Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 17 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 1 of 17

1 Hector O. Villagra (Bar No. 177586) ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN
2 CALIFORNIA 2140 W. Chapman Avenue, Suite 209
3 Orange, CA 92868 Telephone: (714) 450-3962
4 Facsimile: (714) 450-3969 Email: hvillagra@aclu-sc.org
5 (Additional Counsel Listed On Following Page)

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JAMEELAH MEDINA,

CASE NO. EDCV07-1600 VAP (OPx)

12

Plaintiff,

FIRST AMENDED

13

v.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

14 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a political subdivision; GARY
15 PENROD, in his individual and official capacities; and DOES 1
16 through 10, in their individual and official capacities,
17
Defendants.
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 17 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 2 of 17
1 Ranjana Natarajan (State Bar No. 230149) ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN
2 CALIFORNIA 1616 Beverly Blvd.
3 Los Angeles, CA 90026 Telephone: (213) 977-9500
4 Facsimile: (213) 250-3919 E-Mail: RNatarajan@aclu-sc.org
5
6 Lenora M. Lapidus (Pro Hac Vice Pending) Ariela M. Migdal (Pro Hac Vice Pending)
7 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERITES UNION FOUNDATION WOMEN’S RIGHTS PROJECT
8 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004
9 Telephone: (212) 519-7861 Facsimile: (212) 549-2580
10 E-Mail: LLapidus@aclu.org E-Mail: AMigdal@aclu.org
11 12
Daniel Mach (Pro Hac Vice Pending) 13 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
PROGRAM ON FREEDOM 14 OF RELIGION AND BELIEF
915 15th Street, NW 15 Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 548-6604 16 Facsimile: (202) 546-0738
E-Mail: DMach@dcaclu.org
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 17 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 3 of 17

1

Plaintiff JAMEELAH MEDINA alleges as follows:

2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3

1. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the laws and Constitution of

4 the United States, and the laws and Constitution of the State of California. This

5 Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, 42 U.S.C.

6 § 2000cc-2(a), and directly under the Constitution. This Court has supplemental

7 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

8

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part of

9 the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.

10

PARTIES

11

Plaintiff

12

3. Plaintiff Jameelah Medina is a 29-year old woman who resides in San

13 Bernardino County with her husband. Ms. Medina works as a business trainer and

14 is a graduate student pursuing her PhD in education at Claremont Graduate

15 University, where she obtained her Master’s degree.

16

4. Ms. Medina is a practicing Muslim and is and has been an adherent of

17 the Muslim religion since birth. In accordance with her religious beliefs and as a

18 part of the exercise of her religion, Ms. Medina wears a headscarf covering her hair,

19 ears, neck, and part of her chest when she is in public and when she is in the

20 presence of men who are not members of her immediate family.

21

Defendants

22

5. Defendant County of San Bernardino (“San Bernardino County”) is a

23 political subdivision, organized under the laws of the State of California. At all

24 times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant San Bernardino County employed

25 Defendant Gary Penrod and unidentified defendants designated herein as Does 1-

26 10. The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department (“SBSD”) is a department of

27 San Bernardino County. On information and belief, the SBSD receives federal

28 financial assistance as well as financial assistance from the State of California.
-1-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 17 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 4 of 17

1

6. Defendant Doe 1 was the supervising officer of the West Valley

2 Detention Center of the SBSD on December 7, 2005. In this capacity, he

3 supervised staff and operations at one of the largest county jails in California, with

4 a capacity of more than 3000 inmates. The web site of the West Valley Detention

5 Center boasts that inmates receive services including “religious services.” See

6 http://www.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/sheriff/detentions/WVDC.asp. Because the

7 true name of Defendant Doe 1 is unknown to Plaintiff, Plaintiff sues that Defendant

8 through a fictitious name. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint, if

9 necessary, to reflect Defendant Doe 1’s true name once it has been ascertained.

10 Prior to and on December 7, 2005, Defendant Doe 1 acted within the scope of his

11 employment and under color of law. He is sued in both his individual and official

12 capacities.

13

7. Defendant Gary Penrod is the Sheriff-Coroner of San Bernardino

14 County. As such, he has overall supervisory responsibility for the patrol stations

15 and jails of San Bernardino County, including the West Valley Detention Center.

16 At all times relevant to this Complaint, he was acting within the scope of his

17 employment and under color of law. He is sued in both his individual and official

18 capacities.

19

8. Defendants Does 2 through 10 are persons who engaged in, were

20 aware of, participated in, and/or directed the acts alleged herein. Because the true

21 names and capacities of Defendants sued as Does 2 though 10 are unknown to

22 Plaintiff, Plaintiff sues those Defendants through fictitious names. Plaintiff will

23 seek leave to amend this Complaint, if necessary, to reflect their true names once

24 they have been ascertained. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants

25 Does 2 through 10 were acting within the scope of their employment and under

26 color of law. Does 2 through 10 are sued in both their individual and official

27 capacities.

28
-2-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 17 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 5 of 17

1

9. On information and belief, each of the Defendants, whether named or

2 designated a Doe, was, in whole or in part, legally responsible for the denial of

3 Plaintiff’s right to practice her religion, in violation of the laws complained under

4 herein.

5

INTRODUCTION

6

10. By this Complaint, Plaintiff Jameelah Medina seeks relief from the

7 substantial burdens that San Bernardino County, its officers, and its agents

8 unlawfully imposed on the practice of her religion. Ms. Medina is a practicing

9 Muslim American who was denied the right to wear her religious headcovering by

10 the SBSD and defendant officers while in a day-long detention at the West Valley

11 Detention Center and while in the presence of men who are not related to her,

12 including officers at the detention facility. Defendants refused to allow Ms. Medina

13 to wear her religious headcovering, even though they could have searched her in

14 private and allowed her to continue wearing it following the search without any

15 valid security concerns. As a result of the foregoing deprivations of the free

16 exercise of her religion, Jameelah Medina suffered severe discomfort, humiliation,

17 and emotional distress.

18

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

19

Plaintiff’s Religious Practice of Wearing a Headscarf

20

11. Many Muslim women wear a headscarf, also known as a hijab or

21 khimar, in accordance with their religious beliefs that are based on their

22 understanding of the Koran (Qur’an), the primary holy book of the Muslim religion,

23 the hadith (or ahadith), oral traditions coming from the era of the Prophet

24 Mohammed, and other religious texts and interpretations. The word hijab comes

25 from the Arabic word “hajaba,” which means to hide or screen from view or to

26 cover.

27

12. As part of her religious faith and practice, Jameelah Medina wears a

28 headscarf, covering her hair, ears, neck, and part of her chest, when she is in public -3-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 17 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 6 of 17

1 and when she is at home, if she is in the presence of men who are not part of her

2 immediate family.

3

13. Ms. Medina has studied religious texts, thought deeply, and prayed

4 about her practice of covering her head and hair. To Ms. Medina, wearing a

5 headscarf is a reminder of her faith, of the importance of modesty in her religion,

6 and of her religious obligations, as well as a symbol of her own control over who

7 may see the more intimate parts of her body.

8

14. For Ms. Medina, to have her hair and neck uncovered in public –

9 particularly in the presence of men who are not part of her immediate family – is a

10 serious breach of faith and religious practice, and a deeply humiliating, violating,

11 and defiling experience that substantially burdens her religious practice.

12

Arrest and Car Ride to West Valley Detention Center

13

15. On the morning of December 7, 2005, Jameelah Medina boarded the

14 San Bernardino Line Metrolink train at the Fontana Station on her way to work,

15 with the Cal State LA Station as her destination.

16

16. When the train in which Ms. Medina was riding reached the Claremont

17 Station, two uniformed officers, possibly employed by Metrolink, who were on the

18 train asked to see her train ticket. She gave them her ticket. The officers

19 determined that her ticket was not valid, and they told Ms. Medina that she would

20 have to get off at the next stop, the Pomona Station, where an Los Angeles County

21 Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”) officer would be waiting for her.

22

17. At the Pomona Station, the two officers escorted Ms. Medina to an

23 LASD deputy, whom Ms. Medina later learned was named Craig Roberts. Roberts

24 arrested Ms. Medina at approximately 6:15 a.m. He asked Ms. Medina a number of

25 questions about her Metrolink ticket, took her to his car, gave her a blank form, and

26 told her to write out a statement on that form regarding her ticket.

27

18. Ms. Medina was never prosecuted for any crime or misdemeanor in

28 connection with her Metrolink ticket. -4-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 17 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 7 of 17

1

19. Roberts handcuffed Ms. Medina, made her sit in the back seat of his

2 marked police car, and drove away. As Roberts drove, he began asking Ms.

3 Medina questions. He asked her why she covered her hair. Ms. Medina explained

4 that she was a Muslim and preserved modesty in front of men. Roberts next asked

5 why Ms. Medina had chosen that “evil” religion. Ms. Medina answered that she

6 was born into the religion. Roberts asked whether Ms. Medina sympathized with

7 suicide bombers, and she answered that she did not. Ms. Medina attempted to

8 explain that not all Muslims are the same, just as not all Christians are the same.

9 Roberts asked Ms. Medina whether she sympathized with Saddam Hussein, and she

10 said that she did not. Ms. Medina felt uncomfortable and vulnerable during

11 Roberts’ questioning, but she answered his questions in order to be cooperative.

12

20. Although Roberts is an LASD deputy, Roberts drove Ms. Medina to a

13 detention center in San Bernardino County, telling her that he did not want her in

14 his car all the way to Los Angeles. He spoke with someone on the telephone to get

15 directions to the West Valley Detention Center.

16

21. As he drove, Roberts made several offensive and bigoted statements

17 about Ms. Medina’s religion. He accused Ms. Medina of being a terrorist and of

18 supporting terrorism. He stated that Muslims are evil, that their religion is evil, that

19 they spread evil, and that the United States was in Iraq at God’s direction to squash

20 evil. Roberts had difficulty keeping his composure and, at one point, he removed

21 his sunglasses and glared at Ms. Medina in the rearview mirror while yelling

22 accusations at her.

23

22. While Roberts accused Ms. Medina in increasingly angry tones, Ms.

24 Medina did not respond. She remained handcuffed in the back of the patrol car.

25 She felt intimidated and shocked, and she feared that Roberts might do something

26 to harm her physically.

27 Defendants’ Prohibition on Plaintiff’s Wearing of a Religious Headcovering

28
-5-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 17 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 8 of 17

1

23. Once at the West Valley Detention Center, a large jail in San

2 Bernardino County, Roberts left Ms. Medina with a female officer and stood about

3 ten feet away from her, apparently filling out paperwork, with his back to Ms.

4 Medina. The female officer told Ms. Medina to take various items off, including

5 her jewelry, and she inventoried those items. The officer then told Ms. Medina to

6 take off her headscarf. Ms. Medina responded that she could not take it off and that

7 she wore it for religious reasons. In response, the female officer hesitated for a

8 moment but then told Ms. Medina again to take off the headscarf. Ms. Medina

9 repeated her response.

10

24. Roberts turned around to face Ms. Medina and said, “It’s not religious.

11 It’s just a fashion statement.” This statement surprised Ms. Medina, because she

12 had explained to Roberts in the car that wearing the headscarf was a religious

13 practice. The female officer told Ms. Medina that she did not care what worked

14 “outside” and that Ms. Medina must take off the headscarf “in here.” The officer

15 told Ms. Medina that “in here,” she must do as she was told, and the officer

16 threatened that she could make sure that Ms. Medina was not processed or

17 fingerprinted and that, as a result, Ms. Medina would not be eligible for bail and

18 would not be released the same day.

19

25. In response, Ms. Medina allowed the officer to remove her headscarf.

20 Ms. Medina undid the pins holding the scarf in place and let the ends of the scarf

21 hang down. The female officer removed the scarf from Ms. Medina’s head. As she

22 did so, Roberts made a point of staring at her. Ms. Medina felt violated, exposed,

23 and humiliated because she was forced to remove her headscarf in the presence of a

24 man, in violation of her religious beliefs and practices.

25

26. Ms. Medina was not given any explanation by the officer, or by

26 anyone else thereafter, for why she was not permitted to wear her headscarf.

27

27. The female officer required Ms. Medina to remove the hair scrunchie

28 she had been wearing under her headscarf, and she told Ms. Medina to shake her -6-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 17 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 9 of 17

1 hair. The officer then required Ms. Medina to stand facing a wall, and the officer

2 searched Ms. Medina in a pat-down. Ms. Medina hoped that she would get the

3 headscarf back once the search was over, but the officer did not return her scarf to

4 her. No contraband or weapon was found under the headscarf or anywhere else on

5 Ms. Medina.

6

28. The female officer finished searching Ms. Medina’s person. She then

7 took Ms. Medina to a small holding area. Within a short time, the same officer

8 called Ms. Medina to be fingerprinted and then sent her to a holding area with the

9 other women. While in the holding cell, Ms. Medina removed a thermal

10 undershirt she was wearing and put it on her head in an attempt to cover herself.

11 Ms. Medina asked a different female officer if she could have her scarf back, and

12 that female officer returned it to her. When Ms. Medina received her scarf back,

13 she put it on her head right away and tied it at the chin.

14

29. Later in the day, officers lined up the female prisoners, including Ms.

15 Medina, to receive orange clothes. The female officer who had taken off Ms.

16 Medina’s headscarf saw that Ms. Medina was again wearing her headscarf. She

17 told Ms. Medina to take it off, and Ms. Medina complied and gave the headscarf

18 back to the female officer, who took it away.

19

30. Ms. Medina then attempted to put the thermal undershirt on her head

20 again, but the officer told her that she was not allowed to put anything on her head.

21 Ms. Medina saw another inmate wearing a ponytail scrunchie, and no one required

22 that inmate to remove her scrunchie.

23

31. A male officer issued the women their prison clothes. He saw Ms.

24 Medina without her headscarf on. Again, Ms. Medina felt violated. Ms. Medina

25 and the others were sent eventually to cells, where she stayed until she was

26 released.

27

32. Ms. Medina believes that, at least, two or three male officers, including

28 Roberts, saw her exposed without her headscarf during the course of that day. Even -7-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 17 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 10 of 17

1 when Ms. Medina was sitting in a cell with only other women, she heard men’s

2 voices and feared that more men saw her uncovered.

3

33. Later in the day, Ms. Medina received her headscarf and other personal

4 items and was released in the early evening after her family posted bond.

5

34. In the aftermath of the incident, Ms. Medina remained distressed by

6 what had happened, including being forced to remove her headscarf. She cried a

7 great deal and experienced humiliation, a sense of having had both her religious

8 beliefs and personal integrity violated, and shame. She felt that the male officers

9 had seen parts of her body that they should not have seen, according to her religious

10 beliefs.

11

DEFENDANTS’ CULPABILITY

12

35. On information and belief, Defendants San Bernardino County and its

13 employees and agents prohibited Plaintiff from wearing her religious headcovering

14 pursuant to a San Bernardino County custom, practice, or official policy.

15 Alternatively, based on information and belief, Defendants San Bernardino County

16 and its employees and agents prohibited Plaintiff from wearing her religious

17 headcovering pursuant to a custom, practice, or official policy implemented by the

18 SBSD, Defendant Doe 1 (the person who supervised the West Valley Detention

19 Center on December 7, 2005), Defendant Penrod, or other officers employed by

20 San Bernardino County and/or the SBSD, which was ratified by San Bernardino

21 County or which San Bernardino County failed to address.

22

36. Specifically, the SBSD has informed Plaintiff that it is the practice in

23 “all Type I and Type II jails managed by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s

24 Department” to require all inmates “to remove any headcovering when they are

25 searched during the jail intake process,” and to receive this headcovering back,

26 whether “religious or otherwise,” only upon “that individual’s release from

27 custody.” No exception or accommodation is made for religious headcoverings.

28
-8-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 17 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 11 of 17

1

37. In contrast to the SBSD policy, custom, or practice prohibiting the use

2 of religious headcovering, the Federal Bureau of Prisons has enacted a policy

3 regarding “religious headwear” providing that “[s]carves and headwraps (hijabs)

4 are appropriate for female inmates . . . .” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Federal Bureau of

5 Prisons, Program Statement re: Religious Beliefs and Practices (Dec. 31, 2004),

6 available at http://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5360_009.pdf (last visited

7 December 5, 2007). The federal policy authorizes female Muslim inmates to wear

8 a “hijab,” and it states that such “[r]eligious headwear is worn throughout the

9 institution.” Id. The policy is intended to protect “the religious rights of inmates of

10 all faiths” while maintaining “the security and orderly running of the institution.”

11 Id.

12

38. In contrast to the policy, custom, or practice prohibiting the use of

13 religious headcovering in SBSD jails including the West Valley Detention Center,

14 other States have, like the Federal Bureau of Prisons, enacted policies regarding

15 religious headwear. The Kentucky Department of Corrections, for example,

16 permits “[s]carves and head wraps to be authorized for female inmates who have

17 identified a religious preference of Muslim, Jewish, Native American, Rastafarian,

18 and those of the orthodox Christian tradition.” This includes the “hijab.” Kentucky

19 Corrections, Policies and Procedures, Policy No. 23.1, at 5 (filed Jan. 9, 2007). The

20 New York Department of Correctional Services permits inmates to wear religious

21 headcoverings. Approved religious headcoverings include the “khimar” – a “cloth

22 headcovering (not to cover the face) for female members of the Islamic faith

23 measuring no more than 4 feet by 4 feet.” State of New York, Dep’t of

24 Correctional Servs., Directive No. 4202, at 6-7 (May 12, 2004, last revised April

25 24, 2007).

26

39. Defendants’ prohibition on Plaintiff’s use of a religious headcovering

27 pursuant to the above-described custom, practice, or policy violated Plaintiff’s right

28 to the free exercise of her religion, violated her rights under federal law, violated -9-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 17 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 12 of 17

1 her rights under the California Constitution and laws, and caused her extreme

2 mental and emotional distress.

3

40. On December 7, 2005, the day of the events that form the basis of this

4 Complaint, Defendants Doe 1 and Sheriff Penrod managed and supervised the

5 SBSD and the West Valley Detention Center of the SBSD and all officers working

6 therein, including the officers (Does 2 through 10) who had contact with Plaintiff at

7 the West Valley Detention Center on December 7, 2005.

8

41. On information and belief, Defendants Doe 1 and Penrod directed

9 officers, including Does 2 through 10, to prohibit the wearing of religious

10 headcoverings such as the hijab by inmates in the West Valley Detention Center of

11 the SBSD.

12

42. On information and belief, Defendants Doe 1 and Penrod, as

13 supervisors of the SBSD and the West Valley Detention Center of the SBSD, and

14 of all officers, including Does 2 through 10 working therein, were aware or should

15 have been aware that officers, including Does 2 through 10, engaged in the practice

16 of prohibiting the wearing of religious headcoverings such as a hijab, and that such

17 prohibition would violate Plaintiff’s right to free exercise of religion, violate her

18 rights under federal and state law, and cause her extreme mental and emotional

19 distress. Defendants Doe 1 and Penrod, however, failed to prevent officers,

20 including Does 2 through 10, from prohibiting Jameelah Medina from wearing her

21 religious headscarf, either by training those officers, exercising their control over

22 those officers, or adequately supervising those officers. Nor did Defendants Doe 1

23 and Penrod, having knowledge of those officers’ prohibition on the wearing of

24 religious headcoverings, remediate or redress those officers’ conduct.

25

43. Defendants had no reasonable basis to believe that their actions in

26 prohibiting Ms. Medina from practicing her religion were lawful. The right that she

27 sought to exercise and the fact that Defendants’ actions violated that right were

28 clearly established and well settled law as of December 7, 2005. In particular, as -10-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 17 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 13 of 17

1 detention officials, Defendants Doe 1 and Penrod should have known about the

2 clearly established law prohibiting Defendants from imposing a substantial burden

3 on religious exercise in the absence of a compelling government interest.

4 Accordingly, defendants Doe 1 and Penrod should have known that causing or

5 allowing subordinate officers, including Does 2 through 10, to prohibit Plaintiff

6 from wearing her religious headscarf would violate Jameelah Medina’s right to the

7 free exercise of her religion, violate her rights under federal and state law, cause her

8 extreme mental and emotional distress, and would subject them to liability in their

9 individual and official capacities.

10

44. In failing to adequately train, control, and supervise its officers and in

11 failing to implement a policy, such as the federal Bureau of Prisons Policy, that

12 safeguards the religious rights of inmates such as Plaintiff, Defendants Doe 1 and

13 Penrod demonstrated reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

14

45. In requiring Plaintiff to remove her headscarf after being told that

15 Plaintiff wore the scarf for religious reasons, defendant SBSD officers (Does 2

16 through 10) acted with reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

17

FIRST CLAIM

18

Violation of Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

19

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq.

20

(Against All Defendants)

21

46. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs as though fully set forth

22 here.

23

47. Under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of

24 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, “No government shall impose a

25 substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an

26 institution . . . even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless

27 the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person – (1) is in

28
-11-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 17 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 14 of 17

1 furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive

2 means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

3

48. By their actions described above, including by requiring Plaintiff to

4 remove her religious headscarf and by prohibiting Plaintiff from covering her head

5 with her headscarf, including in the presence of male officers, Defendants imposed

6 a substantial burden on Plaintiff’s religious exercise in that they forced Plaintiff to

7 violate a fundamental tenet of her faith and a central component of her religious

8 practice. That substantial burden neither furthers a compelling governmental

9 interest nor is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental

10 interest.

11

49. Accordingly, Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s rights under

12 RLUIPA. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Jameelah Medina suffered, and

13 continues to suffer, extreme shame, humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional

14 distress.

15

SECOND CLAIM

16

Violation of the First Amendment

17

42 U.S.C. § 1983

18

(Against All Defendants)

19

50. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs as though fully set forth

20 here.

21

51. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

22 “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting

23 the free exercise thereof. . . . .”

24

52. By their actions described above, including by forcing Plaintiff to

25 remove her headscarf and by prohibiting Plaintiff from covering her head with her

26 headscarf, including in the presence of male officers, Defendants denied Plaintiff

27 the right to free exercise of religion, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the

28
-12-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 17 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 15 of 17

1 Constitution of the United States and incorporated against the States through the

2 Fourteenth Amendment.

3

53. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Jameelah Medina suffered, and

4 continues to suffer, extreme humiliation, shame, mental anguish, and emotional

5 distress.

6

THIRD CLAIM

7

Violation of the California Constitution

8

Article I, Section 4

9

(Against All Defendants)

10

54. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs as though fully set forth

11 here.

12

55. Article I, Section 4 of the California Constitution provides: “Free

13 exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are

14 guaranteed.”

15

56. By their actions described above, including by forcing Plaintiff to

16 remove her religious headscarf and by prohibiting Plaintiff from covering her head

17 with her religious headscarf, including in the presence of male officers, Defendants

18 denied Plaintiff the right to the free exercise of religion and to the free exercise of

19 her religion without discrimination, as guaranteed by Article I, Section 4 of the

20 California Constitution.

21

57. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Jameelah Medina suffered, and

22 continues to suffer, extreme shame, humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional

23 distress.

24

FOURTH CLAIM

25

Violation of California Tom Bane Act

26

(Against All Defendants)

27

58. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs as though fully set forth

28 here.

-13-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 17 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 16 of 17

1

59. California’s Tom Bane Act, California Civil Code § 52.1, provides a

2 civil action for damages for a person whose enjoyment of federal or state rights has

3 been interfered with by a person who, whether or not acting under color of state

4 law, interferes with that right by threats, intimidation, or coercion. See Cal. Civ.

5 Code § 52.1(a), (b).

6

60. By their actions described above, including threatening Plaintiff with

7 delayed release if she refused to remove her hijab, Defendants have unlawfully

8 interfered with Plaintiff’s federal and state rights to the free exercise of her religion

9 in violation of California’s Tom Bane Act. These rights are guaranteed to Plaintiff

10 by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and by Article I, Section

11 4 of the Constitution of the State of California.

12

61. As a result of Defendants’ threats, coercion, or intimidation, Plaintiff

13 was harmed in that she was forced to be exposed in violation of her religious

14 beliefs, and Plaintiff was also harmed in that she suffered emotional distress as a

15 result of Defendants’ actions described above.

16

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

17

62.

Plaintiff therefore respectfully requests that the Court enter a

18 judgment, including, but not limited to:

19

a. Compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

20

b. Punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

21

c. Nominal damages;

22

d. Costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

23

e. Such additional and further relief as the Court deems just and

24

equitable.

25

26

27

28
-14-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 17 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 17 of 17

 
 Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 21 Filed 01/31/2008 Page 1 of 6

DANA ALDEN FOX, S.B. # 119761 EUGENE S. SUH, S.B. #245313 2 LYNBERG & WATKINS A Professional Corporation 3 888 South Figueroa Street
Los Anfeles, CA 900 I7 4 Phone: 213) 624-8700
Fax: 213) 892-2763 5 E-mail: dfox@lvnbcrg.com/esuh@lvnberg.com

6 Attorneys for Defendants SAN BER-"'1ARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Sheriff Gary Penrod (Exempt per GOY't Code Section 6103)
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
JAMEELAH MEDINA,
1 1
Plainti ff( s),
12
v.
13
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, 14 a 80litical subdivision; GARY
P NROD, in his individual and 15 official capacities; DOES 1 throurh
10, in.t~eir individual and officia 16 capacItIes;

17

Defendants.

)

18

)

19

CASE NO: EDCV07-1600 YAP (OPx)

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISJ\lIISS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(B)(6); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Date:

february 25. 2008

Time:

10:00 a.m.

Courtroom: 2

Complaint Filed: 12/5/07

20

TO PLAINT IFF AND HER ATTORNEYS Of RECORD:

21

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February 25, 2008 or as soon thereafter as

22 the matter may be heard in the above-entitled court, located at 3470 Twel fth Street,

23 Riverside, California 9250 I, defendants will, and hereby do, move to dismiss the

24 Fourth Claim for Relief of plaintiffs First Amended Complaint.

25

This Motion is made on the grounds that plaintiffs Fourth Claim for Relief

26 fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

27

This Motion is made following the conference ofcounsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3,

28 which took place on January 31, 2008.

F ',WP Nj\Heam OAF, 1858-OO23·J Medina' PIS Mln·~·DlsmlSs wpd

DEFENDANTS' NOT. OF MOT.ll\lOTlON TO DIS;\lISS PUHSUANT TO FEDERAL HLLE 12(h)(6)

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 21 Filed 01/31/2008 Page 2 of 6

This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the pleadings on tile herein, the

2 Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed herewith, and on all fUl1her oral and/or

3 documentary evidence which may be presented at the time of the hearing of this

4 matter.

5

6 DATED: January 31, 2008

7

LYNBERG & WATKINS

A Professional Corporation

8

9

10

11

.SUH

efendants, COUNTY OF SAN

12

INa and 'SHERIFF GARY

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21
22

24

25

26

27

28

F:\WP',Njw-tcam\DAF\ 1858-0023-) Medina\Pld\Mtn-2-Dismiss. wpdl

2

DEFENDANTS' NOT. OF MOT.lMOTlON TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE 12(b)(6)

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 21 Filed 01/31/2008 Page 3 of 6

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2

I.

3

STATEMENT OF FACTS

4

On January 11, 2008, Plaintiff Jameelah Medina filed her First Amended

5 Complaint (FAC) against the County of San Bernardino (County) and Gary Penrod

6 (Penrod), alleging a variety of Claims for Relief, including the Religious Land Use

7 and Institutionalized Persons Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq.), (2) 42 U.S.C. §1983,

8 (3) Article I, Section 4 of the California Constitution, and (4) the California Tom

9 Bane Act (California Civil Code § 52.1).

10

Plaintiff is an individual who was arrested, booked, and temporarily detained

11 at the West Valley Detention Center on December 7,2005 after being caught trying

12 to use a fraudulent Metrolink monthly pass on a train. During booking, plaintiff was 13 required to remove her religious headcovering despite her protest that she is a

14 practicing Muslim who wears a headscarf for religious reasons. Plaintiff alleges a

15 female deputy threatened plaintiff that she could make sure plaintitf was not 16 processed, and would not be eligible for bail and released that day ifplaintitTdid not

17 remove her headscarf. After the search, plaintiff was placed in a holding area with

18 other women. She was released the same day after posting bail, and her headscarf

19 was returned to her at the time of release.

20

Plaintiff's Fourth Claim alleging a violation under the Tom Bane Act,

21 California Civil Code § 52.1, fails to adequately state a claim upon which relief can

22 be granted. To succeed on a claim under the Tom Bane Act, plaintiff must prove

23 defendants used violence or intimidation by threat of violence against her. Plaintiff

24 does not allege in her FAC that defendants threatened her with violence; rather. she

contends she was threatened with "delayed release" if she did not remove her 26 headscarf. 27 III 28 III

F:\\''P·,Nj,,·tearn\DAF\ 1858.0023.J Mcdina\l'ld\I\·1tn·2·Dismiss. wpd\

3

DEFENDANTS' NOT. OF MOT.I!\lOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE 12(b)(6)

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 21 Filed 01/31/2008 Page 4 of 6

1

II.

2

LEGALSTANDr~

3

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule ofCiviI Procedure 12(b)(6) tests

4 the legal sufficiency of a claim for relief. A claim should be dismissed pursuant to

5 Rule 12(b)(6) if it either "lacks a cognizable legal theory" or fails to allege "sufticient

6 facts" to support a cognizable legal theory. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 7 749 F.2d 530, 533-34 (9th Cir. 1984). COUl1S have firmly held the belief that a

8 complaint should not be dismissed under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(6)

9 "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support

10 ofhis claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41. 45-46,

11 2 L. Ed. 2d 80, 78 S. Ct. 99 (1957). Although pleadings filed in federal court only

12 require "notice" to be provided to the defendant of a par1ies allegations, this does not

13 abrogate the need to place a defendant on notice so as to properly raise all applicable

14 defenses. Where, as here, certain claims involve allegations supported by only

15 conclusory statements and legal principles that lack support, a Rule 12 (b)(6) motion

16 is appropriate to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

17

III.

18

ARGUMENT

19 I. PLAINTIFF'S FOURTH CLAIM FOR VIOLATION OF TI-IE CALIFORNIA

20

TOM BANE ACT FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM UPON \VHICH RELIEF

21

CAN BE GRANTED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DOES NOT ALLEGE

22

DEFENDANTS THREATENED VIOLENCE AGAINST HER.

24

Plaintiff claims defendants are liable under the California Tom Bane Act

25 because the County and its agents threatened her with "delayed release" if she did

26 not remove her headscarf(FAC, ~60). The California Tom Bane Act, California

27 Civil Code § 52.1, provides a civil action for damages for a person whose

28 enjoyment of federal or state rights has been interfered with by a person who.

F:\WP ·Njw.team'DAF, 1858·0023·J Medina\PJd\t\ltn·~·Dismiss. "pd\

4

DEFENDANTS' NOT. OF MOT.lMOTlON TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE 12(b)(6)

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 21 Filed 01/31/2008 Page 5 of 6

whether or not acting under color of state law, interferes with that right by threats.

2 intimidation, or coercion.

3

"52. I Action for injunctive relief from interference with enjoyment of legal

4 rights:

5

"(a) If a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law,

6

interferes by threats, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere

7

by threats, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment

8

by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution

9

or laws of the United States...or laws of this state, the Attorney

10

General, or any district attol11ey or city attol11ey may bring a civil

1 1

action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief in the

12

name of the people of the State ofCalifol11ia...

13

(b) Any individual whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the

14

Constitution or laws of the United States, or.. .laws of this state...may

15

institute and prosecute in his or her own name and on his or her own

16

behalf a civil action for damages, including, but not limited to,

17

.. .injunctive reliet~ and other appropriate equitable relief to protect the

18

peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured."

19 The 2007 case of Austin v. Escondido Union School District, et al. sets forth the

20 requirements for a plaintiff to succeed on a Bane Act claim. (2007) 149 Cal App

21 4th 860. To establish the claim, plaintiff must prove all of the following:

22

1. That the defendants interfered with plaintiffs right to freely

23

exercise her religion by threatening or committing violent acts;

24

2. That plaintiff reasonably believed that if she exercised her right

25

to freely exercise her religion, the defendants would commit

26

violence against her;

27

3. That the defendants injured plaintitI or her prope11y to prevent

28

her from exercising her right to freely exercise her religion or

F:\WPNJw-lcam\DAF\ 1858-0023-J Medina\Pld\Mln-~-Dlsmlss. wpd\

5

DEFENDANTS' NOT. OF MOT.lMOTlON TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE 12(b)(6)

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 21 Filed 01/31/2008 Page 6 of 6

retal iated against plaintiff for having exercised her right to

2

freely exercise her religion;

3

4. That plaintiff was harmed; and

4

5. That the defendants's conduct was a substantial factor in

5

causing plaintiffs hanll."

6

To succeed on a claim under the Tom Bane Act, plaintiff must prove

7 defendants used violence or intimidation by threat of violence against her. ld. at

8 882. Plaintiff does not contend in her FAC that defendants threatened her with

9 violence; rather. she contends she was threatened with "delayed release" if she did

10 not remove her headscarf(FAC, ~60). Plaintiffs Fourth Claim alleging a

11 violation under the Tom Bane Act, California Civil Code § 52.1, fails, therefore, to

12 adequately state a claim upon which relief can be granted and should bc dismissed.

13

14

IV.

15

CONCLUSION

16

For all of the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully requcst the C01ll1

17 dismiss Plaintiffs Fourth Claim on behalf of the County and Penrod.

18
19 DATED: January 31, 2008
20 21
22

LYNBERG & WATKINS A Professional Corporation

24 25
26
27
28
F:\WP\Njw-team"DAF', 1858-oo23-J Mcdona\l'ld\Mtn-2-Dismlss. wpd',

. SUH s for fendants, COUNTY OF ~+H"'I:IA RDINO and SHERIFF GARY
6

DEFENDANTS' NOT. OF MOT.lMOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FEDEIUL RliLE l2(b)(6)

 
 Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 26 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 1 of 10

DANA ALDEN FOX, S.B. # 119761 EUGENE S. SUH, S.B.# 245313 2 LYNBERG & WATKINS A Professional Corporation 3 888 South Figueroa Street
Los AnreleS, CA 90017 4 Phone: 213) 624-8700
Fax: 213)892-2763 5 E-mail: dfox@lvnbcrg.com/csuh@lynberg.com

6 Attorneys for Defendants SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Sheriff Gary Penrod (Exempt per Gov't Code Section 61(3)
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 11 JAMEELAH MEDINA,

CASE NO: EDCV07-1600 YAP (OPx)

12

Plaintiff(s),

Complaint Filed: 12/5/07

13

v.

14 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a political subdivision; GARY
15 PENROD, in his individual and official capacities; DOES 1 through
16 10, in their individual and official capacities;
17
Defendants.
18

ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

19

20 Defendants, County of San Bernardino and Gary Penrod, hereby respond to

21 Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (FAC).

22

ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

23

1. Admit.

24

2. Admit.

25

3. Admit.

26

4. Defendants lack sufficient information with respect to the allegations

27 in Paragraph 4 of the FAC and, therefore, are unable to admit or deny the

28

F:\WP\Njw-leam\DAF\ I858-0023-J Medina\Pld\Ans-FAC.wpd j
ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 26 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 2 of 10

1 allegations therein. As a result, defendants deny such allegations.

2

5. Defendants admit the County of San Bernardino is a political entity

3 duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California as alleged in

4 Paragraph 5. Defendants are unable to admit or deny the balance of Paragraph 5 at

5 this time and, therefore, the balance of the allegations are denied.

6

6. Defendants lack sufficient information with respect to the allegations

7 in Paragraph 6 of the FAC and, therefore, are unable to admit or deny the

8 allegations therein. As a result, defendants deny such allegations.

9

7. Defendants admit Gary Penrod was and is the San Bernardino County

10 Sheriff-Coroner as alleged in Paragraph 7, and was and is authorized by the

11 County of San Bernardino to perform duties and responsibilities consistent with

12 his role as a duly sworn peace officer. Defendants are unable to admit or deny the

13 balance of Paragraph 7 at this time and, therefore, the balance of the allegations

14 are denied.

15

8. Defendants lack sufficient information with respect to the allegations

16 in Paragraph 8 of the FAC and, therefore, are unable to admit or deny the

17 allegations therein. As a result, defendants deny such allegations.

18

9. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 9.

19

10. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 10.

20

11. Paragraph 11 does not contain any allegations to admit or deny.

21

12. Paragraph 12 does not contain any allegations to admit or deny.

22

13. Paragraph 13 does not contain any allegations to admit or deny.

23

14. Defendants lack sufficient information with respect to the allegations

24 in Paragraph 14 ofthe FAC and, therefore, are unable to admit or deny the

25 allegations therein. As a result, defendants deny such allegations.

26

15. Defendants lack sufficient information with respect to the allegations

27 in Paragraph 15 of the FAC and, therefore, are unable to admit or deny the

28

F:\WP\Njw-team\DAF\l 85 8-0023-.J Medina\Pld\Ans-FAC.\vpd
2 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 26 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 3 of 10

allegations therein. As a result, defendants deny such allegations.

2

16. Admit.

3

17. Defendants lack sufficient information with respect to the allegations

4 in Paragraph 17 of the FAC and, therefore, are unable to admit or deny the

5 allegations therein. As a result, defendants deny such allegations.

6

18. Admitted.

7

19. Defendants lack sufficient information with respect to the allegations

8 in Paragraph 19 of the FAC and, therefore, are unable to admit or deny the

9 allegations therein. As a result, defendants deny such allegations.

10

20. Defendants have no response to the allegations in Paragraph 20

11 because Craig Roberts is not named in Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint.

12

21. Defendants lack sufficient information with respect to the allegations

13 in Paragraph 21 of the FAC and, therefore, are unable to admit or deny the

14 allegations therein. As a result, defendants deny such allegations.

15

22. Defendants lack sufficient information with respect to the allegations

16 in Paragraph 22 of the FAC and, therefore, are unable to admit or deny the

17 allegations therein. As a result, defendants deny such allegations.

18

23. Defendants lack sufficient information with respect to the allegations

19 in Paragraph 23 of the FAC and, therefore, are unable to admit or deny the

20 allegations therein. As a result, defendants deny such allegations.

21

24. Defendants lack sufficient information with respect to the allegations

22 in Paragraph 24 of the FAC and, therefore, are unable to admit or deny the

23 allegations therein. As a result, defendants deny such allegations.

24

25. Defendants lack sufficient information with respect to the allegations

25 in Paragraph 25 ofthe FAC and, therefore, are unable to admit or deny the

26 allegations therein. As a result, defendants deny such allegations.

27

26. Defendants lack sufficient information with respect to the allegations

28

F:\WP\Njw-teal11\DAF\ 1858-0023 -.I Medinu\PldlAns-FAC. wpd
3 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 26 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 4 of 10

1 in Paragraph 26 of the FAC and, therefore, are unable to admit or deny the

2 allegations therein. As a result, defendants deny sueh allegations.

3

27. Defendants lack sufficient information with respect to the allegations

4 in Paragraph 27 of the FAC and, therefore, are unable to admit or deny the

5 allegations therein. As a result, defendants deny sueh allegations.

6

28. Defendants laek suffieient information with respect to the allegations

7 in Paragraph 28 of the FAC and, therefore, are unable to admit or deny the

8 allegations therein. As a result, defendants deny such allegations.

9

29. Defendants lack sufficient information with respect to the allegations

lOin Paragraph 29 of the FAC and, therefore, are unable to admit or deny the

11 allegations therein. As a result, defendants deny such allegations.

12

30. Defendants lack sufficient information with respect to the allegations

13 in Paragraph 30 of the FAC and, therefore, are unable to admit or deny the

14 allegations therein. As a result, defendants deny such allegations.

15

31. Defendants lack sufficient information with respect to the allcgations

16 in Paragraph 31 ofthe FAC and, therefore, are unable to admit or deny the

17 allegations therein. As a result, defendants deny such allegations.

18

32. Defendants lack sufficient information with respcct to the allegations

19 in Paragraph 32 of the FAC and, therefore, are unable to admit or deny the

20 allegations therein. As a result, defendants deny such allegations.

21

33. Admit.

22

34. Defendants lack sufficient information with respect to the allegations

23 in Paragraph 34 of the FAC and, therefore, are unable to admit or deny the

24 allegations therein. As a result, defendants deny such allegations.

25

35. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 35.

26

36. Defendants laek suffieient information with respect to the allegations

27 in Paragraph 36 of the FAC and, therefore, are unable to admit or deny the

28

F:\WP\Njw-team\DAF\ 185 8-0023-3 Medina\P\d\Ans-FAC.wpd
4 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 26 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 5 of 10

1 allegations therein. As a result, defendants deny such allegations.

2

37. Defendants lack sufficient information with respect to the allegations

3 in Paragraph 37 of the FAC and, therefore, are unable to admit or deny the

4 allegations therein. As a result, defendants deny such allegations.

5

38. Defendants lack sufficient information with respect to the allegations

6 in Paragraph 38 of the FAC and, therefore, are unable to admit or deny the

7 allegations therein. As a result, defendants deny such allegations.

8

39. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 39.

9

40. Admit.

10

41. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 41.

11

42. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 42.

12

43. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 43.

13

44. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 44.

14

45. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 45.

15

46. Paragraph 46 does not contain any statements to admit or deny.

16

47. Admit.

17

48. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 48.

18

49. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 49.

19

50. Paragraph 50 does not contain any statements to admit or deny.

20

51. Admit.

21

52. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 52.

22

53. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 53.

23

54. Paragraph 54 does not contain any statements to admit or deny.

24

55. Admit.

25

56. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 56.

26

57. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 57.

27

58. Paragraph 58 does not contain any statements to admit or deny.

28

F:\WP\Njw-team\DAF\! 858-0023-J Mcdina\P!d\Ans-FAC. wpd
5 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 26 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 6 of 10

1

59. Admit.

2

60. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 60.

3

61. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 61.

4

62. Paragraph 62 does not contain any statements to admit or deny.

5

6

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

7

First Affirmative Defense

8

At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was the actual and legal cause of her

9 own harm and damages, if any, and, therefore, Defendants are not liable under any

10 legal theory.

11

Second Affirmative Defense

12

At all times relevant herein, the harm and damages, if any, suffered by

13 Plaintiff were caused by the acts andlor omissions ofthird persons, and not these

14 answering Defendants.

15

Third Affirmative Defense

16

Defendants are not liable to Plaintiff on the grounds they are protected by

17 absolute immunity.

18

Fourth Affirmative Defense

19

Plaintiffs FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action

20 against Defendants.

21

Fifth Affirmative Defense

22

At all times relevant herein, Defendants were performing discretionary

23 functions and did not violate a clearly-established constitutional or statutory right

24 of which a reasonable person in their position would have known. Defendants

25 believed they were acting in good faith and their conduct was lawful and

26 constitutional. Therefore, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

27

28
P:\WP\Njw-tcam\DAF\ \858-0023-J Medina\Pld\Ans-FAC.wpd
6 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 26 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 7 of 10

Sixth Affirmative Defense

2

At all times relevant herein, Defendants did not follow any illegal or

3 unconstitutional custom or policy.

4

Seventh Affirmative Defense

5

At all times relevant herein, the events, acts, and omissions alleged to

6 constitute a statutory or constitutional violation were nothing more than a single

7 instance and, therefore, there can be no liability for an alleged unconstitutional

8 custom or policy.

9

Eighth Affirmative Defense

10

As for an eighth separate and distinct affirmative defense, Defendants did

11 not act pursuant to or promulgate or ratify any deliberately indifferent custom,

12 practice, or policy which actually caused any deprivation of the Plaintiff's

13 federally protected civil rights.

14

Ninth Affirmative Defense

15

Plaintiff's claims are barred by Government Code sections 810 et seq.,

16 including but not limited to sections 815, 815.2, 818.2, 820.2, 820.4, 820.6, 820.8

17 and 822.2.

18

Tenth Affirmative Defense

19

These answering defendants have never taken any action with a conscious

20 disregard of Plaintiff's rights, and have not engaged in any conduct with respect to

21 Plaintiff which would constitute oppression, fraud or malice, nor have these

22 answering defendants ratified or approved any such acts of others.

23 III

24 III

25 III

26 III

27 III

28

F:\WP\Njw-team\DAF\ 1858-0023-J Medina\Pld\Ans-Fi\C. ~vpd
7 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 26 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 8 of 10

1

WHEREFORE, DEFENDANTS PRAY AS FOLLOWS:

2

1. That Plaintiff takes nothing by way of her FAC;

3

2. For costs of suit;

4

For attorney's fees, as provided for by 42 U.S.C. section 1988; and

5

4. Such other and further relief as this Court deems proper.

6

7

8 DATED: 9
10
11
12
13
14

March 5, 2008

LYNBERG & WATKINS A Professional Corporation
DA~ By: EUGENE S. SUH Attorneys for Defendants, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF GARY PENROD

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
F:\WP\Njw-team\DAF\185 8-0023-J Medina\P!d\Ans-FAC. wpd
8 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 26 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 9 of 10

1 Case: Jameelah Medina v. County olSan Bernardino

2
PROOF OF SERVICE
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, FOR THE DISTRICT OF 4 CALIFORNIA
5 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the wIthin action. My business address is 888 South Figueroa
6 Street, 16th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017.

7 On March 5, 2008, I served the foregoing document described as follows: ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on all interested parties in this action by
8 placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope addressed as follows:

9

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

10
X (BY MAIL) As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of

11

collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it

would be deposited witli U.S. Postal Service on the same day with postage

12

thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of

business. I am aware that on motIOn of the pmiy served, service IS presumed

13

invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day

after date of deposition for mailing an affidavit.

.

14
(BY ELECTRONIC TRANSFER) I caused all of the pages of the above-

15

entitled document to be sent to the recipient(s) noted via electronic transfer

(facsimile) at the respective telephone umbers mdicated above.

16
(BY FEDERAL EXPRESS/OVERNIGHT MAIL) I caused the above-

17

described document to be served on the interested parties noted as follows by

Federal Express/Overnight Mail.

18
(BY PERSONAL SERVICE): I caused such envelope to be delivered by

19

hand to the office(s) of the addressee via messenger.

20 l (FEDERAL) I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the United

States that the above is true and correct.

21
Executed March 5, 2008 at Los Angeles, California.

22 23
24

[;c Q' ( ) .t'1{ "I.j;{../.. ~/ .() I~--'--"

25

26

27

28
F:\WP\Njv·Heam\DAI:\! 858-0023 -J Medina\Pld\Ans-FAC. wpd
9 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 26 Filed 03/05/2008 Page 10 of 10

Case No.: EDCV07-1600 VAP (Opx) SERVICE LIST
2

3

Hector O. Villagra, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF

Ranjana Nataranjan, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF

4

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 2140 W. Chapman Avenue, Suite 209

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1616 Beverly Boulevard

5

Orange, CA 92868 Phone: (714) 450-3962

Los Anreles, CA 90026 Phone: 213) 977-9500

6

Fax: (714) 450-3969 email: hvillagra~uaclu-sc.org.

Fax: 213) 250-3919 email: rnataranjan@aclu-sc.org

7

Attomeys for PlaIntiff, Jameelah Medina

Co-counsel for Plamtiff

8

Lenora M. Lapidus 9 Ariela M. Migdal

Daniel Mach AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES

AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS

UNION FOUNDATION PROGRAM

10 LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND

WOMEN'S RIGHTS PROJECT

BELIEF

11 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor

915 15th Street

New Yark, NY 10004 12 .p. hone: (21?~ 519-7861

washin~ton, DC 20005 Phone: 202) 548-6604 [D/L]

Fax: (212 549-2580

202} 675-2330

13 email: lIaDi usr2Uaclu.ofQ

Fax: 202 546-0738

Amigdal(cUaclu.or~

email: dmac l@dcaclu.org

14 Co-counsel for Plaintiff

Co-counsel for Plaintiff

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
F:\WP\Njw~team\DAF\ I 858-0023-J Medina\P!d\Ans-FAC.wpd
10 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

 
 Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 43 Filed 12/17/2008 Page 1 of 3

1 Hector O. Villagra (Bar No. 177586) ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
2 2140 W. Chapman Ave., Suite 209 Orange, California 92868
3 Telephone: (714) 450-3962 Facsimile: (714) 450-3969
4 Email: hvillagra@aclu-sc.org

5 Attorneys for Plaintiff

6 (Additional Attorneys for Plaintiff Listed on the Following Page)

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10

11 JAMEELAH MEDINA,

) Case No. : 5:07-CV-1600

)

12

Plaintiff,

)

13

v.

) ORDER DISMISSING CASE
)

)

14 15 16

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a political subdivision; GARY PENROD, in his individual and official capacities; DOES 1 THROUGH 10, in their individual and official capacities;

) ) ) )
) )

17

Defendants.

) )

18

) )

)

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 43 Filed 12/17/2008 Page 2 of 3

1 Lenora M. Lapidus (Pro Hac Vice - Admitted 12/8/07)
2 Ariela M. Migdal (Pro Hac Vice - Admitted 12/8/07) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERITES UNION FOUNDATION
3 WOMEN’S RIGHTS PROJECT
4 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004
5 Telephone: (212) 519-7861
6 Facsimile: (212) 549-2580
7 E-Mail: LLapidus@aclu.org E-Mail: AMigdal@aclu.org
8

9 Daniel Mach (pro hac vice - Admitted 12/13/07)
10 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION

11 PROGRAM ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND BELIEF

12

915 15th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20005

13 Telephone: (202) 675-2330

14 Facsimile: (202) 546-0738 Email: dmach@dcaclu.org
15

16 Attorneys for Plaintiff

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

Case 5:07-cv-01600-VAP-OP Document 43 Filed 12/17/2008 Page 3 of 3

1

Pursuant to the settlement reached on October 30, 2008 by and between

2 Plaintiff (“Plaintiff”) on the one hand and Defendants County of San Bernardino

3 and Gary Penrod (“Defendants”) on the other hand, the general terms of which

4 are memorialized in the Settlement Agreement, all claims by Plaintiff against all

5 Defendants are hereby dismissed, with prejudice. It is the obligation of the

6 parties requesting dismissal to comply with the terms of the Settlement

7 Agreement.

8

The United States District Court for the Central District of California,

9 Judge Virginia A. Phillips, specifically retains jurisdiction over this case for a

10 term of three years to enforce the Settlement Agreement forming the

11 underpinning of this dismissal, with the condition that no party may seek to

12 enforce the settlement without first providing the other side notice of any alleged

13 violation and a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged violation and without

14 meeting and conferring in good faith.

15 The Complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice, subject to the terms of
16 the Settlement Agreement, attached to the Request for Dismissal of Case as
17 Exhibit 1 and incorporated into the record herein.
18

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

21 DATED: December 17, 2008 BY: __________________________

22

Virginia A. Phillips

United States District Judge

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

 
 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") is made by and between Jameelah Medina ("Plaintiff') and Defendants County of San Bernardino and Gary Penrod (collectively, "Defendants").
Recitals WHEREAS, Jameelah Medina commenced the below-referenced action in or about December 2007, alleging that each of the Defendants was, in whole or in part, legally responsible for the denial of Plaintiffs right to practice her religion, in violation ofthe Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et. seq.; the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; Article I, Section 4 of the California Constitution; and the California Tom Bane Act, California Civil Code § 52.1; and WHEREAS, Defendants have denied and continue to deny all of the allegations and claims made and brought by Plaintiff and asserted affirmative defenses thereto; and WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendants (collectively, the "Parties") recognize the uncertainties and costs of litigation, and now desire to resolve, compromise, and settle the claims and controversies between and among them, on the terms and conditions set forth below; NOW THEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, and in consideration of the mutual promises and releases contained herein, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged to be binding;
I

Terms

It is agreed, by and between the Parties, as follows:

1. Within thirty (30) days ofthe return of the executed settlement documents to

their attorneys, the Parties agree to execute all papers necessary to achieve the dismissal of the

action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Civil Action No.

5;07-cv-O 1600-VAP-OP, entitled Jameelah Medina, Plaintiff, v. County of San Bernardino, a

political subdivision; Gary Penrod, in his individual and official capacities; and Does I through

10, in their individual and official capacities ("the Action"), with prejudice, subject to the

Court's retention ofjurisdiction, as described in paragraph 15 of this Agreement.

2.

Within thirty (30) days of the return of the executed settlement documents to

their attorneys, Defendants shall deliver to counsel for Plaintiffs a check in the amount of forty-

five thousand dollars ($45,000.00) payable to the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, ten

thousand dollars ($10,000.00) of which is compensation for the harm suffered by Plaintiff, in

full and complete satisfaction of any and all claims for damages, compensation, and costs that

Plaintiff has or may have concerning all Defendants arising from the Action and thirty-five

thousand dollars ($35,000.00) of which is attorneys' fees in full and complete satisfaction of all

claims that the attorneys for Plaintiff may have concerning any aspect of this litigation and their

I

representation of Plaintiff in this action, including claims for costs, expenses, disbursements,

and attorneys fees.

New Policy and Training of Officers

3. Defendants agree that, within ninety (90) days ofthe return of the executed

settlement documents to their attorneys, they will amend their procedures and policies to adopt

a policy ("Policy") to accommodate women who wear headscarves for religious reasons. The

2

Policy shall provide that, when a woman who wears a hijab (headscarf worn for religious reasons) is arrested or detained and brought to a facility or other setting controlled by Defendants, or when a woman who wears a hijab serves a sentence in a facility or other setting controlled by Defendants, the woman will not be required to remove her headscarf except while she is in a private area under the supervision of a female officer, out of view of any men, including male officers. When the arrested person removes and surrenders her headscarf, she will be issued by Defendants a temporary headscarf, and will be allowed to put the temporary headscarf on her head before entering an area where she can be seen by men. At no time will the arrested, detained, or imprisoned woman be required to have her headscarf off while she is visible to men.
4. Upon release, each woman will receive her own headscarf and will be afforded an opportunity to change from the Defendant-issued headscarfback into her own headscarfin a place where she cannot be seen by men.
S. Arrested and detained women will not be required to remove headscarves in the presence of men in any facility or any part of any facility over which Defendants exercise control, including transportation facilities and including those portions of any courthouse holding facility that is controlled by Defendants.
6. Defendants agree to implement the Policy within sixty (60) days of its adoption. 7. Defendants will manufacture or purchase temporary headscarves for purposes of implementing the Policy. Defendants agree to consult with a Muslim religious authority, agreed upon by the parties, in order to ensure that Defendants' temporary headscarves comply with Muslim religious requirements.
3

8. Defendants agree to maintain an adequate supply of temporary headscarves, based upon objective criteria and estimates of anticipated need and adjusted as necessary to meet actual need, at each Defendant-controlled facility to which arrested women are brought or where women are detained or imprisoned.
9. Training: The Policy shall be incorporated into the training of all jail/correctional facility personnel, including sworn and civilian personnel and facility administrators, and law enforcement officers. In-person training on the Policy shall be provided to both current and future personnel. The Policy shall be distributed to existing personnel in written form, and shall be made part of the procedures manual. Initial in-person training of current personnel shall take place no later than ninety (90) days after the Policy is adopted. New personnel shall be trained on the Policy within forty-five (45) days of being assigned to one of the positions named in this paragraph.
10. Defendants agree to provide Plaintiffs counsel with copies of written complaints filed with Defendants related to the Policy for the first six months after its implementation, with identifying information redacted. Relevant complaints include complaints relating to women detainees and arrestees who complained regarding infringement on their practice of wearing headscarves (also known as hijab or khimar) for religious reasons while in Defendants' custody.
II. Defendants agree to provide Plaintiffs counsel with a written copy of the Policy within sixty (60) days of its adoption.
12. Defendants agree to provide Plaintiffs counsel with any written training material, related to the Policy, that is provided to new or current personnel within ninety (90) days after the Policy is adopted.
4

13. Defendants designate Jay Blankenship to be the designated representative of the County of San Bernardino, and Plaintiff designates Attorney Hector O. Villagra to be the designated representative of Plaintiff, to meet and confer in good faith to address jointly and informally any issues that may arise between the parties regarding implementation of the Policy. Defendants' designated representative may be contacted at the San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department, Civil Liabilities Division, 655 East Third Street, San Bernardino, California, Telephone: (909) 387-3750, Facsimile: (909) 387-3780. Plaintiff's representative may be contacted at ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 2140 W. Chapman Avenue, Suite 209, Orange, CA 92868, Telephone:(714) 450-3962, Facsimile:(714) 450-3969, Email: hvillagra@aclu-sc.org.
14. Defendants' designated representative shall confirm to Plaintiffs' counsel, within one-hundred twenty (120) days of adoption ofthe Policy, that training of personnel has taken place in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
15. The United States District Court for the Central District of California Judge Virginia A. Phillips, or a magistrate judge designated by Judge Phillips, will retain jurisdiction over this case for a term of three years to enforce this Settlement Agreement, including but not limited to jurisdiction over disputes concerning interpretation and enforcement of the terms of the Agreement, with the condition that no party may seek to enforce the settlement without first providing the other side notice of any alleged violation and a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged violation and without meeting and conferring in good faith. Plaintiff agrees to provide, through her counsel, such notice to Defendants' designated representative.
16. Defendants agree to refrain from taking any action to initiate, recommend, or urge prosecution of Plaintiff for any offenses arising out of the events of December 7, 2005.
5

The undersigned represent that they have read and understood the tenos ofthis S~ttlement Agreement prior to executing same.
.~
(Ja~eelab Medina
Dated: 10/'12)08
. r:"
COUNTY OFS~ B~;RNARDINO
::z:ow~
Dated: /p!J& /2()(}!)
6

 
 Case: 5:07-cv-1600 As of: 01/25/2009 11:10 AM PST 1 of 5 (OPx), CLOSED, DISCOVERY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Eastern Division − Riverside)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:07−cv−01600−VAP−OP

Jameelah Medina v. County of San Bernardino et al Assigned to: Judge Virginia A. Phillips Referred to: Magistrate Judge Oswald Parada Related Case: 8:07−cv−01012−DOC−MLG Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/05/2007 Date Terminated: 10/30/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Jameelah Medina

represented by Ariela M Migdal American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Women's Rights Project 125 Broad Street 18th Floor New York , NY 10004 212−519−7861 Email: amigdal@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Mach American Civil Liberties Union Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief 915 15th Street NW 6th Floor Washington , DC 20005 202−675−2330 Email: dmach@dcaclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hector O Villagra ACLU Foundation of Southern California 2140 West Chapman Avenue Suite 209 Orange , CA 92868 714−450−3962 Email: hvillagra@aclu−sc.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lenora M Lapidus American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Women's Rights Project 125 Broad Street 18th Floor New York , NY 10004 212−519−7861 Email: llapidus@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ranjana Nataranjan ACLU Foundation of Southern California 1616 Beverly Boulevard Los Angeles , CA 90026 213−977−9500 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 5:07-cv-1600 As of: 01/25/2009 11:10 AM PST 2 of 5 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant County of San Bernardino a political subdivision
Defendant Gary Penrod in his individual capacity
Defendant Gary Penrod in his official capacity
Defendant Does 1 through 10, in their individual capacities
Defendant Does 1 through 10, in their official capacities
Defendant Craig Roberts in his individual capacity TERMINATED: 01/11/2008
Defendant Craig Roberts in his official capacity TERMINATED: 01/11/2008

represented by Dana Alden Fox Lynberg and Watkins 888 South Figueroa Street 16th Floor Los Angeles , CA 90017−5449 213−624−8700 Email: dfox@lynberg.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/05/2007
12/05/2007 12/05/2007 12/05/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against defendants Does(1 through 10, in their official capacities), Craig Roberts(in his individual capacity), Craig Roberts(in his official capacity), County of San Bernardino, Gary Penrod (in his individual capacity), Gary Penrod (in his official capacity), Does(1 through 10, individual capacities).(Filing fee $350 paid), filed by plaintiff Jameelah Medina.(gg) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
2 APPLICATION OF NON−RESIDENT ATTORNEY Daniel Mach for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. FEE PAID filed by plaintiff Jameelah Medina.Lodged Order. (gg) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
4 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Jameelah Medina. (gg) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
20−day Summons Issued re Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 as to defendants Does (1 through 10, in their official capacities), Craig Roberts (in his individual capacity), Craig Roberts (in his official capacity), County of San

Case: 5:07-cv-1600 As of: 01/25/2009 11:10 AM PST 3 of 5

12/07/2007 12/07/2007 12/07/2007 12/07/2007 12/07/2007 12/08/2007 12/08/2007 12/11/2007 12/13/2007 12/18/2007 12/28/2007
01/09/2008 01/09/2008

Bernardino, Gary Penrod (in his individual capacity), Gary Penrod (in his official capacity), Does (1 through 10, in their individual capacities). (gg) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
3 NOTICE of Related Case filed by plaintiff Jameelah Medina. Related Case: SACV07−1012 DOC (MLGx) (gg) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
5 NOTICE OF FILING FEE DUE on Pro Hac Vice Application mailed to attorney Ariela M Migdal for Plaintiff Jameelah Medina. (mrgo) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
6 NOTICE OF FILING FEE DUE on Pro Hac Vice Application mailed to attorney Lenora M Lapidus for Plaintiff Jameelah Medina. (mrgo) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
7 APPLICATION OF NON−RESIDENT ATTORNEY Lenora Lapidus for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. FEE PAID. filed by plaintiff Jameelah Medina. Lodged order. (mrgo) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
8 APPLICATION OF NON−RESIDENT ATTORNEY Ariela Migdal for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. FEE PAID. filed by plaintiff Jameelah Medina. Lodged order. (mrgo) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
9 ORDER by Judge Virginia A. Phillips Granting APPLICATION OF NON−RESIDENT ATTORNEY Lenora Lapidus for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. FEE PAID. 7 by Lenora M. Lapidus to appear on behalf of Plaintiff Jameelah Medina.Hector O. Villagra is designated as local counsel. Fee PAID. (la) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
10 ORDER by Judge Virginia A. Phillips Granting APPLICATION OF NON−RESIDENT ATTORNEY Ariela Migdal for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. FEE PAID. 8 by Ariela M. Migdal to appear on behalf of Plaintiff Jameelah Medina and Hector O. Villagra is designated as local counsel. Fee PAID. (la) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
DOCUMENT number 11, Order Granting Application of Non−Resident Attorney deleted for the following reason: duplicate entry.(la) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
11 ORDER by Judge Virginia A. Phillips granting APPLICATION OF NON−RESIDENT ATTORNEY Daniel Mach for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. FEE PAID. 2 (mrgo) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
12 STANDING ORDER. READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. IT CONTROLS THE CASE AND DIFFERS IN SOME RESPECTS FROM THE LOCAL RULES (See document for details), by Judge Virginia A. Phillips. (de) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
13 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS AMENDING STANDING ORDER held before Judge Virginia A. Phillips : Effective January 1, 2008, electronic filing ("e−filing") will be mandatory for all new and pending civil cases in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Information about the Court's Electronic Case Filing system is available on the Court's website at www.cacd.uscourts.gov/cmecf. The "e−filing" of all documents required to be "e−filed" in this matter pursuant to General Order No. 07−08 shall be comple ted by 4:00 p.m. on the date due. Any be stricken by the Court.Counsel shall provide one conformed courtesy copy of any "e−filed" document. With the exception of reply briefs for motions on the Court's hearing calendar, such courtesy copies shall be delivered no later than noon of the day following "e−filing." Courtesy copies of reply briefs, however, shall be provided by 5:00 p.m. on the day of filing, and shall be delivered to the "Courtesy Box," located outside of Courtroom 2 on the 2nd floor at the United States District Court, 3470 Twelfth Street, Riverside,California 92501. (am) (Entered: 12/31/2007)
14 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Jameelah Medina, upon Gary Penrod(in his individual capacity) served on 12/26/2007, answer due 1/15/2008. The Summons and Complaint were served by Personal service, by State statute, upon Stephanie Carr, Office Assistant II. Due Dilligence declaration no. Original Summons yes. (Villagra, Hector) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
15 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Jameelah Medina, upon Craig Roberts(in his individual capacity) served on 12/26/2007, answer due 1/15/2008. The Summons and Complaint were served by Substituted service, by State statute, upon Lester Trull,

Case: 5:07-cv-1600 As of: 01/25/2009 11:10 AM PST 4 of 5

01/09/2008
01/11/2008
01/15/2008 01/25/2008 01/25/2008 01/31/2008 02/04/2008 02/11/2008 02/25/2008
02/26/2008 03/05/2008 06/02/2008 07/25/2008 07/28/2008 07/29/2008

Sergeant. Due Dilligence declaration no. Original Summons yes. (Villagra, Hector) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
16 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Jameelah Medina, upon County of San Bernardino served on 12/26/2007, answer due 1/15/2008. The Summons and Complaint were served by Personal service, by State statute, upon Mary Mayes, Executive Secretary II. Due Dilligence declaration no. Original Summons yes. (Villagra, Hector) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
17 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Defendants County of San Bernardino, Gary Penrod(in his individual capacity), Does(1 through 10, in their individual capacities); Party Craig Roberts and Craig Roberts terminated amending Complaint − (Discovery), Complaint − (Discovery) 1 ,filed by Plaintiff Jameelah Medina (Villagra, Hector) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
18 AMENDED NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Jameelah Medina. (Villagra, Hector) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
19 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by plaintiff Jameelah Medina, of First Amended Complaint served on County of San Bernardino served on 01/16/08. (Villagra, Hector) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
20 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by plaintiff Jameelah Medina, of First Amended Complaint served on Gary Penrod served on 01/16/08. (Villagra, Hector) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
21 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss 4th Claim for Relief of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed by DEFENDANTS County of San Bernardino.Motion set for hearing on 2/25/2008 at 10:00 AM before Judge Virginia A. Phillips. (Fox, Dana) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
22 ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 07−02 (Related Case) filed. Transfer of case DECLINED by Judge David O. Carter, for the reasons set forth on this order. Related Case No. SA CV 07−1012 DOC (MLGx) (la) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
23 MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Dismiss 4th Claim for Relief of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint 21 filed by Plaintiff Jameelah Medina. (Villagra, Hector) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
24 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge Virginia A. Phillips DENYING defendant San Bernardino's MOTION to Dismiss 4th Claim for Relief of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint 21 and orders that Defendant file its Answer to the Complaint forthwith. Court Reporter: Phyllis Preston. (mrgo) Modified on 2/26/2008 (mrgo, ). (Entered: 02/26/2008)
25 DECLARATION of EUGENE S. SUH MOTION TO DISMISS MOTION to Dismiss 4th Claim for Relief of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint 21 filed by Defendant County of San Bernardino. (Fox, Dana) (Entered: 02/26/2008)
26 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by DEFENDANTS County of San Bernardino.(Fox, Dana) (Entered: 03/05/2008)
27 ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Virginia A. Phillips. ( Scheduling Conference set for 8/4/2008 at 01:30 PM before Judge Virginia A. Phillips.) (mrgo) (Entered: 06/03/2008)
29 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ; estimated length of trial 4 − 5 days, filed by Plaintiff Jameelah Medina.. (Villagra, Hector) (Entered: 07/25/2008)
30 SETTLEMENT PROCEDURE SELECTION: REQUEST AND NOTICE re: Order, Set Hearings 27 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Fox, Dana) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
31 NOTICE AND REQUEST of Settlement Procedure Selection (Sp1); parties request to Appear Before Magistrate for settlement proceedings. Filed by Plaintiff Jameelah Medina. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order re Settlement Procedure Selection)(Villagra, Hector) (Entered: 07/29/2008)

Case: 5:07-cv-1600 As of: 01/25/2009 11:10 AM PST 5 of 5

08/04/2008 08/04/2008
09/05/2008 09/08/2008 09/19/2008 09/19/2008 10/17/2008 10/30/2008 11/04/2008 12/17/2008

32 NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Dana Alden Fox on behalf of Defendant County of San Bernardino (Fox, Dana) (Entered: 08/04/2008)
33 MINUTES OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE held before Judge Virginia A. Phillips: As lead counsel, Dana Fox, was not in attendance at today's hearing, the Scheduling Conference is continued to 9/8/2008 01:30 PM. IT IS SO ORDERED.Court Reporter: Kyung Lee−Green.Tape #: N/A. (ad) (Entered: 08/05/2008)
34 Joint STIPULATION to Continue SCHEDULING CONFERENCE from September 8, 2008 to October 8, 2008 filed by DEFENDANTS County of San Bernardino. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Fox, Dana) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
35 ORDER CONTINUING THE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge Virginia A. Phillips, re Stipulation to Continue 34 . ( Scheduling Conference reset for 9/22/2008 at 01:30 PM before Judge Virginia A. Phillips.) (mrgo) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
36 Joint STIPULATION to Reschedule SCHEDULING CONFERENCE filed by DEFENDANTS County of San Bernardino. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Fox, Dana) (Entered: 09/19/2008)
37 ORDER by Judge Virginia A. Phillips, re Stipulation to Reschedule 36 ( Scheduling Conference continued to 10/20/2008 at 01:30 PM before Judge Virginia A. Phillips.) (mrgo) (Entered: 09/22/2008)
39 NOTICE of Settlement filed by Defendant County of San Bernardino. (Fox, Dana) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
40 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER CLOSING held before Judge Virginia A. Phillips: Notice of Settlement filed on October 17, 2008 (Made JS−6. Case Terminated.) (am) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
41 APPLICATION to Dismiss Case filed by Plaintiff Jameelah Medina. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Settlement Agreement, # 2 Proposed Order)(Villagra, Hector) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
43 ORDER DISMISSING CASE by Judge Virginia A. Phillips. The Complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice, subject to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, attached to the Request for Dismissal of Case as Exhibit 1 and incorporated into the record herein. (mrgo) (Entered: 12/18/2008)