1 Andrew C. Schwartz (State Bar No. 64578) Thom Seaton (State Bar No. 62713)
2 CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ A Professional Corporation
3 California Plaza 2121 North California Blvd., Suite 1020
4 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Telephone: (925) 947-1147
5 Facsimile: (925) 947-1131

6 LAW OFFICES OF MARK E. MERIN

Mark E. Merin, (State Bar No. 043849) 7 Jeffrey I. Schwarzschild, (State Bar No. 192086)

2001 P Street, Suite 100 8 Sacramento, California 95814

9

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

10

11

Attorneys for Plaintiff Deborah Flick

12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

DEBORAH FLICK,

Case No. C 03 04022 CRB

Plaintiff,

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

vs.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO; SAN FRANCISCO POLICE

DEPARTMENT; SAN FRANCISCO

ACTING POLICE CHIEF, ALEX FAGAN,

SR., IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY,

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; SAN

FRANCISCO

COUNTY

SHERIFF

MICHAEL HENNESSEY, IN HIS

INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, AND SAN

FRANCISCO POLICE OFFICERS R.L.

LOCK, NELSON, GRIFFIN, SERGEANT

O’SULLIVAN, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 35,

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPUTIES DOES 36 THROUGH 100, AND

DOES 101 THROUGH 200, ALL OF

WHOM ARE SUED IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL

CAPACITY,

42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1988 STATE LAW CLAIMS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants.

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 1

1

2 PLAINTIFF DEBORAH FLICK COMES BEFORE THIS HONORABLE COURT, AND

3 ALLEGES:

4

JURISDICTION

5

1. This action is brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 and 1988, and the

6 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is

7 founded upon 28 USC § 1331 and 1341(3) and (4) and the aforementioned statutory

8 and constitutional provisions. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s

9 state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

10

2. The amount in controversy exceeds $10,000, excluding interest and costs.

11

PARTIES

12

3. Plaintiff, Deborah Flick (hereinafter “Flick” or “Plaintiff”) is, and at all

13 material times herein, was a citizen of the United States and resident of the state of

14 California.

15

4. Defendant San Francisco Acting Police Chief Alex Fagan, Sr., is, and at

16 all material times referred to herein, was the Acting Police Chief of the City of San

17 Francisco and that individual who was the policymaker in matters of law enforcement

18 for the City and County of San Francisco who set, enforced and ratified the policies of

19 the San Francisco Police Department. At all times herein Fagan was acting under color

20 of law. Plaintiff sues Fagan in his individual capacity.

21

5. Defendant City And County Of San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey

22 is, and at all material times referred to herein, was the duly elected Sheriff of the City

23 and County of San Francisco, responsible for administering the Jail facilities and for

24 making, overseeing, and implementing the policies, practices, and customs challenged

25 herein relating to the operation of the San Francisco Jail. At all times herein,

26 Hennessey was the policymaker in matters of jail administration for the County of San

27 Francisco who set, enforced and ratified the policies of the San Francisco Sheriff’s

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 2

1 Department and the San Francisco County Jails. At all times herein Hennessey was

2 acting under color of law. Plaintiff sues Hennessey in his individual capacity.

3

6. Defendants San Francisco Police Officers R.L. Lock, Nelson, Griffin,

4 Sergeant O’Sullivan and Does 1 through 35 are and, at all times relevant were San

5 Francisco Police Officers acting under color of law. These defendants seized,

6 arrested, transported, detained and imprisoned Plaintiff on March 28, 2003 without any

7 reasonable cause or suspicion that she had committed any felony and without having

8 observed the commission of any misdemeanor or infraction. In doing the acts alleged,

9 these officers were acting under color of law within the course and scope of their

10 employment by the Defendant City And County Of San Francisco. Plaintiff sues these

11 officers in their individual capacity.

12

7. Defendants San Francisco County Sheriff’s Deputies sued herein by their

13 fictitious names (Does 36 through 100) are sheriff’s deputies who, as part of their

14 duties at the San Francisco Jails stripped Plaintiff of her clothing without any reasonable

15 or lawful basis and then placed her, without clothing, in a “cold room” where she was

16 viewed by other Jail personnel. These Defendants engaged in this conduct, and other

17 conduct which this complaint describes in greater detail below, to gain compliance with

18 illegal orders, to punish Plaintiff and to satisfy these Defendants’ sadism. Plaintiff sues

19 these deputies in their individual capacity.

20

8. Defendants Does 101 through 150 are personnel employed by the City

21 and County of San Francisco who, as part of their duties at the San Francisco Jails

22 stripped Plaintiff of her clothing without any reasonable or lawful basis and then placed

23 her, without clothing, in a “cold room” where she was viewed by other deputies and Jail

24 personnel. These Defendants engaged in this conduct, and other conduct which this

25 complaint describes in greater detail below, to gain compliance with illegal orders, to

26 punish Plaintiff and to satisfy these Defendants’ sadism. Defendants Does 151 through

27 200 are other employees of the City and County of San Francisco whose conduct also

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 3

1 deprived Plaintiff of her constitutional rights and contributed to the injuries Plaintiff

2 sustained. Plaintiff sues these individuals in their individual capacity.

3

9. Defendant City And County Of San Francisco is, and at all material times

4 referred to herein, was, a division of the state of California, that maintained or permitted

5 an official policy or custom or practice causing or permitting the occurrence of the types

6 of wrongs complained of herein, which wrongs damaged Plaintiffs as herein alleged.

7 Plaintiffs’ allegations against the City and County are based on acts and omissions of

8 the Acting Chief of Police and his police officers and on the acts and omissions of the

9 Sheriff and his deputies and on acts and omissions of persons who are City and/or

10 County employees, and on the City and County’s breach of its duty to protect Plaintiff

11 from the wrongful conduct of said persons and employees. At all material times

12 mentioned herein, all individual Defendants were acting under the color of law, to wit,

13 under color of statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs and usages of the

14 State of California, the City And County Of San Francisco and/or the San Francisco

15 Police Department and/or the San Francisco County Sheriff.

16

10. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacity of Defendants Does 1

17 through 200, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is

18 informed and believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant so named is

19 responsible in some manner for the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff as

20 described in this complaint. Plaintiff will amend her complaint to state the true names

21 and capacity of Defendants Does 1 through 200 when they have been ascertained.

22 Each of these fictitiously named defendants was acting under color of law and within

23 the scope of his or her employment. Plaintiff sues these defendants in their individual

24 capacity.

25 /////

26 /////

27 /////

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

/////
Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 4

1

EVENTS PRECIPITATING THIS COMPLAINT

2

DEBORAH FLICK’S ARREST

3

11. Shortly after midnight on March 28, 2003, Plaintiff Deborah Flick was

4 standing near the intersection of Fillmore and Union Streets in the City of San

5 Francisco, California.

6

12. As Flick was walking to her car that was parked on the street, a man

7 began to harass her. She ignored him and continued to her car. The unknown man

8 then yelled that if she did not stop to talk to him, he would call the police and claim Flick

9 was driving while intoxicated. Flick ignored him, knowing she was not intoxicated. Flick

10 got into her car and attempted to call her boyfriend from her cell phone to let him know

11 she was heading home.

12

13. Suddenly, San Francisco Police Officers Nelson and Griffin began

13 pounding on the window of Plaintiff’s car. She rolled the window down slightly and

14 asked what was wrong. She explained that a man had been harassing her, that she

15 had done nothing wrong, that she was fine, and they should be speaking with the man

16 who had harassed her.

17

14. The officers pounded on her window yelling “you think that because you’re

18 pretty and a rich bitch, you can do whatever you want.” At some point these officers

19 were joined by Officer R.L. Lock and O’Sullivan. Plaintiff became frightened and dialed

20 911 because she was alarmed by the officers’ conduct.

21

15. Officers Nelson and Griffin, assisted by Officer R.L. Lock and Sergeant

22 O’Sullivan, then yanked Plaintiff’s car door open, dragged her into the street and

23 handcuffed her. After Plaintiff complained, the officers tightened the handcuffs, and

24 threw Plaintiff into the police car. Plaintiff was so frightened she urinated in her pants.

25

16. Although lacking any reasonable cause to detain or arrest Plaintiff, police

26 officers, Nelson, Griffin, R.L. Lock, Sergeant O’Sullivan and Does 1-35 transported her

27 to San Francisco County Jail No. 9.

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 5

1

17. Plaintiff eventually was advised that she had been arrested for public

2 intoxication, but no officer or deputy administered a sobriety test.

3

18. No citation or any criminal charges were filed against Plaintiff.

4

19. Neither Acting Police Chief Fagan nor other superiors of those San

5 Francisco Police Officers Nelson, Griffin, R.L. Lock, Sergeant O’Sullivan and Does 1

6 through 35 disciplined Officers Nelson, Griffin, R.L. Lock, Sergeant O’Sullivan or Does 1

7 through 35 in any way, thereby ratifying the actions of those officers.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES STRIP DEBORAH FLICK AND PLACE HER NAKED IN A “COLD ROOM” SUBJECT TO VIEW BY MALE AND FEMALE POLICE
OFFICERS, SHERRIF’S DEPUTIES, AND OTHER JAIL PERSONNEL 20. Following Plaintiff’s arrival at the County Jail, sheriff’s deputies, and/or other jail personnel, acting under color of law, pursuant to the policies of Defendants City and County of San Francisco and the Sheriff of the County of San Francisco, and within the scope of their employment, held Plaintiff down while other sheriff’s deputies and/or other jail personnel forcibly removed all of Plaintiff’s clothes. 21. Plaintiff did not possess contraband and was not engaged in any conduct threatening to herself or to others. 22. Sheriff’s deputies and/or other jail personnel were aware that Plaintiff had not committed any crime punishable as a felony. 23. Sheriff’s deputies and/or jail personnel threw Plaintiff into the “cold room” in the San Francisco County Jail and left her there naked. 24. Male and female sheriff’s deputies and other jail personnel were able to look into the room and did in fact look into the “cold room” and saw her naked. 25. Those actions permitted sheriff’s deputies and other jail personnel to visually inspect Plaintiff’s breasts, buttocks, and genitalia. 26. While in the “cold room” Plaintiff started cramping and bleeding, but the sheriff’s deputies and other personnel responsible for her detention refused to give her clothes or a pad for her bleeding.

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 6

1

27. She was lying naked on the dirty floor in the “cold room” and feared

2 developing an infection.

3

28. Plaintiff spent several hours alone in the “cold room” bleeding and being

4 subjected to continual verbal harassment.

5

29. While in the jail facility, Plaintiff was not permitted to make a telephone

6 call.

7

30. Plaintiff was released later that morning.

8

31. San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey was responsible for

9 promulgating and ensuring the implementation of the policy pursuant to which Plaintiff

10 was stripped at San Francisco County Jail No. 9.

11

32. San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey was responsible for

12 promulgating and ensuring the implementation of the policy pursuant to which Plaintiff

13 was placed naked in a “cold room” at San Francisco County Jail No. 9.

14

33. Neither Sheriff Michael Hennessey nor other superiors of those San

15 Francisco County Sheriff’s Deputies sued herein as Does 36 through 100 disciplined

16 Does 36 through 100 in any way, thereby ratifying the actions of those deputies.

17

34. Neither Sheriff Michael Hennessey nor other superiors of those San

18 Francisco City and County employees sued herein as Does 101 through 200 disciplined

19 Does 101 through 200 in any way, thereby ratifying the actions of those employees.

20

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation Of Plaintiff’s Rights Protected By The Fourth Amendment To Be 21 Free From Unreasonable Search, Seizure, Arrest, Transportation, Detention And

Imprisonment

22

Against San Francisco Police Officers Nelson, Griffin, R.L. Lock, Sergeant

O’Sullivan and Does 1 Through 35

23

In Their Individual Capacity

24

35. At all times relevant to the allegations of this complaint, Plaintiff Deborah

25 Flick was protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution against

26 seizure, arrest, transportation, detention and imprisonment without reasonable cause.

27

36. The actions of San Francisco Police Officers in seizing, arresting,

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

detaining, transporting and imprisoning Plaintiff under color of law violated Plaintiff’s

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 7

1 rights guaranteed to her by the Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable

2 seizure, arrest, transportation, detention and imprisonment.

3

37. As a proximate result of these Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered

4 ridicule, disgrace, physical and emotional distress and the loss of her rights guaranteed

5 by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

6

38. The conduct of these police officers was malicious and oppressive,

7 carried out in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed by the Fourth

8 Amendment to the United States Constitution. These police officers’ malicious and

9 oppressive conduct makes them personally liable for exemplary damages.

10

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below.

11

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation Of Plaintiff’s Rights Protected By The Fourth Amendment

12

Against San Francisco County Sheriff’s Deputies And San Francisco

County Jail Personnel Does 36-Through 150

13

In Their Individual Capacity

14

39. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of

15 paragraphs 1 through 38 as if they were set forth in haec verba herein.

16

40. At all times relevant to the allegations of this complaint, Plaintiff Deborah

17 Plaintiff was protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

18 against a search without reasonable cause.

19

41. The actions of San Francisco County Sheriff’s Deputies and San

20 Francisco County Jail Personnel, acting under color of law, in stripping Plaintiff while

21 she was detained at San Francisco County Jail No. 9 constituted an unreasonable

22 search in violation of Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the

23 United States Constitution.

24

42. All sheriff’s deputies and jail personnel who assisted in the stripping of

25 Plaintiff were aware that no reasonable suspicion existed that Plaintiff possessed any

26 contraband or weapon and that, in fact, she possessed no contraband or weapon.

27

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 8

1

43. As a proximate result of these Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered

2 ridicule, disgrace, physical and emotional distress and the loss of her rights guaranteed

3 by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

4

44. The conduct of these sheriff’s deputies was malicious and oppressive,

5 carried out in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed by the Fourth

6 Amendment to the United States Constitution. These sheriff’s deputies malicious and

7 oppressive conduct makes them personally liable for exemplary damages.

8

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below.

9

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation Of Plaintiff’s Rights Protected By The Fourteenth Amendment

10

Against San Francisco County Sheriff’s Deputies And San Francisco

County Jail Personnel Does 36 Through 150

11

In Their Individual Capacity

12

45. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of

13 paragraphs 1 through 44 as if they were set forth in haec verba herein.

14

46. At all times relevant to the allegations of this complaint, Plaintiff Deborah

15 Plaintiff was protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

16 against a denial of her right to due process of law.

17

47. The actions of San Francisco County Sheriff’s Deputies and San

18 Francisco County Jail Personnel, acting under color of law, in placing and confining

19 Plaintiff (a detainee who posed no threat to herself or others) in a “cold room” while she

20 was detained at San Francisco County Jail No. 9 constituted punishment in violation of

21 Plaintiff’s rights to due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the

22 United States Constitution.

23

48. All sheriff’s deputies and jail personnel who assisted in placing and

24 confining Plaintiff in a “cold room” were aware that no reasonable suspicion existed that

25 Plaintiff possessed any contraband or weapon and that, in fact, she possessed no

26 contraband or weapon, and that she posed no threat of harm to herself or to others.

27

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 9

1

49. As a proximate result of these Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered

2 ridicule, disgrace, physical and emotional distress and the loss of her rights guaranteed

3 by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

4

50. The conduct of these sheriff’s deputies was malicious and oppressive,

5 carried out in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth

6 Amendment to the United States Constitution. These sheriff’s deputies’ malicious and

7 oppressive conduct makes them personally liable for exemplary damages.

8

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation Of Plaintiff’s Rights Protected By The Fourth Amendment Against San Francisco Acting Police Chief Alex Fagan, Sr. In His Individual
Capacity 51. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 19 and as if they were set forth in haec verba herein. 52. At all times relevant to the allegations of this complaint, Plaintiff Deborah Plaintiff was protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution against unreasonable seizure, arrest, transportation, detention and imprisonment without probable cause. 53. Acting Police Chief Alex Fagan, Sr. failed to reprimand, suspend, or discipline those San Francisco police officers who seized, arrested, transported and imprisoned and detained Plaintiff without probable or reasonable cause. 54. The failure of Acting Police Chief Alex Fagan, Sr. to reprimand, suspend, or discipline those San Francisco police officers whose misconduct is detailed in this complaint ratified the conduct of those officers and renders Acting Police Chief Alex Fagan, Sr. individually liable for the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed by the Fourth amendment to the United States Constitution alleged in this complaint. 55. As a proximate result of this Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff suffered ridicule, disgrace, physical and emotional distress and the loss of her rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 10

1

56. The conduct of Acting Police Chief Alex Fagan, Sr. was malicious and

2 oppressive, and carried out in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed by the

3 Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendant Fagan’s malicious and

4 oppressive conduct makes him personally liable for exemplary damages.

5

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below.

6

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation Of Plaintiff’s Rights Protected By The Fourth And Fourteenth

7

Amendments

Against San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey In His Individual

8

Capacity

9

57. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of

10 paragraphs 1 through 49 as if they were set forth in haec verba herein.

11

58. San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey was responsible for

12 promulgating and ensuring the implementation of the policy pursuant to which Plaintiff

13 was stripped at San Francisco County Jail No. 9.

14

59. San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey was responsible for

15 promulgating and ensuring the implementation of the policy pursuant to which Plaintiff

16 was placed naked in a “cold room” at San Francisco County Jail No. 9.

17

60. San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey also was responsible

18 for the training of deputies and jail personnel under his command. Defendant

19 Hennessey failed to train and instruct subordinate sheriff’s deputies or jail personnel that

20 those detained may not be stripped of their clothing absent a prior determination that

21 such individuals possessed contraband or weapons and absent prior action of a

22 supervisor approving the stripping of the detainee. Defendant Hennessey also failed to

23 train and instruct subordinate sheriff’s deputies or jail personnel that a detainee may not

24 be placed naked in a “cold room” absent a determination that the detainee posed a

25 threat to herself or to others.

26

61. Indeed, Defendant Hennessey approved a training regimen which

27 instructed subordinate sheriff’s deputies and/or jail personnel that those detained may

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 11

1 be subject to being stripped of their clothing even absent approval by a supervisor and

2 absent a prior determination that the detainee possessed a weapon or contraband.

3

62. Defendant Hennessey also approved a training regimen which instructed

4 subordinate sheriff’s deputies and/or jail personnel that those detained may be placed in

5 a “cold room” even when such detainees posed no threat to themselves or to others.

6

63. Prior to March 28, 2003, long-established statutory law, California

7 regulations and controlling court decisions had forbidden both such stripping of

8 detainees and the placing of detainees in a “cold room.”

9

64. San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey failed to reprimand,

10 suspend, or discipline those San Francisco sheriff’s deputies and jail personnel who

11 stripped Plaintiff and placed her into and confined her naked in a “cold room” at San

12 Francisco Jail No. 9.

13

65. The failure of San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey to

14 reprimand, suspend, or discipline those San Francisco sheriff’s deputies and jail

15 personnel whose misconduct is detailed in this complaint ratified the conduct of those

16 sheriff’s deputies and jail personnel and renders San Francisco County Sheriff Michael

17 Hennessey individually liable for the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed by the

18 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution alleged in this

19 complaint.

20

66. As a proximate result of this Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff suffered

21 ridicule, disgrace, physical and emotional distress and the loss of her rights guaranteed

22 by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

23

67. The conduct of San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey was

24 malicious and oppressive, carried out in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights

25 guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

26 Constitution. Sheriff Hennessey’s malicious and oppressive conduct makes him

27 personally liable for exemplary damages.

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below.
Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 12

1

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

Violation Of Plaintiff’s Rights Protected By The Fourth And Fourteenth

Amendments

3

Against The City And County Of San Francisco

4

68. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of

5 paragraphs 1 through 67 as if they were set forth in haec verba herein.

6

69. Prior to March 28, 2003, the City and County of San Francisco was well

7 aware that absent proper training of police officers, individuals in the City and County of

8 San Francisco would be subject to unreasonable search, seizure, arrest, transportation,

9 detention and imprisonment. In failing to train those individuals, the City and County of

10 San Francisco was deliberately indifferent to the constitutional rights of Plaintiff

11 guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United Sates Constitution.

12

70. Prior to March 28, 2003, the City and County of San Francisco was well

13 aware that absent proper training of sheriff’s deputies and jail personnel, individuals in

14 the City and County of San Francisco would be subject to being stripped of their

15 clothing and placed naked in and confined while naked in “cold rooms” at San Francisco

16 County Jail facilities without any proper basis for such punishment in violation of the

17 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In failing to train

18 those individuals, the City and County of San Francisco was deliberately indifferent to

19 the constitutional rights of Plaintiff guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth

20 Amendments to the United Sates Constitution.

21

71. The conduct of the individual defendants sued Does 1 through 200

22 occurred due to the failure of the San Francisco Police Department and San Francisco

23 Sheriff’s Department to properly train their employees in the following areas: (1) the

24 reasonable cause which must exist prior to the search, seizure, arrest, transportation

25 and detention of an individual; (2) the documentation which must exist to verify the

26 existence of the reasonable cause to justify the search, seizure, detention,

27 transportation and arrest of an individual; (3) the justification which must exist prior to

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

the stripping of the clothes from an individual detained in a San Francisco County Jail;

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 13

1 (4) the justification which must exist prior to the placing of an individual in a “cold room”

2 in a San Francisco County Jail facility and the confinement of that individual naked in

3 that “cold room;” and (5) that stripping and placing an individual naked in a “cold room”

4 was illegal and deprived the individual of his or her constitutional rights protected by the

5 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

6

72. At all times relevant to the allegations of this complaint, Defendant City

7 and County of San Francisco had the policy of searching, seizing, arresting,

8 transporting, detaining and imprisoning individuals without reasonable cause and failing

9 properly to document such arrests.

10

73. At all times relevant to the allegations of this complaint, Defendant City

11 and County of San Francisco had the policy of authorizing its personnel, including

12 sheriff’s deputies and other jail personnel, without reasonable cause, to strip those

13 detained in its jail facilities and to place such individuals naked in “cold rooms” in the jail

14 facilities, regardless of whether such detainees possessed contraband or weapons or

15 posed a threat to themselves or others.

16

74. The conduct of Defendant Michael Hennessey in promulgating and

17 ensuring the implementation of the policies pursuant to which Plaintiff was stripped of

18 her clothing and placed naked in a “cold room” at San Francisco County Jail No. 9

19 reflected the policy of the City and County of San Francisco.

20

75. The failure of the City and County of San Francisco to reprimand,

21 suspend, or discipline those employees of the City and County of San Francisco (1)

22 who searched, seized, arrested, transported, detained and imprisoned Plaintiff without

23 reasonable cause; (2) who failed to document Plaintiff’s arrest and detention; (3) who

24 stripped Plaintiff without any legal justification and (4) who placed and confined Plaintiff

25 naked in a “cold room” at San Francisco County Jail No. 9 ratified that misconduct and

26 reflected City and County policies to (1) arrest individuals without probable cause; (2) to

27 fail to document such arrests; (3) notwithstanding any reasonable cause, to strip

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

individuals detained in San Francisco County Jail facilities although such individuals

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 14

1 possessed no contraband or weapons; and (4) without reasonable cause or any legal

2 basis, to place and confine such individuals, without any clothing, in a “cold room”

3 located in a San Francisco County jail facility.

4

76. As a proximate result of the failure to train its personnel and as a

5 proximate result of the promulgation, implementation and enforcement of those policies

6 of the City and County of San Francisco alleged in this claim, Plaintiff suffered ridicule,

7 disgrace, physical and emotional distress and the loss of her rights guaranteed by the

8 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

9

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below.

10

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

False Arrest, Detention And Imprisonment

11

Against San Francisco Police Officers Does 1 Through 35 And Against The

City and County Of San Francisco 12

77. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of 13

paragraphs 1 through 10 as if they were set forth in haec verba herein. 14

78. On September 3, 2003, Plaintiff submitted a claim to the City and County 15

of San Francisco pursuant to the relevant provisions of the California Government 16

Code. On October 17, 2003, the City and County of San Francisco denied Plaintiff’s 17

claim. 18

79. Shortly after midnight on March 28, 2003, Plaintiff Deborah Flick was 19

standing near the intersection of Fillmore and Union Streets in the City of San 20

Francisco, California. 21

80. As Flick was walking to her car that was parked on the street, a man 22

began to harass her. She ignored him and continued to her car. The unknown man 23

then yelled that if she did not stop to talk to him, he would call the police and claim Flick 24

was driving while intoxicated. Flick ignored him, knowing she was not intoxicated. Flick 25

got into her car and attempted to call her boyfriend from her cell phone to let him know 26

she was heading home. 27

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 15

1

81. Suddenly, two male San Francisco Police Department officers began

2 pounding on the window of Plaintiff’s car. She rolled the window down slightly and

3 asked what was wrong. She explained that a man had been harassing her, that she

4 had done nothing wrong, that she was fine, and they should be speaking with the man

5 who had harassed her. The officers pounded on her window yelling “you think that

6 because you’re pretty and a rich bitch, you can do whatever you want.” Plaintiff

7 became frightened and dialed 911 because she was alarmed by the officers’ conduct.

8

82. The officers then yanked Plaintiff’s car door open, dragged her into the

9 street and handcuffed her. After Plaintiff complained, the officers tightened the

10 handcuffs, and threw Plaintiff into the police car. Plaintiff was so frightened she

11 urinated in her pants.

12

83. Although lacking any reasonable cause to detain or arrest Plaintiff, police

13 officers transported her to San Francisco County Jail No. 9.

14

84. Plaintiff eventually was advised that she had been arrested for public

15 intoxication, but no officer or deputy administered a sobriety test.

16

85. Police officers neither prepared nor filed any report setting forth the

17 events of Plaintiff’s arrest and/or detention.

18

86. No citation or any criminal charges were filed against Plaintiff.

19

87. In doing the acts alleged in this claim, these defendants were acting within

20 the course and scope of their employment with the City and County of San Francisco.

21

88. Neither Acting Police Chief Fagan nor other superiors of those San

22 Francisco Police Officers Nelson, Griffin, R.L. Lock, Sergeant O’Sullivan and Does 1

23 through 35 disciplined Officers Nelson, Griffin, R.L. Lock, Sergeant O’Sullivan or Does 1

24 through 35 in any way, thereby ratifying the actions of those officers and confirming that

25 those officers were acting within the course and scope of their employment.

26

89. As a proximate result of the Plaintiff’s false arrest, detention and

27 imprisonment effected by San Francisco police officers acting within the course and

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 16

1 scope of their employment, Plaintiff suffered ridicule, disgrace, physical and emotional

2 distress.

3

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below.

4

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress

5

Against San Francisco Police Officers Nelson, Griffin, R.L. Lock, Sergeant

O’Sullivan And Does 1 Through 35 And Against The City and County Of San

6

Francisco

7

90. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of

8 paragraphs 1 through 10 and 78 through 89 as if they were set forth in haec verba

9 herein.

10

91. The conduct of San Francisco Police Officers Nelson, Griffin, R.L. Lock,

11 Sergeant O’Sullivan and Does 1 through 35, carried out in the course and scope of their

12 employment as San Francisco Police Department officers in arresting, detaining and

13 imprisoning Plaintiff without probable cause was extreme and outrageous and was

14 carried out with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of

15 causing, emotional distress.

16

92. As a proximate result of the conduct of Officers Nelson, Griffin, R.L. Lock,

17 Sergeant O’Sullivan and Does 1 through 35, Plaintiff suffered severe or extreme

18 emotional distress.;

19

93. The conduct of the San Francisco Police Department Officers Nelson,

20 Griffin, R.L. Lock, Sergeant O’Sullivan and Does 1 through 35 was malicious and

21 oppressive, carried out in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and safety. These

22 police officers’ malicious and oppressive conduct makes them personally liable for

23 exemplary damages.

24

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below.

25
26
27
28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation Of Rights Protected By The California Constitution; Art. 1 § 13;
Civil Code §§ 52, 52.1 Against San Francisco Police Officers Nelson, Griffin, R.L. Lock, Sergeant O’Sullivan And Does 1 Through 35 And Against The City and County Of San
Francisco

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 17

1

94. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of

2 paragraphs 1 through 10 and 78 through 89 as if they were set forth in haec verba

3 herein.

4

95. The conduct of each of these defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights

5 guaranteed her by the California Constitution, including Article 1, § 13, which forbids

6 unreasonable seizures. Plaintiff may enforce claims based on a violation of this right

7 under Civil Code § 52 and 52.1.

8

96. As a proximate result of the Plaintiff’s false arrest, detention and

9 imprisonment effected by San Francisco police officers acting within the course and

10 scope of their employment, these officers violated Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed by Article

11 1, § 13.

12

97. As a result of that violation, Plaintiff suffered ridicule, disgrace, physical

13 and emotional distress.

14

98. The conduct of the San Francisco Police Department officers Does 1

15 through 35 was malicious and oppressive, carried out in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s

16 rights and safety. These police officers’ malicious and oppressive conduct makes them

17 personally liable for exemplary damages.

18

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 18

1

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

2

False Imprisonment

Against San Francisco County Sheriff’s Deputies And San Francisco

3 County Jail Personnel Does 36-Through 150, Against The City And County Of

San Francisco And Against Sheriff Michael Hennessey

4

5

99. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of

6 paragraphs 1 through 38 and 78 as if they were set forth in haec verba herein.

7

100. Following Plaintiff’s arrival at the County Jail, sheriff’s deputies, and/or

8 other jail personnel, acting pursuant to the policies of Defendants City and County of

9 San Francisco and the Sheriff of the County of San Francisco, and within the scope of

10 their employment, held Plaintiff down while other sheriff’s deputies and/or other jail

11 personnel forcibly removed all of Plaintiff’s clothes.

12

101. Plaintiff did not possess contraband and was not engaged in any conduct

13 threatening to herself or to others.

14

102. Sheriff’s deputies and/or other jail personnel were aware that Plaintiff had

15 not committed any crime punishable as a felony.

16

103. Sheriff’s deputies and/or jail personnel threw Plaintiff into the “cold room”

17 in the San Francisco County Jail and left her there naked.

18

104. Male and female sheriff’s deputies and other jail personnel were able to

19 look into the room and did in fact look into the “cold room” and saw her naked.

20

105. Those actions permitted sheriff’s deputies and other jail personnel to

21 visually inspect Plaintiff’s breasts, buttocks, and genitalia.

22

106. While in the “cold room” Plaintiff started cramping and bleeding, but the

23 sheriff’s deputies and other personnel responsible for her detention refused to give her

24 clothes or a pad for her bleeding.

25

107. She was lying naked on the dirty floor in the “cold room” or and feared

26 developing an infection.

27

108. Plaintiff spent several hours alone in the “cold room” bleeding and being

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

subjected to continual verbal harassment.
Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 19

1

109. While in the jail facility, Plaintiff was not permitted to make a telephone

2 call.

3

110. Plaintiff was released later that morning.

4

111. San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey was responsible for

5 promulgating and ensuring the implementation of the policy pursuant to which Plaintiff

6 was stripped at San Francisco County Jail No. 9.

7

112. San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey was responsible for

8 promulgating and ensuring the implementation of the policy pursuant to which Plaintiff

9 was placed naked in a “cold room” at San Francisco County Jail No. 9.

10

113. Neither Sheriff Michael Hennessey nor other superiors of those San

11 Francisco County Sheriff’s Deputies sued herein as Does 36 through 100 disciplined

12 Does 36 through 100 in any way, thereby ratifying the actions of those deputies.

13

114. Neither Sheriff Michael Hennessey nor other superiors of those San

14 Francisco City and County employees sued herein as Does 101 through 200 disciplined

15 Does 101 through 200 in any way, thereby ratifying the actions of those employees.

16

115. In doing the acts alleged in this claim, these defendants were acting within

17 the course and scope of their employment with the City and County of San Francisco.

18

116. As a proximate result of the Plaintiff’s false imprisonment effected by San

19 Francisco police officers acting within the course and scope of their employment,

20 Plaintiff suffered ridicule, disgrace, physical and emotional distress.

21

117. The conduct of City and County of San Francisco Sheriff’s Deputies, Jail

22 Personnel and City and County officials sued as Does 36 through 200 and the conduct

23 of Defendant Michael Hennessey was malicious and oppressive, carried out in reckless

24 disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and safety. This malicious and oppressive conduct makes

25 these defendants

26

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below.

27
28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation Of California Penal; Code § 4030
Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 20

1

Against San Francisco County Sheriff’s Deputies And San Francisco

County Jail Personnel Does 36-Through 200, Against Sheriff Michael Hennessey,

2

And Against The City and County Of San Francisco

3 118. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of
4 paragraphs 1 through 38 and 78 and 100 through 117 as if they were set forth in haec
5 verba herein.
6 119. In removing Plaintiff’s clothes and permitting sheriff’s deputies and other
7 jail personnel to visually inspect Plaintiff’s breasts, buttocks, and genitalia Does 36 to
8 150 violated California Penal Code § 4030. In committing these violations, Does 36
9 through 150 were acting within the course and scope of their employment with the City
10 and County of San Francisco.
11 120. Does 151 through 200 assisted in the promulgation and/or approval
12 and/or enforcement of policies and practices of the City and County of San Francisco
13 which violated Penal Code § 4030. In committing these violations, Does 151 through
14 200 were acting within the course and scope of their employment with the City and
15 County of San Francisco.
16 121. Sheriff Michael Hennessey is also liable for violating Penal Code § 4030
17 by promulgating, and/or approving and/or enforcing San Francisco County polices and
18 practices violating Penal Code § 4030. In violating Penal Code § 4030, Hennessey was
19 acting within the course and scope of his employment with the County of San Francisco.
20 122. The conduct of the defendants sued as Does 36 through 200 occurred
21 within the course and scope of their employment and pursuant to the policies and
22 practices of the City and County of San Francisco.
23 123. As a proximate result of these defendants’ violation of Penal Code § 4030
24 while acting within the course and scope of their employment, Plaintiff suffered ridicule,
25 disgrace, physical and emotional distress and may recover damages as set forth in
26 Penal Code § 4030.
27

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 21

1

124. This violation of Penal Code § 4030 by City and County of San Francisco

2 Sheriff’s Deputies, Jail Personnel and City and County officials sued as Does 36

3 through 200 and the conduct of Defendant Michael Hennessey was malicious and

4 oppressive, carried out in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and safety. This

5 malicious and oppressive conduct makes these defendants

6

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below.

7

TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation Of Rights Protected By The California Constitution; Art. 1 §§ 1, 8 13; 17, Civil Code §§ 52, 52.1, 52.3; California Code of Regulations, Title 15, §§

1055 and 1083

9

Against San Francisco County Sheriff’s Deputies And San Francisco

County Jail Personnel Does 36-Through 200, Against Sheriff Michael Hennessey,

10

And Against The City and County Of San Francisco

11 125. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of
12 paragraphs 1 through 38 and 78 and 95 through 124 as if they were set forth in haec
13 verba herein.
14 126. The conduct of each of these defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights
15 guaranteed her by the California Constitution, including Article 1, § 1, which guarantees
16 the right to privacy;. Article 1, § 13, which forbids unreasonable seizures; and Article I,
17 § 17, which forbids cruel or unusual punishment. Defendants’ conduct also violated
18 provisions of the California Code of Regulations, including, but not limited to Title 15, §§
19 1055 and 1083, governing these defendants’ use of “cold cells” or “safety cells.”
20 127. Defendants’ violation of plaintiff’s right to privacy was effected by threat,
21 intimidation and coercion in violation of Civil Code § 52.1
22 128. Defendants’ conduct also violated Civil Code § 52.3 which forbids law
23 enforcement personnel from engaging in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives
24 a person of rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States or the
25 Constitution or laws of the State of California.
26

27

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 22

1

129. The conduct of the individual defendants occurred within the course and

2 scope of their employment and pursuant to the policies and practices of the City and

3 County of San Francisco.

4

130. Plaintiff may enforce claims based on a violation of these rights under Civil

5 Code § 52 and 52.1.

6

131. As a proximate result of these defendants’ conduct alleged herein,

7 including the placing of Plaintiff naked in a “cold cell” or “safety cell, and the

8 promulgation and/or approval and/or enforcement of policies and practices of the City

9 and County of San Francisco, these officers violated Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed by

10 Article 1, § 1, which guarantees the right to privacy; Article 1, §§ 7 and 29, which

11 guarantee the right to due process; Article 1, § 13, which forbids unreasonable

12 seizures; and Article I, § 17, which forbids cruel or unusual punishment. Defendants’

13 conduct also violated Plaintiffs’ rights provided her by the California Code of

14 Regulations, including, but not limited to Title 15, §§ 1055 and 1083, governing these

15 defendants’ use of “cold cells” or “safety cells.”

16

132. As a result of that violation, Plaintiff suffered ridicule, disgrace, physical

17 and emotional distress.

18

133. The conduct of Does 36 through 200 and defendant Michael Hennessey

19 was malicious and oppressive, carried out in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and

20 safety. These defendants’ malicious and oppressive conduct makes them personally

21 liable for exemplary damages.

22

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below.

23

THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Gender Violence, Civil Code § 52.4

24

Against San Francisco County Sheriff’s Deputies And San Francisco

County Jail Personnel Does 36-Through 200, Against Sheriff Michael Hennessey,

25

And Against The City and County Of San Francisco

26

134. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of

27 paragraphs 1 through 38 and 78 and 95 through 133 as if they were set forth in haec

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

verba herein.
Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 23

1

135. The conduct of these defendants who either carried stripped Plaintiff and

2 placed her without clothing in the “cold cell” and/or promulgated, and/or approved,

3 and/or implemented and/or or enforced practices and polices pursuant to which Plaintiff

4 was stripped and placed without clothing in a “cold cell” constituted “gender violence” as

5 defined in Civil Code § 52.4(c).

6

136. The conduct of the individual defendants occurred within the course and

7 scope of their employment and pursuant to the policies and practices of the City and

8 County of San Francisco.

9

137. That conduct entitles Plaintiff to the recovery of compensatory damages,

10 exemplary damages and attorney’s fees on proof of such violation.

11

138. As a result of that violation, Plaintiff suffered ridicule, disgrace, physical

12 and emotional distress.

13

139. The conduct of Does 36 through 200 and defendant Michael Hennessey

14 was malicious and oppressive, carried out in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and

15 safety. These defendants’ malicious and oppressive conduct makes them personally

16 liable for exemplary damages.

17

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below.

18

FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

ASSAULT AND BATTERY

19

Against San Francisco County Sheriff’s Deputies And San Francisco

County Jail Personnel Does 36-Through 200, Against Sheriff Michael Hennessey,

20

And Against The City and County Of San Francisco

21

140. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of

22 paragraphs 1 through 38 and 78 and 95 through 139 as if they were set forth in haec

23 verba herein.

24

141. The conduct of these defendants who either stripped Plaintiff and placed

25 her without clothing in the “cold cell” constituted “gender violence” as defined in Civil

26 Code § 52.4(c).

27

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 24

1

142. The conduct of Does 36 through 150 occurred within the course and

2 scope of their employment and pursuant to the policies and practices of the City and

3 County of San Francisco.

4

143. Supervisors of Does 36 through 150 ratified this conduct. Defendants

5 sued as Does 36 through 150 suffered no discipline whatsoever as a result of their

6 conduct toward plaintiff.

7

144. As a result of that violation, Plaintiff suffered ridicule, disgrace, physical

8 and emotional distress.

9

145. The conduct of Does 36 through 150 was malicious and oppressive,

10 carried out in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and safety. These defendants’

11 malicious and oppressive conduct makes them personally liable for exemplary

12 damages.

13

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below.

14

FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Negligent Hiring, Retention, Training And Discipline

15

Against Acting San Francisco Police Chief Alex Fagan, Jr., Sheriff Michael

Hennessey, Does 151 Through 200 And The City And County Of San Francisco. 16

146. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of

17

paragraphs 1 through 38 and 78 and 95 through 138 as if they were set forth in haec

18

verba herein.

19

147. At all times relevant, these defendants were obligated to use reasonable

20

care in the hiring, retention, training, supervision and discipline of members of the San

21

Francisco Police Department and sworn and unsworn personnel of County of San

22

Francisco Sheriff’s Department.

23

148. Defendants breached this obligation by failing to properly hire personnel

24

who would refrain from committing the violation of constitutional provisions, statutes and

25

regulations alleged in this complaint.

26

27

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 25

1

149. Defendants breached this obligation by failing to properly retain personnel

2 to prevent the violation of constitutional provisions, statutes and regulations alleged in

3 this complaint.

4

150. Defendants breached this obligation by failing to properly train personnel

5 who would refrain from committing the violation of constitutional provisions, statutes and

6 regulations alleged in this complaint.

7

151. Defendants breached this obligation by failing to properly discipline

8 personnel who had violated the constitutional provisions, statutes and regulations

9 alleged in this complaint.

10

152. The conduct of the individual defendants occurred within the course and

11 scope of their employment and pursuant to the policies and practices of the City and

12 County of San Francisco.

13

153. As a result of that violation, Plaintiff suffered ridicule, disgrace, physical

14 and emotional distress.

15

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below.

16

PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

17

154. Plaintiff demands a jury trial of all her claims alleged in this action.

18

WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF PRAYS FOR RELIEF AS FOLLOWS:

19

1. For general damages against all Defendants;

20

2. For special damages, including lost wages and medical expenses

21 incurred as a result of defendants’ conduct;

22

3. For exemplary damages against San Francisco Acting Police Chief

23 Alex Fagan, Sr., San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey, and those City and

24 County of San Francisco employees sued herein as Does 1 through 200;

25

4. For attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and California

26 Civil Code §§ 52(b) (3), 52.1(h) and 52.4(a).

27

5. For statutory damages pursuant to California Civil Code §§ 52, and

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

52.1 and California Penal Code § 4030.
Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 26

1

6. For such other relief as the Court deems proper.

2 Dated: November ___, 2003

CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ

3

A Professional Corporation

4

LAW OFFICES OF MARK E. MERIN

5

________________________

6

By Thom Seaton

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. No. C 03 04022 CRB First Amended Complaint

Page 27

 
 Case 3:03-cv-04022-CRB Document 1 Filed 09/03/2003 Page 1 of 15

1 Andrew C. Schwartz (State Bar No. 64578) Thom Seaton (State Bar No. 62713)
2 CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ A Professional Corporation
3 California Plaza 2121 North California Blvd., Suite 1020
4 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Telephone: (925) 947-1147
5 Facsimile: (925) 947-1131

6 LAW OFFICES OF MARK E. MERIN

Mark E. Merin, (State Bar No. 043849) 7 Jeffrey I. Schwarzschild, (State Bar No. 192086)

2001 P Street, Suite 100 8 Sacramento, California 95814

9

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

10

11

Attorneys for Plaintiff Deborah Flick

12

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14

15 DEBORAH FLICK,

Case No.

16

Plaintiff,

17

vs.

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

18 CITY

AND

COUNTY

OF

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1988 SAN

19

FRANCISCO; SAN FRANCISCO POLICE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEPARTMENT; SAN FRANCISCO

20

ACTING POLICE CHIEF, ALEX FAGAN, SR., IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY,

21

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; SAN

FRANCISCO

COUNTY

SHERIFF

22

MICHAEL HENNESSEY, INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY,

IN AND

HIS SAN

23

FRANCISCO POLICE OFFICERS DOES 1 THROUGH 35, SAN FRANCISCO

24

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES DOES 36 THROUGH 100, AND DOES 101

25

THROUGH 200, ALL OF WHOM ARE SUED IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY,

26

Defendants.

27

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. Complaint

Page 1

Case 3:03-cv-04022-CRB Document 1 Filed 09/03/2003 Page 2 of 15

1 PLAINTIFF DEBORAH FLICK COMES BEFORE THIS HONORABLE COURT, AND

2 ALLEGES:

3

JURISDICTION

4

1. This action is brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 and 1988, and the

5 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is

6 founded upon 28 USC § 1331 and 1341(3) and (4) and the aforementioned statutory

7 and constitutional provisions.

8

2. The amount in controversy exceeds $10,000, excluding interest and costs.

9

PARTIES

10

3. Plaintiff, Deborah Flick (hereinafter “Flick” or “Plaintiff”) is, and at all

11 material times herein, was a citizen of the United States and resident of the state of

12 California.

13

4. Defendant San Francisco Acting Police Chief Alex Fagan, Sr., is, and at

14 all material times referred to herein, was the Acting Police Chief of the City of San

15 Francisco and that individual who was the policymaker in matters of law enforcement

16 for the City and County of San Francisco who set, enforced and ratified the policies of

17 the San Francisco Police Department. At all times herein Fagan was acting under color

18 of law. Plaintiff sues Fagan in his individual capacity.

19

5. Defendant City And County Of San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey

20 is, and at all material times referred to herein, was the duly elected Sheriff of the City

21 and County of San Francisco, responsible for administering the Jail facilities and for

22 making, overseeing, and implementing the policies, practices, and customs challenged

23 herein relating to the operation of the San Francisco Jail. At all times herein,

24 Hennessey was the policymaker in matters of jail administration for the County of San

25 Francisco who set, enforced and ratified the policies of the San Francisco Sheriff’s

26 Department and the San Francisco County Jails. At all times herein Hennessey was

27 acting under color of law. Plaintiff sues Hennessey in his individual capacity.

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. Complaint

Page 2

Case 3:03-cv-04022-CRB Document 1 Filed 09/03/2003 Page 3 of 15

1

6. Defendants Does 1 through 35 are and, at all times relevant were San

2 Francisco Police Officers acting under color of law. These defendants seized,

3 arrested, transported, detained and imprisoned Plaintiff on March 28, 2003 without any

4 reasonable cause or suspicion that she had committed any felony and without having

5 observed the commission of any misdemeanor or infraction. In doing the acts alleged,

6 these officers were acting under color of law within the course and scope of their

7 employment by the Defendant City And County Of San Francisco. Plaintiff sues these

8 officers in their individual capacity.

9

7. Defendants San Francisco County Sheriff’s Deputies sued herein by their

10 fictitious names (Does 36 through 100) are sheriff’s deputies who, as part of their

11 duties at the San Francisco Jails stripped Plaintiff of her clothing without any reasonable

12 or lawful basis and then placed her, without clothing, in a “cold room” where she was

13 viewed by other Jail personnel. These Defendants engaged in this conduct, and other

14 conduct which this complaint describes in greater detail below, to gain compliance with

15 illegal orders, to punish Plaintiff and to satisfy these Defendants’ sadism. Plaintiff sues

16 these deputies in their individual capacity.

17

8. Defendants Does 101 through 150 are personnel employed by the City

18 and County of San Francisco who, as part of their duties at the San Francisco Jails

19 stripped Plaintiff of her clothing without any reasonable or lawful basis and then placed

20 her, without clothing, in a “cold room” where she was viewed by other deputies and Jail

21 personnel. These Defendants engaged in this conduct, and other conduct which this

22 complaint describes in greater detail below, to gain compliance with illegal orders, to

23 punish Plaintiff and to satisfy these Defendants’ sadism. Defendants Does 151 through

24 200 are other employees of the City and County of San Francisco whose conduct also

25 deprived Plaintiff of her constitutional rights and contributed to the injuries Plaintiff

26 sustained. Plaintiff sues these individuals in their individual capacity.

27

9. Defendant City And County Of San Francisco is, and at all material times

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

referred to herein, was, a division of the state of California, that maintained or permitted

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. Complaint

Page 3

Case 3:03-cv-04022-CRB Document 1 Filed 09/03/2003 Page 4 of 15

1 an official policy or custom or practice causing or permitting the occurrence of the types

2 of wrongs complained of herein, which wrongs damaged Plaintiffs as herein alleged.

3 Plaintiffs’ allegations against the City and County are based on acts and omissions of

4 the Acting Chief of Police and his police officers and on the acts and omissions of the

5 Sheriff and his deputies and on acts and omissions of persons who are City and/or

6 County employees, and on the City and County’s breach of its duty to protect Plaintiff

7 from the wrongful conduct of said persons and employees. At all material times

8 mentioned herein, all individual Defendants were acting under the color of law, to wit,

9 under color of statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs and usages of the

10 State of California, the City And County Of San Francisco and/or the San Francisco

11 Police Department and/or the San Francisco County Sheriff.

12

10. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacity of Defendants Does 1

13 through 200, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is

14 informed and believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant so named is

15 responsible in some manner for the injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiff as

16 described in this complaint. Plaintiff will amend her complaint to state the true names

17 and capacity of Defendants Does 1 through 200 when they have been ascertained.

18 Each of these fictitiously named defendants was acting under color of law and within

19 the scope of his or her employment. Plaintiff sues these defendants in their individual

20 capacity.

21

22

EVENTS PRECIPITATING THIS COMPLAINT

23

DEBORAH FLICK’S ARREST

24

11. Shortly after midnight on March 28, 2003, Plaintiff Deborah Flick was

25 standing near the intersection of Fillmore and Union Streets in the City of San

26 Francisco, California.

27

12. As Flick was walking to her car that was parked on the street, a man

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

began to harass her. She ignored him and continued to her car. The unknown man

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. Complaint

Page 4

Case 3:03-cv-04022-CRB Document 1 Filed 09/03/2003 Page 5 of 15

1 then yelled that if she did not stop to talk to him, he would call the police and claim Flick

2 was driving while intoxicated. Flick ignored him, knowing she was not intoxicated. Flick

3 got into her car and attempted to call her boyfriend from her cell phone to let him know

4 she was heading home.

5

13. Suddenly, two male San Francisco Police Department officers began

6 pounding on the window of Plaintiff’s car. She rolled the window down slightly and

7 asked what was wrong. She explained that a man had been harassing her, that she

8 had done nothing wrong, that she was fine, and they should be speaking with the man

9 who had harassed her. The officers pounded on her window yelling “you think that

10 because you’re pretty and a rich bitch, you can do whatever you want.” Plaintiff

11 became frightened and dialed 911 because she was alarmed by the officers’ conduct.

12

14. The officers then yanked Plaintiff’s car door open, dragged her into the

13 street and handcuffed her. After Plaintiff complained, the officers tightened the

14 handcuffs, and threw Plaintiff into the police car. Plaintiff was so frightened she

15 urinated in her pants.

16

15. Although lacking any reasonable cause to detain or arrest Plaintiff, police

17 officers transported her to San Francisco County Jail No. 9.

18

16. Plaintiff eventually was advised that she had been arrested for public

19 intoxication, but no officer or deputy administered a sobriety test.

20

17. Police officers neither prepared nor filed any report setting forth the

21 events of Plaintiff’s arrest and/or detention.

22

18. No citation or any criminal charges were filed against Plaintiff.

23

19. Neither Acting Police Chief Fagan nor other superiors of those San

24 Francisco Police Officers sued herein as Does 1 through 35 disciplined Does 1 through

25 35 in any way, thereby ratifying the actions of those officers.

26
27
28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES STRIP DEBORAH FLICK AND PLACE HER NAKED IN A “COLD ROOM” SUBJECT TO VIEW BY MALE AND FEMALE POLICE
OFFICERS, SHERRIF’S DEPUTIES, AND OTHER JAIL PERSONNEL

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. Complaint

Page 5

Case 3:03-cv-04022-CRB Document 1 Filed 09/03/2003 Page 6 of 15

1

20. Following Plaintiff’s arrival at the County Jail, sheriff’s deputies, and/or

2 other jail personnel, acting under color of law, pursuant to the policies of Defendants

3 City and County of San Francisco and the Sheriff of the County of San Francisco, and

4 within the scope of their employment, held Plaintiff down while other sheriff’s deputies

5 and/or other jail personnel forcibly removed all of Plaintiff’s clothes.

6

21. Plaintiff did not possess contraband and was not engaged in any conduct

7 threatening to herself or to others.

8

22. Sheriff’s deputies and/or other jail personnel were aware that Plaintiff had

9 not committed any crime punishable as a felony.

10

23. Sheriff’s deputies and/or jail personnel threw Plaintiff into the “cold room”

11 in the San Francisco County Jail and left her there naked.

12

24. Male and female sheriff’s deputies and other jail personnel were able to

13 look into the room and did in fact look into the “cold room” and saw her naked.

14

25. Those actions permitted sheriff’s deputies and other jail personnel to

15 visually inspect Plaintiff’s breasts, buttocks, and genitalia.

16

26. While in the “cold room” Plaintiff started cramping and bleeding, but the

17 sheriff’s deputies and other personnel responsible for her detention refused to give her

18 clothes or a pad for her bleeding.

19

27. She was lying naked on the dirty floor in the “cold room” and feared

20 developing an infection.

21

28. Plaintiff spent several hours alone in the “cold room” bleeding and being

22 subjected to continual verbal harassment.

23

29. While in the jail facility, Plaintiff was not permitted to make a telephone

24 call.

25

30. Plaintiff was released later that morning.

26

31. San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey was responsible for

27 promulgating and ensuring the implementation of the policy pursuant to which Plaintiff

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

was stripped at San Francisco County Jail No. 9.
Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. Complaint

Page 6

Case 3:03-cv-04022-CRB Document 1 Filed 09/03/2003 Page 7 of 15

1

32. San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey was responsible for

2 promulgating and ensuring the implementation of the policy pursuant to which Plaintiff

3 was placed naked in a “cold room” at San Francisco County Jail No. 9.

4

33. Neither Sheriff Michael Hennessey nor other superiors of those San

5 Francisco County Sheriff’s Deputies sued herein as Does 36 through 100 disciplined

6 Does 36 through 100 in any way, thereby ratifying the actions of those deputies.

7

34. Neither Sheriff Michael Hennessey nor other superiors of those San

8 Francisco City and County employees sued herein as Does 101 through 200 disciplined

9 Does 101 through 200 in any way, thereby ratifying the actions of those employees.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation Of Plaintiff’s Rights Protected By The Fourth Amendment To Be Free From Unreasonable Search, Seizure, Arrest, Transportation, Detention And
Imprisonment Against San Francisco Police Officers Does 1 Through 35
In Their Individual Capacity 35. At all times relevant to the allegations of this complaint, Plaintiff Deborah
Flick was protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution against
seizure, arrest, transportation, detention and imprisonment without reasonable cause.
36. The actions of San Francisco Police Officers in seizing, arresting,
detaining, transporting and imprisoning Plaintiff under color of law violated Plaintiff’s
rights guaranteed to her by the Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable
seizure, arrest, transportation, detention and imprisonment.
37. As a proximate result of these Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered
ridicule, disgrace, physical and emotional distress and the loss of her rights guaranteed
by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
38. The conduct of these police officers was malicious and oppressive,
carried out in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed by the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. These police officer’s malicious and
oppressive conduct makes them personally liable for exemplary damages.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs seeks relief as set forth below.

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. Complaint

Page 7

Case 3:03-cv-04022-CRB Document 1 Filed 09/03/2003 Page 8 of 15

1

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation Of Plaintiff’s Rights Protected By The Fourth Amendment

2

Against San Francisco County Sheriff’s Deputies And San Francisco

County Jail Personnel Does 36-Through 150

3

In Their Individual Capacity

4

39. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of

5 paragraphs 1 through 38 as if they were set forth in haec verba herein.

6

40. At all times relevant to the allegations of this complaint, Plaintiff Deborah

7 Plaintiff was protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

8 against a search without reasonable cause.

9

41. The actions of San Francisco County Sheriff’s Deputies and San

10 Francisco County Jail Personnel, acting under color of law, in stripping Plaintiff while

11 she was detained at San Francisco County Jail No. 9 constituted an unreasonable

12 search in violation of Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the

13 United States Constitution.

14

42. All sheriff’s deputies and jail personnel who assisted in the stripping of

15 Plaintiff were aware that no reasonable suspicion existed that Plaintiff possessed any

16 contraband or weapon and that, in fact, she possessed no contraband or weapon.

17

43. As a proximate result of these Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered

18 ridicule, disgrace, physical and emotional distress and the loss of her rights guaranteed

19 by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

20

44. The conduct of these sheriff’s deputies was malicious and oppressive,

21 carried out in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed by the Fourth

22 Amendment to the United States Constitution. These sheriff’s deputies malicious and

23 oppressive conduct makes them personally liable for exemplary damages.

24

Wherefore, Plaintiff seeks relief as set forth below.

25

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation Of Plaintiff’s Rights Protected By The Fourteenth Amendment

26

Against San Francisco County Sheriff’s Deputies And San Francisco

County Jail Personnel Does 36 Through 150

27

In Their Individual Capacity

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. Complaint

Page 8

Case 3:03-cv-04022-CRB Document 1 Filed 09/03/2003 Page 9 of 15

1

45. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of

2 paragraphs 1 through 44 as if they were set forth in haec verba herein.

3

46. At all times relevant to the allegations of this complaint, Plaintiff Deborah

4 Plaintiff was protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

5 against a denial of her right to due process of law.

6

47. The actions of San Francisco County Sheriff’s Deputies and San

7 Francisco County Jail Personnel, acting under color of law, in placing and confining

8 Plaintiff (a detainee who posed no threat to herself or others) in a “cold room” while she

9 was detained at San Francisco County Jail No. 9 constituted punishment in violation of

10 Plaintiff’s rights to due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the

11 United States Constitution.

12

48. All sheriff’s deputies and jail personnel who assisted in placing and

13 confining Plaintiff in a “cold room” were aware that no reasonable suspicion existed that

14 Plaintiff possessed any contraband or weapon and that, in fact, she possessed no

15 contraband or weapon, and that she posed no threat of harm to herself or to others.

16

49. As a proximate result of these Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered

17 ridicule, disgrace, physical and emotional distress and the loss of her rights guaranteed

18 by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

19

50. The conduct of these sheriff’s deputies was malicious and oppressive,

20 carried out in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth

21 Amendment to the United States Constitution. These sheriff’s deputies’ malicious and

22 oppressive conduct makes them personally liable for exemplary damages.

23

Wherefore, Plaintiffs seeks relief as set forth below.

24

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

25

Violation Of Plaintiff’s Rights Protected By The Fourth Amendment

Against San Francisco Acting Police Chief Alex Fagan, Sr. In His Individual

26

Capacity

27

51. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

paragraphs 1 through 19 and as if they were set forth in haec verba herein.
Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. Complaint

Page 9

Case 3:03-cv-04022-CRB Document 1 Filed 09/03/2003 Page 10 of 15

1

52. At all times relevant to the allegations of this complaint, Plaintiff Deborah

2 Plaintiff was protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

3 against unreasonable seizure, arrest, transportation, detention and imprisonment

4 without probable cause.

5

53. Acting Police Chief Alex Fagan, Sr. failed to reprimand, suspend, or

6 discipline those San Francisco police officers who seized, arrested, transported and

7 imprisoned and detained Plaintiff without probable or reasonable cause.

8

54. The failure of Acting Police Chief Alex Fagan, Sr. to reprimand, suspend,

9 or discipline those San Francisco police officers whose misconduct is detailed in this

10 complaint ratified the conduct of those officers and renders Acting Police Chief Alex

11 Fagan, Sr. individually liable for the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed by the

12 Fourth amendment to the United States Constitution alleged in this complaint.

13

55. As a proximate result of this Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff suffered

14 ridicule, disgrace, physical and emotional distress and the loss of her rights guaranteed

15 by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

16

56. The conduct of Acting Police Chief Alex Fagan, Sr. was malicious and

17 oppressive, and carried out in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed by the

18 Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendant Fagan’s malicious and

19 oppressive conduct makes him personally liable for exemplary damages.

20

Wherefore, Plaintiffs seeks relief as set forth below.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. Complaint

Page 10

Case 3:03-cv-04022-CRB Document 1 Filed 09/03/2003 Page 11 of 15

1

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation Of Plaintiff’s Rights Protected By The Fourth And Fourteenth

2

Amendments

Against San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey In His Individual

3

Capacity

4

57. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of

5 paragraphs 1 through 49 as if they were set forth in haec verba herein.

6

58. San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey was responsible for

7 promulgating and ensuring the implementation of the policy pursuant to which Plaintiff

8 was stripped at San Francisco County Jail No. 9.

9

59. San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey was responsible for

10 promulgating and ensuring the implementation of the policy pursuant to which Plaintiff

11 was placed naked in a “cold room” at San Francisco County Jail No. 9.

12

60. San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey also was responsible

13 for the training of deputies and jail personnel under his command. Defendant

14 Hennessey failed to train and instruct subordinate sheriff’s deputies or jail personnel that

15 those detained may not be stripped of their clothing absent a prior determination that

16 such individuals possessed contraband or weapons and absent prior action of a

17 supervisor approving the stripping of the detainee. Defendant Hennessey also failed to

18 train and instruct subordinate sheriff’s deputies or jail personnel that a detainee may not

19 be placed naked in a “cold room” absent a determination that the detainee posed a

20 threat to herself or to others.

21

61. Indeed, Defendant Hennessey approved a training regimen which

22 instructed subordinate sheriff’s deputies and/or jail personnel that those detained may

23 be subject to being stripped of their clothing even absent approval by a supervisor and

24 absent a prior determination that the detainee possessed a weapon or contraband.

25

62. Defendant Hennessey also approved a training regimen which instructed

26 subordinate sheriff’s deputies and/or jail personnel that those detained may be placed in

27 a “cold room” even when such detainees posed no threat to themselves or to others.

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. Complaint

Page 11

Case 3:03-cv-04022-CRB Document 1 Filed 09/03/2003 Page 12 of 15

1

63. Prior to March 28, 2003, long-established statutory law, California

2 regulations and controlling court decisions had forbidden both such stripping of

3 detainees and the placing of detainees in a “cold room.”

4

64. San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey failed to reprimand,

5 suspend, or discipline those San Francisco sheriff’s deputies and jail personnel who

6 stripped Plaintiff and placed her into and confined her naked in a “cold room” at San

7 Francisco Jail No. 9.

8

65. The failure of San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey to

9 reprimand, suspend, or discipline those San Francisco sheriff’s deputies and jail

10 personnel whose misconduct is detailed in this complaint ratified the conduct of those

11 sheriff’s deputies and jail personnel and renders San Francisco County Sheriff Michael

12 Hennessey individually liable for the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed by the

13 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution alleged in this

14 complaint.

15

66. As a proximate result of this Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff suffered

16 ridicule, disgrace, physical and emotional distress and the loss of her rights guaranteed

17 by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

18

67. The conduct of San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey was

19 malicious and oppressive, carried out in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights

20 guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

21 Constitution. Sheriff Hennessey’s malicious and oppressive conduct makes him

22 personally liable for exemplary damages.

23

Wherefore, Plaintiffs seeks relief as set forth below.

24

25

26

27

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. Complaint

Page 12

Case 3:03-cv-04022-CRB Document 1 Filed 09/03/2003 Page 13 of 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation Of Plaintiff’s Rights Protected By The Fourth And Fourteenth
Amendments Against The City And County Of San Francisco 68. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 67 as if they were set forth in haec verba herein. 69. Prior to March 28, 2003, the City and County of San Francisco was well aware that absent proper training of police officers, individuals in the City and County of San Francisco would be subject to unreasonable search, seizure, arrest, transportation, detention and imprisonment. In failing to train those individuals, the City and County of San Francisco was deliberately indifferent to the constitutional rights of Plaintiff guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United Sates Constitution. 70. Prior to March 28, 2003, the City and County of San Francisco was well aware that absent proper training of sheriff’s deputies and jail personnel, individuals in the City and County of San Francisco would be subject to being stripped of their clothing and placed naked in and confined while naked in “cold rooms” at San Francisco County Jail facilities without any proper basis for such punishment in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In failing to train those individuals, the City and County of San Francisco was deliberately indifferent to the constitutional rights of Plaintiff guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United Sates Constitution. 71. The conduct of the individual defendants sued Does 1 through 200 occurred due to the failure of the San Francisco Police Department and San Francisco Sheriff’s Department to properly train their employees in the following areas: (1) the reasonable cause which must exist prior to the search, seizure, arrest, transportation and detention of an individual; (2) the documentation which must exist to verify the existence of the reasonable cause to justify the search, seizure, detention, transportation and arrest of an individual; (3) the justification which must exist prior to the stripping of the clothes from an individual detained in a San Francisco County Jail;

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. Complaint

Page 13

Case 3:03-cv-04022-CRB Document 1 Filed 09/03/2003 Page 14 of 15

1 (4) the justification which must exist prior to the placing of an individual in a “cold room”

2 in a San Francisco County Jail facility and the confinement of that individual naked in

3 that “cold room;” and (5) that stripping and placing an individual naked in a “cold room”

4 was illegal and deprived the individual of his or her constitutional rights protected by the

5 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

6

72. At all times relevant to the allegations of this complaint, Defendant City

7 and County of San Francisco had the policy of searching, seizing, arresting,

8 transporting, detaining and imprisoning individuals without reasonable cause and failing

9 properly to document such arrests.

10

73. At all times relevant to the allegations of this complaint, Defendant City

11 and County of San Francisco had the policy of authorizing its personnel, including

12 sheriff’s deputies and other jail personnel, without reasonable cause, to strip those

13 detained in its jail facilities and to place such individuals naked in “cold rooms” in the jail

14 facilities, regardless of whether such detainees possessed contraband or weapons or

15 posed a threat to themselves or others.

16

74. The conduct of Defendant Michael Hennessey in promulgating and

17 ensuring the implementation of the policies pursuant to which Plaintiff was stripped of

18 her clothing and placed naked in a “cold room” at San Francisco County Jail No. 9

19 reflected the policy of the City and County of San Francisco.

20

75. The failure of the City and County of San Francisco to reprimand,

21 suspend, or discipline those employees of the City and County of San Francisco (1)

22 who searched, seized, arrested, transported, detained and imprisoned Plaintiff without

23 reasonable cause; (2) who failed to document Plaintiff’s arrest and detention; (3) who

24 stripped Plaintiff without any legal justification and (4) who placed and confined Plaintiff

25 naked in a “cold room” at San Francisco County Jail No. 9 ratified that misconduct and

26 reflected City and County policies to (1) arrest individuals without probable cause; (2) to

27 fail to document such arrests; (3) notwithstanding any reasonable cause, to strip

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

individuals detained in San Francisco County Jail facilities although such individuals

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. Complaint

Page 14

Case 3:03-cv-04022-CRB Document 1 Filed 09/03/2003 Page 15 of 15

1 possessed no contraband or weapons; and (4) without reasonable cause or any legal

2 basis, to place and confine such individuals, without any clothing, in a “cold room”

3 located in a San Francisco County jail facility.

4

76. As a proximate result of the failure to train its personnel and as a

5 proximate result of the promulgation and implementation of those policies of the City

6 and County of San Francisco alleged in this claim, Plaintiff suffered ridicule, disgrace,

7 physical and emotional distress and the loss of her rights guaranteed by the Fourth and

8 Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

9

Wherefore, Plaintiffs seeks relief as set forth below.

10

PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

11

77. Plaintiff demands a jury trial of all her claims alleged in this action.

12

WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF PRAYS FOR RELIEF AS FOLLOWS:

13

1. For general damages against all Defendants;

14

2. For special damages, including lost wages and medical expenses

15 incurred as a result of defendants’ conduct;

16

3. For exemplary damages against San Francisco Acting Police Chief

17 Alex Fagan, Sr., San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey, and those City and

18 County of San Francisco employees sued herein as Does 1 through 200;

19

4. For attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and

20

5. For such other relief as the Court deems proper.

21

22 Dated: September 3, 2003

CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ

23

A Professional Corporation

24

LAW OFFICES OF MARK E. MERIN

25

26

________________________

By Thom Seaton

27

28
CASPER, MEADOWS & SCHWARTZ
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 1020
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 TEL: (925) 947-1147 FAX (925) 947-1131

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al. Complaint

Page 15

 
 Case: 3:03-cv-04022-CRB As of: 07/02/2014 07:59 AM PDT 1 of 8
ADRMOP,CLOSED,E−Filing,REFSET−JCS,RELATE,STAYED
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:03−cv−04022−CRB

Flick v. City and County of San Francisco et al Assigned to: Hon. Charles R. Breyer Referred to: Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero (Settlement) Demand: $0 Lead case: 3:03−cv−01840−CRB Member case: (View Member Case) Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/03/2003 Date Terminated: 09/30/2013 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Deborah Flick

represented by Daniel Berko Law Offices of Daniel Berko 819 Eddy Street San Francisco, CA 94109 415−771−6174 x212 Fax: 415−474−3748 Email: berkolaw@sbcglobal.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Andrew Seaton Casper Meadows Schwartz &Cook 2121 North California Boulevard, Suite 1020 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 947−1147 Fax: (925) 947−1131 TERMINATED: 09/08/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrew Charles Schwartz Casper Meadows Schwartz &Cook California Plaza 2121 North California Boulevard Suite 1020 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925−947−1147 Fax: 925−947−1131 Email: schwartz@cmslaw.com TERMINATED: 09/08/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark E. Merin , Esq. 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 TERMINATED: 09/08/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant City and County of San Francisco

represented by Elizabeth M. Pederson Office of the City Attorney

Case: 3:03-cv-04022-CRB As of: 07/02/2014 07:59 AM PDT 2 of 8

Fox Plaza 1390 Market Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102−5408 415−554−3862 Fax: 415−554−3837 Email: elizabeth.pederson@sfgov.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert A. Bonta City Attorney's Office City &County of San Francisco Fox Plaza 1390 Market Street 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102−5408 415−554−4268 Fax: 415−554−3837 Email: robert.bonta@sfgov.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Blake Newdorf Newdorf Legal 220 Montgomery Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 415−357−1234 Fax: 866−954−8448 Email: david@newdorf.com TERMINATED: 05/11/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ingrid M. Evans The Evans Law Firm 3053 Fillmore Street, #236 San Francisco, CA 94123 (415) 441−8669 Fax: (888) 891−4906 Email: ingrid@evanslaw.com TERMINATED: 09/11/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant San Francisco Police Department

represented by Elizabeth M. Pederson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert A. Bonta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Blake Newdorf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/11/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ingrid M. Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Case: 3:03-cv-04022-CRB As of: 07/02/2014 07:59 AM PDT 3 of 8

Alex Fagan, Sr.

represented by Robert A. Bonta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Blake Newdorf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/11/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ingrid M. Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Sheriff Michael Hennessey

represented by Elizabeth M. Pederson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert A. Bonta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Blake Newdorf (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/11/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ingrid M. Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
R. L. Lock San Francisco Police Officer

represented by Robert A. Bonta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ingrid M. Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Nelson San Francisco Police Officer

represented by Robert A. Bonta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ingrid M. Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Griffin San Francisco Police Officer

represented by Robert A. Bonta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 3:03-cv-04022-CRB As of: 07/02/2014 07:59 AM PDT 4 of 8

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ingrid M. Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
O'Sullivan Sergeant

represented by Robert A. Bonta (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ingrid M. Evans (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/11/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party Marie Doe

represented by Michael J. Haddad Haddad &Sherwin 505 17th Street Oakland, CA 94612 510−452−5500 Fax: 510−452−5510 Email: haddad.sherwin@sbcglobal.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Miscellaneous Ingrid M Evans

Date Filed 09/03/2003
09/03/2003 09/03/2003 09/03/2003 09/17/2003 11/04/2003 11/06/2003

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED against City and County of San Francisco, Alex Fagan Sr., Michael Hennessey, San Francisco Police Department (Filing fee $150.00 receipt number 3351140). Filed by Deborah Flick. (gba, COURT STAFF) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/10/2003 (gba, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/09/2003)
2 ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 12/29/2003. Case Management Conference set for 1/5/2004 at 04:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(gba, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/09/2003)
Summons Issued as to City and County of San Francisco ; Alex Fagan Sr. ; Michael Hennessey ; San Francisco Police Department (gba, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/09/2003)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/09/2003)
3 CLERK'S NOTICE. Case Management Conference set for 2/2/2004 at 04:00 PM. (mhb, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/17/2003)
4 NOTICE of Related Case Re C 03−1840 CRB/C 03−4022 MHP by City and County of San Francisco. (Newdorf, David) (Entered: 11/04/2003)
5 ORDER RELATING CASE C−03−4022MHP to case C−03−1840CRB. Case reassigned to Judge Charles R. Breyer for all further proceedings. All matters presently scheduled for hearing in the reassigned case are vacated and must be renoticed for hearing before the undersigned. Judge Marilyn H. Patel no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 11/06/03. (be, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/06/2003)

Case: 3:03-cv-04022-CRB As of: 07/02/2014 07:59 AM PDT 5 of 8

11/06/2003 11/06/2003 11/21/2003 11/21/2003 02/05/2004 02/18/2004 03/12/2004 03/18/2004
03/19/2004 03/19/2004 03/31/2004 04/01/2004 05/14/2004 06/17/2004 09/30/2004 01/21/2005 12/05/2006 09/02/2009 09/08/2009 09/11/2009

6 CLERK'S NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 2/27/2004 at 08:30 AM. Case Management Statement due by 2/20/2004. (be, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/06/2003)
7 AMENDED ORDER RELATING CASE. . Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 11/06/03. (be, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 11/06/2003)
8 AMENDED COMPLAINT (FIRST) against all defendants. Filed by Deborah Flick. (Schwartz, Andrew) (Filed on 11/21/2003) (Entered: 11/21/2003)
9 AMENDED DOCUMENT by Deborah Flick. Amendment to Summons Issued 9/3/03. (Schwartz, Andrew) (Filed on 11/21/2003) (Entered: 11/21/2003)
10 NOTICE of Related Case (Schwartz, Andrew) (Filed on 2/5/2004) (Entered: 02/05/2004)
11 CLERK'S NOTICE Initial Case Management Conference rescheduled for 3/19/2004 08:30 AM. (be, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2004) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
12 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Deborah Flick. (Schwartz, Andrew) (Filed on 3/12/2004) (Entered: 03/12/2004)
13 ASSOCIATION of Counsel Ingrid M. Evans by City and County of San Francisco, Alex Fagan Sr., Griffin, Michael Hennessey, R. L. Lock, Nelson, O'Sullivan, San Francisco Police Department. (Evans, Ingrid) (Filed on 3/18/2004) (Entered: 03/18/2004)
14 Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 3/19/2004 before Charles R. Breyer (Date Filed: 3/19/2004). (Court Reporter N/A.) (be, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/19/2004) (Entered: 03/19/2004)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 4/9/2004 10:00 AM. (be, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2004) (Entered: 03/19/2004)
15 Defendants' ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by City and County of San Francisco, Michael Hennessey, San Francisco Police Department. (Evans, Ingrid) (Filed on 3/31/2004) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
16 NOTICE by City and County of San Francisco OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL (Evans, Ingrid) (Filed on 4/1/2004) (Entered: 04/01/2004)
17 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Deborah Flick. Alex Fagan Sr. served on 4/28/2004, answer due 5/18/2004. (Schwartz, Andrew) (Filed on 5/14/2004) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
18 Answer to Amended Complaint 8 for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial by City and County of San Francisco, Alex Fagan Sr., Michael Hennessey, San Francisco Police Department. (Newdorf, David) (Filed on 6/17/2004) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
19 NOTICE of Related Case (Newdorf, David) (Filed on 9/30/2004) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
20 NOTICE of Related Case (Haddad, Michael) (Filed on 1/21/2005) (Entered: 01/21/2005)
21 Letter from Andrew Schwartz. (Schwartz, Andrew) (Filed on 12/5/2006) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
22 MOTION to Substitute Attorney filed by Deborah Flick. (Berko, Daniel) (Filed on 9/2/2009) (Entered: 09/02/2009)
23 ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer granting 22 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Andrew Charles Schwartz and Thomas Andrew Seaton terminated (be, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2009) (Entered: 09/08/2009)
24 ASSOCIATION of Counsel TERMINATED by Ingrid M Evans. (Evans, Ingrid) (Filed on 9/11/2009) (Entered: 09/11/2009)

Case: 3:03-cv-04022-CRB As of: 07/02/2014 07:59 AM PDT 6 of 8

06/23/2010 06/24/2010 07/06/2010 07/13/2010
07/13/2010
07/16/2010 07/23/2010
09/15/2010 09/20/2010 09/28/2010 10/01/2010
10/04/2010
11/24/2010 12/03/2010
01/07/2011

25 Letter from Daniel Berko to the Court to schedule CMC. (Berko, Daniel) (Filed on 6/23/2010) (Entered: 06/23/2010)
26 CLERKS NOTICE Case Management Conference set for 7/16/2010 08:30 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (be, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2010) (Entered: 06/24/2010)
27 CLERKS NOTICE Case Management Conference reset for 7/21/2010 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (be, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2010) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
28 ORDER to continue CMC re (284 in 3:03−cv−01840−CRB) Stipulation filed by City and County of San Francisco Case Management Conference set for 7/23/2010 08:30 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 7/9/2010. (be, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2010) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
29 ORDER to continue CMC re (117 in 3:03−cv−03105−CRB) Stipulation filed by Richard Jones, Michael Hennessey, Robert Gallot Case Management Conference set for 7/23/2010 08:30 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 7/9/2010. (be, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2010) (Entered: 07/13/2010)
30 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by City and County of San Francisco, Alex Fagan, Sr, Deborah Flick, Griffin, Michael Hennessey, R. L. Lock, Nelson, O'Sullivan, San Francisco Police Department. (Bonta, Robert) (Filed on 7/16/2010) (Entered: 07/16/2010)
31 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 7/23/2010 before Charles R. Breyer (Date Filed: 7/23/2010). Motion due by 8/6/2010. Responses due by 8/20/2010. Replies due by 8/27/2010. Motion Hearing set for 9/3/2010 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Court Reporter Belle Ball.) (be, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/23/2010) (Entered: 07/26/2010)
32 Letter from Daniel Berko to the Court. (Berko, Daniel) (Filed on 9/15/2010) (Entered: 09/15/2010)
33 CLERKS NOTICE Case Management Statement due by 9/28/2010. Further Case Management Conference set for 10/1/2010 08:30 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2010) (Entered: 09/20/2010)
34 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by City and County of San Francisco, Alex Fagan, Sr, Deborah Flick, Michael Hennessey, San Francisco Police Department. (Berko, Daniel) (Filed on 9/28/2010) (Entered: 09/28/2010)
35 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 10/1/2010 before Charles R. Breyer (Date Filed: 10/1/2010). Further Case Management Conference set for 10/4/2010 09:30 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Court Reporter − Not Reported.) (be, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/1/2010) (Entered: 10/04/2010)
36 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 10/4/2010 before Charles R. Breyer (Date Filed: 10/4/2010). Further Case Management Conference set for 12/3/2010 08:30 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Court Reporter − Not Reported.) (be, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/4/2010) (Entered: 10/04/2010)
37 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by City and County of San Francisco. (Bonta, Robert) (Filed on 11/24/2010) (Entered: 11/24/2010)
38 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 12/3/2010 before Charles R. Breyer (Date Filed: 12/3/2010). Further Case Management Conference set for 1/14/2011 08:30 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Court Reporter − Not Reported.) (be, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/3/2010) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
39 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by City and County of San Francisco, Deborah Flick. (Bonta, Robert) (Filed on 1/7/2011) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

Case: 3:03-cv-04022-CRB As of: 07/02/2014 07:59 AM PDT 7 of 8

01/11/2011 01/13/2011
01/18/2011 01/28/2011
02/11/2011
02/15/2011 03/04/2011
03/04/2011 03/11/2011 03/18/2011 05/11/2012 06/28/2013
07/23/2013 07/29/2013

40 CLERKS NOTICE Further Case Management Conference reset for 1/21/2011 08:30 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (be, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2011) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
41 MOTION to Continue Administrative Motion to Continue Case Management Conference By One−Week From January 21, 2011 to January 28, 2011; Declaration of Rob Bonta In Support filed by City and County of San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bonta, Robert) (Filed on 1/13/2011) (Entered: 01/13/2011)
42 ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer granting 41 Motion to Continue CMC (be, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2011) (Entered: 01/18/2011)
43 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 1/28/2011 before Charles R. Breyer (Date Filed: 1/28/2011). Further Case Management Conference set for 2/25/2011 08:30 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Court Reporter − Not Reported.) (be, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/28/2011) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
44 MOTION for Additional Time for Defendants to Respond to Court's Order of January 28, 2011 and Declaration of Robert A. Bonta In Support filed by City and County of San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bonta, Robert) (Filed on 2/11/2011) Modified on 2/14/2011 (mcl, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/11/2011)
45 ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer granting 44 Motion for additonal time to respond to Court's Order of 1/28/2011 (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2011) (Entered: 02/15/2011)
46 Response DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER OF JANUARY 28, 2011 REGARDING PLAINTIFF DEBORAH FLICK'S MEMBERSHIP IN THE MARY BULL CLASS; DECLARATION OF ROBERT A. BONTA IN SUPPORT byCity and County of San Francisco, Alex Fagan, Sr, Michael Hennessey, San Francisco Police Department. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − F)(Bonta, Robert) (Filed on 3/4/2011) (Entered: 03/04/2011)
47 Declaration of TRICIA SOLORZANO in Support of 46 Response, filed byCity and County of San Francisco, Alex Fagan, Sr, Michael Hennessey, San Francisco Police Department. (Related document(s) 46 ) (Bonta, Robert) (Filed on 3/4/2011) (Entered: 03/04/2011)
48 RESPONSE to the Court's Order of January 28, 2011 by Plaintiff regarding Deborah Flick's Membership in the Mary Bull's Class by Deborah Flick. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Andrew Schwartz, # 2 Declaration of Deborah Flick)(Berko, Daniel) (Filed on 3/11/2011) (Entered: 03/11/2011)
49 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 3/18/2011 before Charles R. Breyer (Date Filed: 3/18/2011). (Court Reporter 3/18/2011.) (beS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/18/2011) (Entered: 03/18/2011)
50 ASSOCIATION of Counsel TERMINATION OF ASSOCIATION by City and County of San Francisco. (Newdorf, David) (Filed on 5/11/2012) (Entered: 05/11/2012)
51 Order by Hon. Charles R. Breyer Dismissing Class Claims without Prejudice and Approving the Stipulated Settlement (399).Associated Cases: 3:03−cv−01840−CRB, 3:03−cv−03105−CRB, 3:03−cv−04022−CRB, 3:03−cv−04692−CRB, 3:04−cv−03729−CRB(crblc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2013) (Entered: 06/28/2013)
52 Letter from plaintiff counsel Daniel Berko. (Berko, Daniel) (Filed on 7/23/2013) (Entered: 07/23/2013)
53 CLERKS NOTICE (text entry only, no document associated with this entry). Case Management Statement due by 8/2/2013. Case Management Conference set for 8/9/2013 08:30 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2013) (Entered: 07/29/2013)

Case: 3:03-cv-04022-CRB As of: 07/02/2014 07:59 AM PDT 8 of 8

08/02/2013 08/06/2013 08/07/2013 08/09/2013
08/12/2013
08/14/2013 08/14/2013
09/05/2013 09/10/2013
09/10/2013 09/11/2013
09/25/2013 09/30/2013

54 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Deborah Flick. (Berko, Daniel) (Filed on 8/2/2013) (Entered: 08/02/2013)
55 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth M Pederson (Pederson, Elizabeth) (Filed on 8/6/2013) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
56 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by City and County of San Francisco. (Pederson, Elizabeth) (Filed on 8/7/2013) (Entered: 08/07/2013)
57 Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 8/9/2013 before Charles R. Breyer (Date Filed: 8/9/2013), CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero for Settlement Conference. Further Case Management Conference set for 11/1/2013 08:30 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (Court Reporter − Not Reported.) (beS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/9/2013) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
58 CLERKS NOTICE. Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 8/14/2013 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. The Court will initiate the phone contact. This is a text only entry. There is no document associated with this notice . (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2013) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
59 Minute Entry: Telephonic Scheduling Conference held on 8/14/2013 before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. (Recording #Not Reported.) (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/14/2013) (Entered: 08/14/2013)
60 Notice of Settlement Conference and Order Setting Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Settlement Conference set for 9/24/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 8/14/13. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2013) (Entered: 08/14/2013)
61 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE filed by City and County of San Francisco. (Pederson, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/5/2013) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
62 ORDER granting 61 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE filed by City and County of San Francisco. Case Management Statement due by 11/1/2013. Further Case Management Conference reset for 11/8/2013 08:30 AM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 9/9/2013. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2013) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
63 Letter from ELIZABETH PEDERSON . (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Pederson, Elizabeth) (Filed on 9/10/2013) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
64 ORDER EXCUSING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS FROM ATTENDING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE ON 9/24/13. Michael Hennessey &Officers Lock, Nelson, Griffin &O'Sullivan are excused. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 9/11/13. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2013) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
65 Minute Entry: Settlement Conference held on 9/24/13 before Magistrate Judge Joseph C.Spero. Case settled. (Recording #FTR 6:16−6:20.) (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/25/2013) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
66 ORDER DISMISSING CASE (30 days conditional dismissal). Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 9/30/2013. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2013) (Entered: 10/01/2013)