

8 and DOE 1 to 225.

9

201. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 193 are realleged and incorporated, to the

10 extent relevant, as if fully set forth in this Claim.

11

202. Individual Claims: Defendants DOE 1 to 200, acting or purporting to act in the

12 performance of their official duties as law enforcement officers, engaged in conscience-shocking conduct

13 by employing potentially-lethal force with the purpose to harm and/or deliberate indifference and without

14 regard to the known or obvious risks of injury to Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

15 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN

16 RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to

17 represent, or failed to intercede and/or were integral participants to the potentially-lethal force, in

18 violation of rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

19

203. Class Claims: Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

20 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to 225, acting or purporting to act under color of state

21 law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and inaction resulting in

22 harm to Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

23 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

24 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, in violation of rights protected

25 by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

26

204. Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions were motivated by

27 evil motive or intent, involved reckless or callous indifference to constitutionally protected rights, or

28 were wantonly or oppressively done. 26
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 27 of 51

1

205. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

2 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

3 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, were injured as a direct and

4 proximate result of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

5 DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions, entitling them to receive compensatory

6 damages and equitable (declaratory and injunctive) relief against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

7 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225; and punitive damages

8 against Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225.

9

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY,

10 STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER

11 LORET DE MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, pray for relief as

12 hereunder appears.

13

THIRD CLAIM

14

Retaliation

15

(U.S. Const., Amend. I; 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

16

206. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

17 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

18 MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, assert this Claim against

19 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN,

20 and DOE 1 to 225.

21

207. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 193 are realleged and incorporated, to the

22 extent relevant, as if fully set forth in this Claim.

23

208. Individual Claims: Defendants DOE 1 to 200, acting or purporting to act under color of

24 state law and in the performance of their official duties as law enforcement officers, retaliated against

25 Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL,

26 RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA,

27 and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, for engaging in constitutionally

28 protected activity with intent to inhibit that activity, or failed to intercede and/or were integral 27
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 28 of 51

1 participants to the retaliation, in violation of rights protected by the First Amendment (as incorporated

2 through the Fourteenth Amendment) of the U.S. Constitution.

3

209. Class Claims: Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

4 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to 225, acting or purporting to act under color of state

5 law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and inaction resulting in

6 harm to Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

7 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

8 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, in violation of rights protected

9 by the First Amendment (as incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment) of the U.S. Constitution.

10

210. Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions were motivated by

11 evil motive or intent, involved reckless or callous indifference to constitutionally protected rights, or

12 were wantonly or oppressively done.

13

211. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

14 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

15 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, were injured as a direct and

16 proximate result of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

17 DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions, entitling them to receive compensatory

18 damages and equitable (declaratory and injunctive) relief against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

19 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225; and punitive damages

20 against Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225.

21

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY,

22 STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER

23 LORET DE MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, pray for relief as

24 hereunder appears.

25

FOURTH CLAIM

26

Equal Protection

27

(U.S. Const., Amend. XIV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

28

212. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

28

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 29 of 51

1 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

2 MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, assert this Claim against

3 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN,

4 and DOE 1 to 225.

5

213. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 193 are realleged and incorporated, to the

6 extent relevant, as if fully set forth in this Claim.

7

214. Individual Claims: Defendants DOE 1 to 200, acting or purporting to act under color of

8 state law and in the performance of their official duties as law enforcement officers, discriminated

9 against Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL,

10 RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA,

11 and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, when using force against them based on

12 an animus towards attendees at demonstrations concerning police violence and accountability, without a

13 rational relationship to any legitimate state interest, or failed to intercede and/or were integral participants

14 to the discriminatory uses of force, in violation of rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the

15 U.S. Constitution.

16

215. Class Claims: Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

17 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to 225, acting or purporting to act under color of state

18 law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and inaction resulting in

19 harm to Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

20 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

21 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, in violation of rights protected

22 by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

23

216. Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions were motivated by

24 evil motive or intent, involved reckless or callous indifference to constitutionally protected rights, or

25 were wantonly or oppressively done.

26

217. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

27 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

28 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, were injured as a direct and 29
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 30 of 51

1 proximate result of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

2 DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions, entitling them to receive compensatory

3 damages and equitable (declaratory and injunctive) relief against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

4 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225; and punitive damages

5 against Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225.

6

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY,

7 STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER

8 LORET DE MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, pray for relief as

9 hereunder appears.

10

FIFTH CLAIM

11

Rehabilitation Act

12

(29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq.)

13

218. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

14 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

15 MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, assert this Claim against

16 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT.

17

219. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 193 are realleged and incorporated, to the

18 extent relevant, as if fully set forth in this Claim.

19

220. Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT

20 each qualify as a “public entity” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(A) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.

21 On information and belief, Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE

22 DEPARTMENT receive federal financial assistance. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

23 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN

24 RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to

25 represent, at all times material herein, were regarded as having a physical or mental impairment that

26 substantially limited one or more major life activities; or were perceived to have a physical or mental

27 impairment.

28

221. Individual Claims: Defendants DOE 1 to 200, acting or purporting to act in the

30

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 31 of 51

1 performance of their official duties as law enforcement officers, failed reasonably to accommodate the

2 disabilities of Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

3 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

4 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, and personally utilized, failed

5 to intercede and prevent, and/or were integral participants to the use of unreasonable and excessive force

6 against them because of their apparent or perceived disabilities, in violation of rights protected by the

7 Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq.

8

222. Class Claims: Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

9 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to 225, acting or purporting to act under color of state

10 law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and inaction resulting in

11 harm to Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

12 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

13 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, in violation of rights protected

14 by the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq.

15

223. Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions were motivated by

16 evil motive or intent, involved reckless or callous indifference to statutorily protected rights, or were

17 wantonly or oppressively done.

18

224. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

19 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

20 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, were injured as a direct and

21 proximate result of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

22 DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions, entitling them to receive nominal,

23 compensatory, and punitive damages and equitable (declaratory and injunctive) relief against Defendants

24 CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT.

25

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY,

26 STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER

27 LORET DE MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, pray for relief as

28 hereunder appears. 31
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 32 of 51

1

SIXTH CLAIM

2

Americans with Disabilities Act

3

(42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.)

4

225. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

5 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

6 MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, assert this Claim against

7 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT.

8

226. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 193 are realleged and incorporated, to the

9 extent relevant, as if fully set forth in this Claim.

10

227. Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT

11 each qualify as a “public entity” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.

12 Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL,

13 RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA,

14 and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, at all times material herein, were

15 regarded as having a physical or mental impairment that substantially limited one or more major life

16 activities; or were perceived to have a physical or mental impairment.

17

228. Individual Claims: Defendants DOE 1 to 200, acting or purporting to act in the

18 performance of their official duties as law enforcement officers, failed reasonably to accommodate the

19 disabilities of Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

20 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

21 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, and personally utilized, failed

22 to intercede and prevent, and/or were integral participants to the use of unreasonable and excessive force

23 against them because of their apparent or perceived disabilities, in violation of rights protected by the

24 Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.

25

229. Class Claims: Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

26 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to 225, acting or purporting to act under color of state

27 law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and inaction resulting in

28 harm to Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN 32
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 33 of 51

1 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

2 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, in violation of rights protected

3 by the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.

4

230. Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions were motivated by

5 evil motive or intent, involved reckless or callous indifference to statutorily protected rights, or were

6 wantonly or oppressively done.

7

231. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

8 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

9 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, were injured as a direct and

10 proximate result of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

11 DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions, entitling them to receive nominal,

12 compensatory, and punitive damages and equitable (declaratory and injunctive) relief against Defendants

13 CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT.

14

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY,

15 STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER

16 LORET DE MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, pray for relief as

17 hereunder appears.

18

SEVENTH CLAIM

19

Unreasonable and Excessive Force

20

(Cal. Const., Art. I, § 13)

21

232. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

22 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

23 MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, assert this Claim against

24 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN,

25 and DOE 1 to 225.

26

233. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 193 are realleged and incorporated, to the

27 extent relevant, as if fully set forth in this Claim.

28

234. Individual Claims: Defendants DOE 1 to 200, acting or purporting to act under color of

33

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 34 of 51

1 state law and in the performance of their official duties as law enforcement officers, used unreasonable

2 and excessive force against Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY,

3 STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER

4 LORET DE MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, or failed to

5 intercede and/or were integral participants to the use of unreasonable and excessive force, in violation of

6 rights protected by Article I, Section 13 of the California Constitution.

7

235. Cass Claims: Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

8 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to 225, acting or purporting to act under color of state

9 law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and inaction resulting in

10 harm to Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

11 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

12 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, in violation of rights protected

13 by Article I, Section 13 of the California Constitution.

14

236. Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT

15 are vicariously liable, through the principles of respondeat superior and pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code §§

16 815.2(a) and 820(a), for injuries proximately caused by the acts and omissions of their employees acting

17 within the scope of their employment, including Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225.

18

237. Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions constituted

19 oppression, fraud, and/or malice resulting in great harm.

20

238. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

21 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

22 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, were injured as a direct and

23 proximate result of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

24 DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions, entitling them to receive compensatory

25 damages and equitable (declaratory and injunctive) relief against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

26 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225; and punitive damages

27 against Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225.

28

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY,

34

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 35 of 51

1 STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER

2 LORET DE MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, pray for relief as

3 hereunder appears.

4

EIGHTH CLAIM

5

Unreasonable and Excessive Force

6

(Cal. Const., Art. I, § 7(a))

7

239. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

8 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

9 MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, assert this Claim against

10 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN,

11 and DOE 1 to 225.

12

240. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 193 are realleged and incorporated, to the

13 extent relevant, as if fully set forth in this Claim.

14

241. Individual Claims: Defendants DOE 1 to 200, acting or purporting to act in the

15 performance of their official duties as law enforcement officers, engaged in conscience-shocking conduct

16 by employing potentially-lethal force with the purpose to harm and/or deliberate indifference and without

17 regard to the known or obvious risks of injury to Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

18 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN

19 RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to

20 represent, or failed to intercede and/or were integral participants to the potentially-lethal force, in

21 violation of rights protected by Article I, Section 7(a) of the California Constitution.

22

242. Class Claims: Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

23 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to 225, acting or purporting to act under color of state

24 law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and inaction resulting in

25 harm to Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

26 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

27 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, in violation of rights protected

28 by Article I, Section 7(a) of the California Constitution. 35
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 36 of 51

1

243. Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT

2 are vicariously liable, through the principles of respondeat superior and pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code §§

3 815.2(a) and 820(a), for injuries proximately caused by the acts and omissions of their employees acting

4 within the scope of their employment, including Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225.

5

244. Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions constituted

6 oppression, fraud, and/or malice resulting in great harm.

7

245. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

8 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

9 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, were injured as a direct and

10 proximate result of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

11 DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions, entitling them to receive compensatory

12 damages and equitable (declaratory and injunctive) relief against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

13 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225; and punitive damages

14 against Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225.

15

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY,

16 STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER

17 LORET DE MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, pray for relief as

18 hereunder appears.

19

NINTH CLAIM

20

Retaliation

21

(Cal. Const., Art. I, §§ 1, 2, 3)

22

246. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

23 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

24 MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, assert this Claim against

25 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN,

26 and DOE 1 to 225.

27

247. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 193 are realleged and incorporated, to the

28 extent relevant, as if fully set forth in this Claim. 36
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 37 of 51

1

248. Individual Claims: Defendants DOE 1 to 200, acting or purporting to act under color of

2 state law and in the performance of their official duties as law enforcement officers, retaliated against

3 Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL,

4 RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA,

5 and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, for engaging in constitutionally

6 protected activity with intent to inhibit that activity, or failed to intercede and/or were integral

7 participants to the retaliation, in violation of rights protected by Article I, Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the

8 California Constitution.

9

249. Class Claims: Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

10 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to 225, acting or purporting to act under color of state

11 law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and inaction resulting in

12 harm to Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

13 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

14 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, in violation of rights protected

15 by Article I, Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the California Constitution.

16

250. Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT

17 are vicariously liable, through the principles of respondeat superior and pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code §§

18 815.2(a) and 820(a), for injuries proximately caused by the acts and omissions of their employees acting

19 within the scope of their employment, including Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225.

20

251. Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions constituted

21 oppression, fraud, and/or malice resulting in great harm.

22

252. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

23 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

24 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, were injured as a direct and

25 proximate result of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

26 DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions, entitling them to receive compensatory

27 damages and equitable (declaratory and injunctive) relief against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

28 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225; and punitive damages 37
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 38 of 51

1 against Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225.

2

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY,

3 STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER

4 LORET DE MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, pray for relief as

5 hereunder appears.

6

TENTH CLAIM

7

Equal Protection

8

(Cal. Const., Art. I, § 7(a))

9

253. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

10 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

11 MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, assert this Claim against

12 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN,

13 and DOE 1 to 225.

14

254. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 193 are realleged and incorporated, to the

15 extent relevant, as if fully set forth in this Claim.

16

255. Individual Claims: Defendants DOE 1 to 200, acting or purporting to act under color of

17 state law and in the performance of their official duties as law enforcement officers, discriminated

18 against Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL,

19 RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA,

20 and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, when using force against them based on

21 an animus towards attendees at demonstrations concerning police violence and accountability, without a

22 rational relationship to any legitimate state interest, or failed to intercede and/or were integral participants

23 to the discriminatory uses of force, in violation of rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the

24 U.S. Constitution.

25

256. Class Claims: Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

26 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to 225, acting or purporting to act under color of state

27 law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and inaction resulting in

28 harm to Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN 38
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 39 of 51

1 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

2 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, in violation of rights protected

3 by Article I, Section 7(a) of the California Constitution.

4

257. Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT

5 are vicariously liable, through the principles of respondeat superior and pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code §§

6 815.2(a) and 820(a), for injuries proximately caused by the acts and omissions of their employees acting

7 within the scope of their employment, including Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225.

8

258. Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions constituted

9 oppression, fraud, and/or malice resulting in great harm.

10

259. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

11 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

12 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, were injured as a direct and

13 proximate result of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

14 DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions, entitling them to receive compensatory

15 damages and equitable (declaratory and injunctive) relief against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

16 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225; and punitive damages

17 against Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225.

18

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY,

19 STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER

20 LORET DE MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, pray for relief as

21 hereunder appears.

22

ELEVENTH CLAIM

23

Bane Act

24

(Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1)

25

260. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

26 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

27 MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, assert this Claim against

28 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, 39
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 40 of 51

1 and DOE 1 to 225.

2

261. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 193 are realleged and incorporated, to the

3 extent relevant, as if fully set forth in this Claim.

4

Unreasonable and Excessive Force

5

262. Individual Claims: Defendants DOE 1 to 200, acting or purporting to act under color of

6 state law and in the performance of their official duties as law enforcement officers, used unreasonable

7 and excessive force against Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY,

8 STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER

9 LORET DE MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, or failed to

10 intercede and/or were integral participants to the use of unreasonable and excessive force, with specific

11 intent (i.e., deliberate indifference or reckless disregard) to deprive rights protected by the Fourth

12 Amendment (as incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment) of the U.S. Constitution and Article I,

13 Section 13 of the California Constitution.

14

263. Class Claims: Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

15 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to 225, acting or purporting to act under color of state

16 law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and inaction resulting in

17 harm to Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

18 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

19 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, with specific intent (i.e.,

20 deliberate indifference or reckless disregard) to deprive rights protected by the Fourth Amendment (as

21 incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment) of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of

22 the California Constitution.

23

Unreasonable and Excessive Force

24

264. Individual Claims: Defendants DOE 1 to 200, acting or purporting to act in the

25 performance of their official duties as law enforcement officers, engaged in conscience-shocking conduct

26 by employing potentially-lethal force with the purpose to harm and/or deliberate indifference and without

27 regard to the known or obvious risks of injury to Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

28 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN 40
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 41 of 51

1 RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to

2 represent, or failed to intercede and/or were integral participants to the potentially-lethal force, with

3 specific intent (i.e., deliberate indifference or reckless disregard) to deprive rights protected by the

4 Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 7(a) of the California Constitution.

5

265. Class Claims: Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

6 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to 225, acting or purporting to act under color of state

7 law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and inaction resulting in

8 harm to Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

9 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

10 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, with specific intent (i.e.,

11 deliberate indifference or reckless disregard) to deprive rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of

12 the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 7(a) of the California Constitution.

13

Retaliation

14

266. Individual Claims: Defendants DOE 1 to 200, acting or purporting to act under color of

15 state law and in the performance of their official duties as law enforcement officers, retaliated against

16 Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL,

17 RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA,

18 and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, for engaging in constitutionally

19 protected activity with intent to inhibit that activity, or failed to intercede and/or were integral

20 participants to the retaliation, with specific intent (i.e., deliberate indifference or reckless disregard) to

21 deprive rights protected by the First Amendment (as incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment) of

22 the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the California Constitution.

23

267. Class Claims: Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

24 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to 225, acting or purporting to act under color of state

25 law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and inaction resulting in

26 harm to Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

27 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

28 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, with specific intent (i.e., 41
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 42 of 51

1 deliberate indifference or reckless disregard) to deprive rights protected by the First Amendment (as

2 incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment) of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Sections 1, 2,

3 and 3 of the California Constitution.

4

Equal Protection

5

268. Individual Claims: Defendants DOE 1 to 200, acting or purporting to act under color of

6 state law and in the performance of their official duties as law enforcement officers, discriminated

7 against Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL,

8 RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA,

9 and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, when using force against them based on

10 an animus towards attendees at demonstrations concerning police violence and accountability, without a

11 rational relationship to any legitimate state interest, or failed to intercede and/or were integral participants

12 to the discriminatory uses of force, with specific intent (i.e., deliberate indifference or reckless disregard)

13 to deprive rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section

14 7(a) of the California Constitution.

15

269. Class Claims: Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

16 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to 225, acting or purporting to act under color of state

17 law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and inaction resulting in

18 harm to Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

19 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

20 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, with specific intent (i.e.,

21 deliberate indifference or reckless disregard) to deprive rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of

22 the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 7(a) of the California Constitution.

23

Rehabilitation Act & Americans with Disabilities Act

24

270. Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT

25 each qualify as a “public entity” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(A) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.

26 On information and belief, Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE

27 DEPARTMENT receive federal financial assistance. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

28 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN 42
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 43 of 51

1 RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to

2 represent, at all times material herein, were regarded as having a physical or mental impairment that

3 substantially limited one or more major life activities; or were perceived to have a physical or mental

4 impairment.

5

271. Individual Claims: Defendants DOE 1 to 200, acting or purporting to act in the

6 performance of their official duties as law enforcement officers, failed reasonably to accommodate the

7 disabilities of Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

8 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

9 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, and personally utilized, failed

10 to intercede and prevent, and/or were integral participants to the use of unreasonable and excessive force

11 against them because of their apparent or perceived disabilities, with specific intent (i.e., deliberate

12 indifference or reckless disregard) to deprive rights protected by the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794,

13 et seq. and Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.

14

272. Class Claims: Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

15 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 201 to 225, acting or purporting to act under color of state

16 law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and inaction resulting in

17 harm to Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

18 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

19 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, with specific intent (i.e.,

20 deliberate indifference or reckless disregard) to deprive rights protected by the Rehabilitation Act, 29

21 U.S.C. § 794, et seq. and Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.

22

273. Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT

23 are vicariously liable, through the principles of respondeat superior and pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code §§

24 815.2(a) and 820(a), for injuries proximately caused by the acts and omissions of their employees acting

25 within the scope of their employment, including Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225.

26

274. Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions constituted

27 oppression, fraud, and/or malice resulting in great harm.

28

275. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

43

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 44 of 51

1 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

2 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, were injured as a direct and

3 proximate result of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

4 DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions, entitling them to receive compensatory and

5 treble damages, civil penalties, and equitable (declaratory and injunctive) relief against Defendants CITY

6 OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225;

7 and punitive damages against Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225.

8

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY,

9 STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER

10 LORET DE MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, pray for relief as

11 hereunder appears.

12

TWELFTH CLAIM

13

Assault / Battery

14

276. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

15 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

16 MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, assert this Claim against

17 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN,

18 and DOE 1 to 225.

19

277. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 193 are realleged and incorporated, to the

20 extent relevant, as if fully set forth in this Claim.

21

278. Individual Claims: Defendants DOE 1 to 200, acting or purporting to act in the

22 performance of their official duties as law enforcement officers, intentionally touched, caused to be

23 touched, or threatened to touch, without consent, Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

24 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN

25 RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to

26 represent, and that touching or threatened touching constituted unreasonable and excessive force.

27

279. Class Claims: Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 201 to 225, acting or purporting to

28 act under color of state law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and 44
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 45 of 51

1 inaction resulting in Defendants DOE 1 to 200’s use of unreasonable and excessive force against

2 Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL,

3 RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA,

4 and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent.

5

280. Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT

6 are vicariously liable, through the principles of respondeat superior and pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code §§

7 815.2(a) and 820(a), for injuries proximately caused by the acts and omissions of their employees acting

8 within the scope of their employment, including Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225.

9

281. Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions constituted

10 oppression, fraud, and/or malice resulting in great harm.

11

282. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

12 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

13 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, were injured as a direct and

14 proximate result of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

15 DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions, entitling them to receive compensatory

16 damages against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

17 DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225; and punitive damages against Defendants DANIEL HAHN and

18 DOE 1 to 225.

19

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY,

20 STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER

21 LORET DE MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, pray for relief as

22 hereunder appears.

23

THIRTEENTH CLAIM

24

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

25

283. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

26 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

27 MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, assert this Claim against

28 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, 45
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 46 of 51

1 and DOE 1 to 225.

2

284. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 193 are realleged and incorporated, to the

3 extent relevant, as if fully set forth in this Claim.

4

285. Individual Claims: Defendants DOE 1 to 200, acting or purporting to act in the

5 performance of his official duties as a law enforcement officer, engaged in outrageous conduct,

6 including: (i) use of unreasonable and excessive force; (ii) conscience-shocking employment of

7 dangerous force; (iii) retaliation; and (iv) discrimination against Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA

8 RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES,

9 JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they

10 seek to represent, and, as a result of that outrageous conduct, they suffered severe emotional distress.

11

286. Class Claims: Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 201 to 225, acting or purporting to

12 act under color of state law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and

13 inaction resulting in Defendants DOE 1 to 200’s outrageous conduct against Plaintiffs DANIEL

14 GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND,

15 ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA, and the class of similarly

16 situated persons they seek to represent.

17

287. Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT

18 are vicariously liable, through the principles of respondeat superior and pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code §§

19 815.2(a) and 820(a), for injuries proximately caused by the acts and omissions of their employees acting

20 within the scope of their employment, including Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225.

21

288. Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions constituted

22 oppression, fraud, and/or malice resulting in great harm.

23

289. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

24 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

25 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, were injured as a direct and

26 proximate result of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

27 DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions, entitling them to receive compensatory

28 damages against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, 46
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 47 of 51

1 DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225; and punitive damages against Defendants DANIEL HAHN and

2 DOE 1 to 225.

3

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY,

4 STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER

5 LORET DE MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, pray for relief as

6 hereunder appears.

7

FOURTEENTH CLAIM

8

Negligence

9

290. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

10 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

11 MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, assert this Claim against

12 Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN,

13 and DOE 1 to 225.

14

291. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 193 are realleged and incorporated, to the

15 extent relevant, as if fully set forth in this Claim.

16

292. Individual Claims: Defendants DOE 1 to 200, acting or purporting to act in the

17 performance of his official duties as a law enforcement officer, owed Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA,

18 JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND,

19 ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA, and the class of similarly

20 situated persons they seek to represent, a duty of care and breached that duty, including by: (i) employing

21 inappropriate tactical conduct and decisions preceding the use of dangerous force; (ii) using of

22 unreasonable and excessive force; (iii) conscience-shocking employment of dangerous force; (iv)

23 retaliating against demonstration attendees; and (iv) discriminating against demonstration attendees.

24

293. Class Claims: Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 201 to 225, acting or purporting to

25 act under color of state law and as policymaking authorities, maintained policies or customs of action and

26 inaction resulting in Defendants DOE 1 to 200’s breach of duties owed to Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA,

27 JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND,

28 ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA, and the class of similarly 47
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 48 of 51

1 situated persons they seek to represent.

2

294. Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT

3 are vicariously liable, through the principles of respondeat superior and pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code §§

4 815.2(a) and 820(a), for injuries proximately caused by the acts and omissions of their employees acting

5 within the scope of their employment, including Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225.

6

295. Defendants DANIEL HAHN and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions constituted

7 oppression, fraud, and/or malice resulting in great harm.

8

296. Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN

9 PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE

10 MOLA, and the class of similarly situated persons they seek to represent, were injured as a direct and

11 proximate result of Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

12 DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225’s actions and inactions, entitling them to receive compensatory

13 damages against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

14 DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225; and punitive damages against Defendants DANIEL HAHN and

15 DOE 1 to 225.

16

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY,

17 STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER

18 LORET DE MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, pray for relief as

19 hereunder appears.

20 \ \ \

21 \ \ \

22 \ \ \

23 \ \ \

24 \ \ \

25 \ \ \

26 \ \ \

27 \ \ \

28 \ \ \

48
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 49 of 51

1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY,

3 STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER

4 LORET DE MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, seek Judgment as

5 follows:

6

1. For issuance of a judgment declaring that Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO,

7 SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225’s actions, inactions,

8 and/or policies or customs complained of herein unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution and the

9 California Constitution;

10

2. For entry of a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants CITY OF

11 SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225’s

12 prospective actions, inactions, and/or policies or customs complained of herein in violation of the U.S.

13 Constitution, the California Constitution, and Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1;

14

3. For an award of compensatory, general, and special damages against Defendants CITY

15 OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225,

16 according to proof at trial;

17

4. For an award of exemplary or punitive damages against Defendants DANIEL HAHN and

18 DOE 1 to 225, in an amount sufficient to deter and to make an example of them, because their actions

19 and/or inactions were motivated by evil motive or intent, involved reckless or callous indifference to

20 protected rights, or were wantonly or oppressively done; and/or constituted oppression, fraud, and/or

21 malice resulting in great harm;

22

5. For an award of actual damages, treble damages, punitive damages, civil penalties, and

23 any other available relief against Defendants CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO POLICE

24 DEPARTMENT, DANIEL HAHN, and DOE 1 to 225, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §§ 52, 52.1, and any

25 other statute as may be applicable (except that no punitive damages are sought against Defendants CITY

26 OF SACRAMENTO and SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 818);

27

6. For an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, 29

28 U.S.C. § 794, 42 U.S.C. § 12205, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5, and any other 49
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 50 of 51

1 statute as may be applicable; and

2

7. For an award of any other further relief, as the Court deems fair, just, and equitable.

3 Dated: August 14, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

4

5

By: __________________________________

6

Mark E. Merin

7

Paul H. Masuhara LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

8

1010 F Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814

9

Telephone:

(916) 443-6911

Facsimile:

(916) 447-8336

10

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11

DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL,

12

RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES,

JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 50
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB

Case 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-JDP Document 4 Filed 08/14/20 Page 51 of 51

1

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

2

A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED by Plaintiffs DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ,

3 ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL, RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES, JOHN

4 RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly

5 situated persons.

6 Dated: August 14, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

7

8

By: __________________________________

9

Mark E. Merin

10

Paul H. Masuhara LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN

11

1010 F Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95814

12

Telephone:

(916) 443-6911

Facsimile:

(916) 447-8336

13

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14

DANIEL GARZA, JOSHUA RUIZ, ELISABETH CROUCHLEY, STEVEN PASSAL,

15

RUSSELL VREELAND, ANTHONY PIRES,

JOHN RUFFNER, and JENNIFER LORET DE MOLA

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 51
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Garza v. City of Sacramento, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB