Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

ACCO,(ASx),DISCOVERY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division - Los Angeles)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS

Black Lives Matter Los Angeles et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al Assigned to: Judge Consuelo B. Marshall Referred to: Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar Related Cases: 2:21-cv-03124-CBM-AS
2:20-cv-10258-CBM-AS 2:21-cv-03760-CBM-AS 2:20-cv-07241-CBM-AS 2:21-cv-04068-CBM-AS Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 06/05/2020 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angeles

represented by Carol A. Sobel Law Office of Carol A. Sobel 1158 26th Street Suite 552 Santa Monica, CA 90403 310-393-3055 Email: carolsobellaw@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Aidan C McGlaze Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman and Zeldes LLP 9415 Culver Boulevard Suite 115 Culver City, CA 90232 310-396-0731 Email: amcglaze@sshhzlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barrett S Litt McLane Bednarski and Litt LLP 975 East Green Street Pasadena, CA 91106 626-844-7660 Fax: 626-844-7670

Email: blitt@mbllegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bijan Esfandiari Baum Heldlund Aristel and Goldman PC 10940 Wilshire Boulevard 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 310-207-3233 Fax: 310-820-7444 Email: besfandiari@baumhedlundlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Colleen Flynn Law Office of Colleen Flynn 3435 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213-252-9444 Fax: 213-252-0091 Email: cflynnlaw@yahoo.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Anderson Barker National Lawyers Guild 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213-381-3246 Fax: 213-252-0091 Email: cablaw@hotmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Clay Washington Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman and Zeldes LLP 11543 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064 310-396-0731 Fax: 310-399-7040 Email: jwashington@sshhzlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Gonzalez Jorge Gonzalez Law Offices APC 2485 Huntington Drive Suite 238 San Marino, CA 91108

626-382-3081 Fax: 213-598-3278 Email: jgonzalezlawoffice@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Robinson Law Office of Carol A. Sobel 725 Arizona Avenue Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90401 831-402-9132 Email: klrobinsonlaw@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles McLane Bednarski and Litt LLP 975 East Green Street Pasadena, CA 91106 626-844-7600 Fax: 626-844-7670 Email: lbattles@mbllegal.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew D Strugar Law Office of Matthew Strugar 3435 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 323-696-2299 Email: matthewstrugar@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael D Seplow Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman and Zeldes LLP 9415 Culver Boulevard Suite 115 Culver City, CA 90232 310-396-0731 Email: mseplow@sshhzlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Amanda Alarcon Baum Hedlund Aristei and Goldman PC 10940 Wislhire Boulevard 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 310-207-3233

Fax: 310-820-7444 Email: malarcon@baumhedlundlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Olu K Orange Orange Law Offices PC 3435 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 213-736-9900 Fax: 213-417-8800 Email: o.orange@orangelawoffices.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul L Hoffman Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP 200 Pier Avenue Suite 226 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 310-717-7373 Fax: 310-399-7040 Email: hoffpaul@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Pedram Esfandiary Baum Hedlund Aristei and Goldman PC 10940 Wilshire Boulevard 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 310-207-3233 Fax: 310-820-7444 Email: pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
R Brent Wisner Baum Hedlund Aristei and Goldman PC 10940 Wilshire Boulevard 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 310-207-3233 Fax: 310-820-7444 Email: rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
CANGRESS doing business as Los Angeles Community Action Network

Weston C Rowland Law Office of Carol A Sobel 725 Arizona Avenue Suite 301 Santa Monica, CA 90401 626-344-9587 Email: rowlandweston@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bijan Esfandiari (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carol A. Sobel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Colleen Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Clay Washington (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Pedram Esfandiary (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aidan C McGlaze (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Anderson Barker (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Linus Shentu individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons

Jorge Gonzalez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Robinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew D Strugar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael D Seplow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Amanda Alarcon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Olu K Orange (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
R Brent Wisner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bijan Esfandiari (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carol A. Sobel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Colleen Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Clay Washington (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Pedram Esfandiary (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aidan C McGlaze (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Anderson Barker (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Gonzalez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Robinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew D Strugar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael D Seplow

Plaintiff
Weston Rowland individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Amanda Alarcon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Olu K Orange (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
R Brent Wisner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bijan Esfandiari (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carol A. Sobel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Colleen Flynn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Clay Washington (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Pedram Esfandiary (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aidan C McGlaze

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barrett S Litt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cynthia Anderson Barker (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jorge Gonzalez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katherine Robinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lindsay Battles (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew D Strugar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael D Seplow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Monique Amanda Alarcon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Olu K Orange (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul L Hoffman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
R Brent Wisner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant City of Los Angeles a municipal entity
Defendant Chief Michel Moore
Defendant Does 1-10 inclusive Mediator (ADR Panel) Richard T. Copeland

represented by Geoffrey R Plowden Los Angeles City Attorneys Office City Hall East 200 North Main Street 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 213-978-7038 Fax: 213-978-8785 Email: geoffrey.plowden@lacity.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gabriel Seth Dermer Los Angeles City Attorneys Office City Hall East 200 North Main Street Room 916 Los Angeles, CA 90012 213-473-6850 Fax: 213-473-6818 Email: gabriel.dermer@lacity.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey R Plowden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Richard T Copeland Conflict Solution Services 530 South Lake Avenue Suite 733 Pasadena, CA 91101 310-968-6070 Email: rtc@conflict-solution.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

# Docket Text

06/05/2020 06/05/2020 06/05/2020
06/05/2020 06/05/2020 06/08/2020
06/08/2020 06/21/2020 06/21/2020

COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-26706947 - Fee: $400, filed

1

by plaintiff Black Lives Matter - Los Angeles. (Attorney Carol A

Sobel added to party Black Lives Matter - Los

Angeles(pty:pla))(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

2 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall and Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar. (esa) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

3 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening. The following error(s) was found: The Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71)is missing or incomplete. All civil actions presented for filing must be accompanied by a completed Civil Cover Sheet. See Local Rule 3-1. Counsel must file a completed Civil Cover Sheet immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 83-7. No Notice of Interested Parties has been filed. A Notice of Interested Parties must be filed with every partys first appearance. See Local Rule 7.1-1. Counsel must file a Notice of Interested Parties immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 837. (esa) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

4 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angeles. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

5 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by plaintiff All Plaintiffs, (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

6 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) 4 , Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties 5 . The following error(s) was/were found: The documents were submitted blank. The information needs to be filled out completely In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (shb) (Entered: 06/08/2020)

7 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angeles. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 06/08/2020)

First AMENDED COMPLAINT against plaintiff All Defendants 8
amending Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) 1 , filed by plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angeles(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 06/21/2020)

9 CORRECTED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against plaintiff

All Defendants amending Amended Complaint/Petition 8 , filed

06/22/2020 06/23/2020 06/24/2020
06/24/2020
06/24/2020 06/24/2020

by plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angeles(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 06/21/2020)

10 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Amended Complaint/Petition 9 filed by plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angeles. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 06/22/2020)

11 20 DAY Summons Issued re CORRECTED First Amended Complaint 9 as to Defendants City of Los Angeles, Michel Moore. (shb) (Entered: 06/23/2020)

12 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Michael D Seplow counsel for Plaintiffs Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, CANGRESS, Weston Rowland, Linus Shentu. Adding Michael D. Seplow as counsel of record for Plaintiffs for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, et al. (Attorney Michael D Seplow added to party Black Lives Matter Los Angeles(pty:pla), Attorney Michael D Seplow added to party CANGRESS(pty:pla), Attorney Michael D Seplow added to party Weston Rowland(pty:pla), Attorney Michael D Seplow added to party Linus Shentu(pty:pla))(Seplow, Michael) (Entered: 06/24/2020)

13 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Aidan C McGlaze counsel for Plaintiffs Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, CANGRESS, Weston Rowland, Linus Shentu. Adding Aidan C. McGlaze as counsel of record for Plaintiffs for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, et al. (Attorney Aidan C McGlaze added to party Black Lives Matter Los Angeles(pty:pla), Attorney Aidan C McGlaze added to party CANGRESS(pty:pla), Attorney Aidan C McGlaze added to party Weston Rowland(pty:pla), Attorney Aidan C McGlaze added to party Linus Shentu(pty:pla))(McGlaze, Aidan) (Entered: 06/24/2020)

Emergency EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining

14

Order filed by Plaintiffs Black Lives Matter Los Angeles,

CANGRESS, Weston Rowland, Linus Shentu. (Attachments: # 1

Memorandum, # 2 Proposed Order) (Hoffman, Paul) (Entered: 06/24/2020)
15 APPENDIX filed by Plaintiffs Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, CANGRESS, Weston Rowland, Linus Shentu. Re: Emergency EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order 14

(Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Hoffman, Paul) (Entered: 06/24/2020)

06/24/2020 06/24/2020 06/24/2020 06/25/2020 06/25/2020 06/25/2020
06/29/2020 06/29/2020

16 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re Emergency EX PARTE

APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order 14 filed by Plaintiffs Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, CANGRESS, Weston Rowland, Linus Shentu. (Hoffman, Paul) (Entered: 06/24/2020)
17 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, re Emergency EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary

Restraining Order 14 served on 6/24/20 4:57 pm.. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 06/24/2020)

18 STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. It controls this case and may differ in some respects from the Local Rules. (ys) (Entered: 06/24/2020)

19 REQUEST for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Attorney Gabriel Seth Dermer added to party City of Los Angeles(pty:dft)) (Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 06/25/2020)

20 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS - BRIEFING SCHEDULE RE DKT NO. 14 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Pending before the Court is an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order filed by Plaintiffs (Dkt. No. 14). Defendants City of Los Angeles and Chief Michel Moore may file an opposition to the application no later than June 26, 2020, at 4:00 p.m. (shb) (Entered: 06/25/2020)

21 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS - BRIEFING SCHEDULE RE DKT NO. 14 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court GRANTS Defendants' request for an extension of time to file an opposition to Plaintiff's ex parte application for a temporary restraining order (see Dkt No. 19), and orders Defendants to file an opposition no later than June 30, 2020, at 4:00 p.m. The Court vacates its order indicating the opposition should be filed no later than June 26, 2020. (Dkt. No. 20.) The Court will be reviewing briefs for purposes of ruling on the ex parte application for a temporary restraining order filed by Plaintiffs. (shb) (Entered: 06/26/2020)

Notice of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiffs Black Lives Matter

22

Los Angeles, CANGRESS, Weston Rowland, Linus Shentu on First

Amended Complaint (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 06/29/2020)

23 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, re Summons Issued 11 , Amended Complaint/Petition 8

served on 6/24/20. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 06/29/2020)

06/30/2020 07/01/2020
07/06/2020 07/07/2020
07/14/2020

24 OPPOSITION re: Emergency EX PARTE APPLICATION for

Temporary Restraining Order 14 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ernest Eskridge, # 2 Declaration of Kris Pitcher, # 3 Declaration of Michael Rimkunas, # 4 Declaration of Joshua Rubenstein, # 5 Notice of Manual Filing of Exhibits)(Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 06/30/2020)
25 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed

Documents RE: Miscellaneous Document 22 . The following error(s) was/were found: Incorrect event selected. Correct event to be used is: Civil Events Other Filings Notices - select Certificate/Notice of Interested Parties. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (shb) (Entered: 07/01/2020)

26 WAIVER OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS; F.R.Civ.P., Rule 4(d)(3) filed by Defendant Michel Moore re: Summons Issued 11 , Amended Complaint/Petition 9 (Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 07/06/2020)

27 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Miscellaneous Document 26 . The following error(s) was/were found: Incorrect event selected. Correct event to be used is: Civil Events Service Documents Service/Waivers of Summons and Complaints. Case number is incorrect or missing. Other error(s) with document(s): The case number is incomplete. The case number is 2:20-cv-05027-CBM (ASx). In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (shb) (Entered: 07/07/2020)

ORDER RE: NOTICE OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR

28

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DKT. NO. 14) by Judge Consuelo

B. Marshall: The Court DENIES the Application. Although they

captioned this Application as a Notice of Ex Parte Application for

Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary

Injunction, Plaintiffs do not request an order to show cause why a

preliminary injunction should not issue. As the Court indicated by

minute order, the Court addresses in this order only Plaintiffs request

for a temporary restraining order. (See Dkt. No. 21 (The Court will

07/20/2020 07/22/2020 07/23/2020 07/23/2020 07/23/2020 08/05/2020

review briefs for purposes of ruling on the ex parte application for a temporary restraining order filed by Plaintiffs.) Nothing in this order precludes Plaintiffs from filing a noticed motion for a preliminary injunction, consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 and the local rules of the Central District of California. IT IS SO ORDERED. (shb) (Entered: 07/14/2020)

29 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Weston C Rowland counsel for Plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angeles. Adding Weston C. Rowland as counsel of record for Weston C. Rowland, Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, Los Angeles Community Action Network for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiff Weston C. Rowland. (Attorney Weston C Rowland added to party Black Lives Matter Los Angeles(pty:pla))(Rowland, Weston) (Entered: 07/20/2020)

30 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to August 24, 2020 re Amended Complaint/Petition 9 filed by Defendant City of Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Dermer, Gabriel) (Entered: 07/22/2020)

31 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Katherine Robinson counsel for Plaintiffs Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, CANGRESS. Changing e-mail to klrobinsonlaw@gmail.com. Filed by Plaintiffs Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, CANGRESS. (Robinson, Katherine) (Entered: 07/23/2020)

32 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information (G-06), 31 . The following error(s) was/were found: Blank document. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (ak) (Entered: 07/23/2020)

33 ORDER GRANTING Stipulation to Extend Time to Answer (More than 30 days) 30 , by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court orders that Defendant City of Los Angeles and Defendant Michel Moore shall have until August 24, 2020 to file a responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint. Defendants City of Los Angeles answer due 8/24/2020; Michel Moore answer due 8/24/2020. (shb) (Entered: 07/24/2020)

EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for TO HOLD RULE 26(F)

34

CONFERENCE ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 14, 2020 filed by

plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, CANGRESS, Weston

08/06/2020
08/06/2020 08/06/2020 08/07/2020 08/10/2020
08/21/2020 08/21/2020

Rowland, Linus Shentu. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Hoffman, Paul) (Entered: 08/05/2020)

35 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Geoffrey R Plowden counsel for Defendants City of Los Angeles, Michel Moore. Adding Geoffrey Plowden as counsel of record for City of Los Angeles, Chief Michel Moore for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendants Defendants. (Attorney Geoffrey R Plowden added to party City of Los Angeles(pty:dft), Attorney Geoffrey R Plowden added to party Michel Moore(pty:dft))(Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 08/06/2020)

Opposition in opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order

36

for TO HOLD RULE 26(F) CONFERENCE ON OR BEFORE

AUGUST 14, 2020 34 Declaration of Geoffrey Plowden filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles, Michel Moore. (Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 08/06/2020)

Opposition opposition re: EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for

37

TO HOLD RULE 26(F) CONFERENCE ON OR BEFORE

AUGUST 14, 2020 34 (Corrected); Declaration of Geoffrey Plowden filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles, Michel Moore. (Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 08/06/2020)

REPLY In Support of EX PARTE APPLICATION for Order for TO

38

HOLD RULE 26(F) CONFERENCE ON OR BEFORE AUGUST

14, 2020 34 filed by Plaintiffs Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, CANGRESS, Weston Rowland, Linus Shentu. (Washington, John) (Entered: 08/07/2020)

39 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE DKT NO. 34 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court orders the scheduling conference be held on September 1, 2020, at 10 a.m. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Application, and orders the parties to file a joint scheduling report no later than August 25, 2020 pursuant to this Court's standing order. To the extent Defendants interpret the standing order of this Court to the contrary, this order applies to the scheduling conference here. IT SI SO ORDERED. (shb) (Entered: 08/11/2020)

ANSWER to Amended Complaint/Petition 9 with JURY

40

DEMAND filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles, Michel

Moore.(Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

41 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles, Michel Moore, (Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 08/21/2020)

08/25/2020 08/27/2020
09/03/2020 09/04/2020 09/24/2020 09/24/2020

42 JOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan filed by Plaintiffs Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, CANGRESS, Linus Shentu.. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 08/25/2020)
43 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS- OFF THE RECORD by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Counsel are notified that the Court has reviewed the joint status report. The Scheduling Conference, currently set for September 1, 2020, is hereby taken off calendar. The Court sets the following dates: ADR-1 Form shall be filed on or before September 8, 2020. Initial disclosures shall be completed by September 15, 2020.Fact completion by no later than August 31, 2021. Expert disclosure due by no later than September 20, 2021. Rebuttal by no later than October 30, 2021. Expert completion on or before November 15, 2021. Settlement conference shall be completed on or before November 30, 2021. Motions shall be set for oral argument on or before January 11, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. Pretrial Conference is set for March 22, 2022 at 2:30 p.m. Jury Trial is set for April 26, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. (Est. 15 days). IT IS SO ORDERED. (shb) (Entered: 08/27/2020)
44 REQUEST for ADR Procedure No. 2 filed. Parties request to appear before a neutral selected from the court's Mediation Panel for mediation. Filed by Plaintiffs Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, CANGRESS, Weston Rowland, Linus Shentu(Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 09/03/2020)
45 ORDER/REFERRAL to ADR Procedure No 2 44 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Case ordered to Court Mediation Panel for mediation. Within twenty-one (21) days, plaintiff shall obtain the consent of a neutral listed on the Court's Mediation Panel who will conduct the mediation, and file Form ADR-2, Stipulation Regarding Selection of Panel Mediator. If the parties have not selected and obtained the consent of a Panel Mediator within twenty-one (21) days, the ADR Program will assign one. (lom) (Entered: 09/04/2020)
46 STIPULATION REGARDING SELECTION of Panel Mediator filed. Parties stipulate that Richard Copeland may serve as Panel Mediator. Plaintiff obtained the Panel Mediators consent to serve. Filed by Plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angeles(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 09/24/2020)
47 STIPULATION REGARDING SELECTION of Panel Mediator filed. Parties stipulate that Richard Copeland may serve as Panel Mediator. Plaintiff obtained the Panel Mediators consent to serve. Filed by Plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angeles(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 09/24/2020)

09/25/2020 12/23/2020 12/28/2020
03/12/2021 03/12/2021 04/13/2021 04/13/2021

48 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT of Panel Mediator. Mediator (ADR Panel) Richard T. Copeland has been assigned to serve as Panel Mediator. (lst) (Entered: 09/25/2020)

49 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME filed by Plaintiffs Black Lives Matter Los Angeles. (Litt, Barrett) (Entered: 12/23/2020)

50 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice (Other) 49 . The following error(s) was/were found: Incorrect event selected. Correct event to be used is: Civil Events Other Filings Notices - Select -Notice of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information (G-06). Other error(s) with document(s): The Form G-06 is the correct form for "Notice of Change of Firm Name or Attorney Information". In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (shb) (Entered: 12/28/2020)

51 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Aidan C McGlaze counsel for Plaintiffs Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, CANGRESS, Weston Rowland, Linus Shentu. Changing Address to 9415 Culver Boulevard, #115, Culver City, CA 90232. Filed by Plaintiffs Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, CANGRESS, Weston Rowland, Linus Shentu. (McGlaze, Aidan) (Entered: 03/12/2021)

52 NOTICE of Change of Attorney Business or Contact Information: for attorney Michael D Seplow counsel for Plaintiffs Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, CANGRESS, Weston Rowland, Linus Shentu. Changing Address to 9415 Culver Boulevard, #115, Culver City, CA 90232. Filed by Plaintiffs Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, CANGRESS, Weston Rowland, Linus Shentu. (Seplow, Michael) (Entered: 03/12/2021)

APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to LAPD being

53

restrained and enjoined from using 40 mm and 37 mm projectiles in

public demonstrations. filed by plaintiff Weston Rowland, Linus

Shentu. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order [PROPOSED] ORDER

GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED APPLICATION FOR A

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, AND ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD

NOT ISSUE) (Hoffman, Paul) (Entered: 04/13/2021)

Corrected APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to

54

LAPD being restrained and enjoined from using 40 mm and 37 mm

projectiles in public demonstrations. filed by plaintiff Black Lives

Matter Los Angeles, Weston Rowland, Linus Shentu. (Attachments:

04/13/2021 55
04/13/2021 56
04/13/2021 57
04/13/2021 58

# 1 Memorandum MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND FOR ANOSC RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, # 2 Proposed Order [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSEWHYA PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE) (Hoffman, Paul) (Entered: 04/13/2021)
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re Corrected APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to LAPD being restrained and enjoined from using 40 mm and 37 mm projectiles in public
demonstrations. 54 filed by Plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angeles. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/13/2021)
EXHIBIT VOL. I, EXHIBITS 1 AND 2 to Corrected APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to LAPD being restrained and enjoined from using 40 mm and 37 mm projectiles in
public demonstrations. 54 filed by Plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angeles. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/13/2021)
EXHIBIT VOL II EX 2 to Corrected APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to LAPD being restrained and enjoined from using 40 mm and 37 mm projectiles in public demonstrations. 54
filed by Plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angeles. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/13/2021)
EXHIBIT Exhibits 4-15 to Corrected APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to LAPD being restrained and enjoined from using 40 mm and 37 mm projectiles in public
demonstrations. 54 filed by Plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los
Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration
Exhibits 4 and 5 (video), # 3 Declaration Exhibits 6 (video) and
7, # 4 Declaration Ex. 8 and 9 (video), # 5 Declaration, # 6
Declaration Ex. 10, 11, 12, # 7 Declaration Ex. 13, 14, # 8
Declaration Ex. 15)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/13/2021)

04/13/2021 04/13/2021 04/13/2021 04/14/2021
04/14/2021 04/14/2021

59 EXHIBIT Exhibits 5,6,8,9 to Corrected APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to LAPD being restrained and enjoined from using 40 mm and 37 mm projectiles in public

demonstrations. 54 Notice of Manual Filing of Videos filed by Plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angeles. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/13/2021)

DECLARATION of Roger Clark in support of Corrected

60

APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to LAPD being

restrained and enjoined from using 40 mm and 37 mm projectiles in

public demonstrations. 54 Corrected signed declaration filed by Plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1

Declaration Roger Clark)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/13/2021)
61 Request to Strike Ex Parte for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc 54) filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles, Michel Moore re: Corrected APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to LAPD being restrained and enjoined from using 40 mm and 37 mm

projectiles in public demonstrations. 54 (Entered: 04/13/2021)

(Plowden, Geoffrey)

62 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Miscellaneous Document, 61 . The following error(s) was/were found: Incorrect event selected. Correct event to be used is: Request - Order. Proposed Document was not submitted as separate attachment. Other error(s) with document(s): To find the correct event, use the search feature. Event can be found - Motions and Related Filings - Applications/Ex Parte Applications/Motions/Petitions/Request. This event sets the Request on the Judge's calendar. There is no [Prop] Order. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (lom) (Entered: 04/14/2021)

RESPONSE filed by Plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angelesto

63

Miscellaneous Document, 61 to Request to Strike Ex Parte

App (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/14/2021)

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall:

64

re: Counsel are hereby notified that the above matter is set on the

Court's calendar for a Telephonic Status Conference re Temporary

Restraining Order hearing on April 15, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. Re

APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to LAPD being

04/15/2021
04/15/2021 04/15/2021 04/15/2021 04/19/2021

restrained and enjoined from using 40 mm and 37 mm projectiles in

public demonstrations. 53 , and Corrected APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to LAPD being restrained and enjoined from using 40 mm and 37 mm projectiles in public

demonstrations. 54 . Counsel should use a land line and handset from a quiet location, no speaker phone. Wait on the line until your case is called, while you are waiting, please mute your phone as the Court can hear all the noise in the background. The call in number will be given to the parties one day before the hearing. (ys) (Entered: 04/14/2021)
65 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC HEARING RE STATUS CONFERENCE RE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 53

54 held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Following discussions with the parties, the Court advises counsel that the plaintiff shall file today by no later than 1:00 pm, a modified proposed order with the language as to the restrictions by law enforcement. Defense counsel will email to the Court an electronic link to the video clips by no later than 1:00 pm today. Once the Court has reviewed these items an order will issue. Court Reporter: Miranda Algorri. (lom) (Entered: 04/15/2021)

REVISED PROPOSED ORDER re Corrected APPLICATION for

66

Temporary Restraining Order as to LAPD being restrained and

enjoined from using 40 mm and 37 mm projectiles in public

demonstrations. 54 filed by Plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angeles. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/15/2021)

67

OBJECTIONS to Motion Related Document, 66 filed by

Defendants City of Los Angeles, Michel Moore. (Dermer, Gabriel)

(Entered: 04/15/2021)

SUPPLEMENT to Corrected APPLICATION for Temporary

68

Restraining Order as to LAPD being restrained and enjoined from

using 40 mm and 37 mm projectiles in public demonstrations. 54

Evidence in Record of 37 and 44mm weapons filed by Plaintiff

Black Lives Matter Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Monterrosa Dec and Ex 16-17)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/15/2021)
69 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Defendants City of Los Angeles, Michel Moore for Court Reporter. (Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 04/19/2021)

04/19/2021 04/19/2021
04/20/2021 04/20/2021 04/20/2021

MINUTE IN CHAMBERS- ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE

70

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING by Judge Consuelo B.

Marshall: Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Request for Order to

Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction. (Dkt. 54.) Defendants are

ordered to show cause why a prelimina1y injunction should not

issue. Defendants' response is to be filed no later than April 26,

2021, and Plaintiffs' reply is to be filed no later than April 28, 2021.

The hearing date is May 3, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. IT IS SO

ORDERED. (shb) (Entered: 04/19/2021)

ORDER RE: COURTS RULING ON PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION 71
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 53 54 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Accordingly, Defendants Request to Strike Plaintiffs TRO and, in the alternative, additional time to file opposition is DENIED. The Court GRANTS-IN-PART Plaintiffs TRO and orders as follows: LAPD is restricted from using the 40mm and 37mm launchers in public demonstrations except by officers who are properly trained and certified to use the less-lethal launchers; LAPD must give a verbal warning to disperse consist with the LAPD use of force directive and a reasonable opportunity to comply before deploying a 40mm or 37mm launcher, except when an officer is attacked; The 40mm and 37mm less-lethal launcher may only be used on persons who pose a threat of serious bodily harm to others, including law enforcement; The 40mm launcher must not be used to target the head, neck, face, eyes, or spine of a person; and LAPD is restricted from aiming the launchers at the upper bodies ofdemonstrators and within five feet. IT IS SO ORDERED. (shb) (Entered: 04/19/2021)

72 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 04-15-21, 11:15 am. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Miranda Algorri, phone number/email mirandaalgorri@gmail.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 5/11/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/21/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/19/2021. (Algorri, Miranda) (Entered: 04/20/2021)

73 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 04-1521, 11:15 am re Transcript 72 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Algorri, Miranda) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/20/2021)

74 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angeles for Court Reporter. Court will contact Carol Sobel at

04/20/2021 75
04/21/2021 76
04/22/2021 77
04/23/2021 78

carolsobellaw@gmail.com with further instructions regarding this order. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the court reporter. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/20/2021)
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for TO DISSOLVE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER filed by DEFENDANTS City of Los Angeles, Michel Moore. (Attachments:
# 1 Memorandum OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, # 2
Declaration OF ROGER MURPHY IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS' MOTION, # 3 Proposed Order) (Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 04/20/2021)
OPPOSITION OPPOSITION re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Order for TO DISSOLVE TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER 75 filed by Plaintiff Black Lives
Matter Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Sobel Declaration and Exhibits 18-20)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/21/2021)
MINUTE IN CHAMBERS-ORDER AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Counsel are hereby notified that pursuant to the Judge's directive, the Defendant's
motion for order to dissolve Temporary Restraining Order 75 is hereby set for Telephonic hearing on Friday, April 23, 2021 at 2pm. Counsel should use a land line and handset from a quiet location, no speaker phone. Wait on the line until your case is called, while you are waiting, please mute your phone as the Court can hear all the noise in the background. The call in number will be given to the parties one day before the hearing. IT IS SO ORDERED. See order for further details. (shb) (Entered: 04/22/2021)
MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC HEARING RE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISSOLVE OR CLARIFYTRO IN PART; IN THE INTERIM, TO STAY TRO, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STAY TRO IN PART PENDING EMERGENCY APPELLATE
RELIEF 75 held before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The case is called and counsel state their appearance. The Court and counsel confer. Following discussions with the parties, the Court advises counsel that the motion is taken under submission and a written order will issue. The hearing re Order to Show Cause re the preliminary injunction will remain on calendar for Monday, MAY 3,

04/23/2021 04/26/2021 04/26/2021
04/26/2021 04/26/2021

2021 at 10:00 a.m. Court Reporter: Katie Thibodeaux. (shb) (Entered: 04/23/2021)

79 TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Defendants City of Los Angeles, Michel Moore for Court Reporter. (Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 04/23/2021)

OBJECTIONS opposition re: Corrected APPLICATION for

80

Temporary Restraining Order as to LAPD being restrained and

enjoined from using 40 mm and 37 mm projectiles in public

demonstrations. 54 filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles, Michel Moore. (Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 04/26/2021)

81 TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 04/23/21 2:04 pm. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: Katie Thibodeaux, CSR, RPR, CRR, phone number ktbdx@aol.com. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 5/17/2021. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/27/2021. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/26/2021. (Thibodeaux, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/26/2021)

82 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 04/23/21 2:04 pm re Transcript 81 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (Thibodeaux, Elizabeth) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/26/2021)

OPPOSITION to Corrected APPLICATION for Temporary

83

Restraining Order as to LAPD being restrained and enjoined from

using 40 mm and 37 mm projectiles in public demonstrations. 54

[Doc 78] filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles, Michel

Moore. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Donald R. Graham,

Jr., # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5

Exhibit D, # 6 Declaration of Steven Lurie, # 7

Exhibit A, # 8 Declaration of Roger Murphy, # 9

Exhibit 5, # 10 Exhibit 6, # 11 Exhibit 7, # 12

Exhibit 8, # 13 Declaration of German Hurtado)(Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 04/26/2021)

04/26/2021 04/27/2021
04/27/2021
04/27/2021 04/27/2021 04/27/2021 04/28/2021

NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles,

84

Michel Moore of Flash Drive with video clips. (Plowden, Geoffrey)

(Entered: 04/26/2021)

PARTIES' REPORT OF MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS AND

85

PROPOSED MODIFIED LANGUAGE TO TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER (Dkt. 71); [PROPOSED ORDER re

Corrected APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to

LAPD being restrained and enjoined from using 40 mm and 37 mm

projectiles in public demonstrations. 54 filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles, Michel Moore. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 04/27/2021)

SUPPLEMENT to Corrected APPLICATION for Temporary

86

Restraining Order as to LAPD being restrained and enjoined from

using 40 mm and 37 mm projectiles in public demonstrations. 54

(Dkt. 71) filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles, Michel

Moore. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 'A' Re Revised Temporary Restraining Order)(Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 04/27/2021)

DECLARATION of GERMAN HURTADO opposition Corrected

87

APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to LAPD being

restrained and enjoined from using 40 mm and 37 mm projectiles in

public demonstrations. 54 Supplemental Declaration, and in support of [Doc 83] filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles, Michel Moore. (Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 04/27/2021)

88 NOTICE of Manual Filing filed by Defendants City of Los Angeles, Michel Moore of EXH B - FLASH DRIVE OF VIDEO CLIPattached to Supplemental Declaration of German Hurtado in Support of the City's Response to the OSC re Preliminary Injunction. (Plowden, Geoffrey) (Entered: 04/27/2021)

SUPPLEMENT RE MODIFICATION TO TRO filed by Plaintiff

89

Black Lives Matter Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order

RE MODIFICATION OF TRO)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered:

04/27/2021)

AMENDED ORDER RE: RULING ON PLAINTIFFS

90

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 71

75 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Defendants Request to Strike Plaintiffs TRO and, in the alternative, additional time to file opposition is DENIED. The Courts previous Order is modified as follows: 1. LAPD is restricted from using the 40mm and 37mm launchers in public demonstrations except by officers who

04/28/2021 04/28/2021 04/28/2021

successfully completed Department training and meet all annual qualification requirements on the weapons; 2. An officer may use 40mm less-lethal munitions only when the officer reasonably believes that a suspect is violently resisting arrest or poses an immediate threat of violence or physical harm. The use of 40mm less-lethal munitions should be preceded by a warning, if feasible; 3. An officer may use 37mm less-lethal munitions as a crowd control tool only with the prior approval of the incident commander and only when a dispersal order has been issued, unless immediate action is necessary to stop violence, to ensure public safety and restore order. A warning to disperse must be given, consistent with all of the dispersal order requirements set forth in LAPD Use of Force Tactics Directive No. 11.1, and then the officer may fire the 37 mm at the ground 5 to 10 feet in front of the crowd. The 37 mm may not be used as a target specific munition unless absolutely necessary to prevent imminent serious bodily injury to the officer or others. 4. The 40mm launcher must not be used to target the head, neck, face, eyes, kidneys, chest, groin or spine of a person. 5. The 40 mm and 37 mm launchers should be fired at a distance of five feet or greater from another person, unless an officer or other person is attacked and there is a threat of imminent serious harm. This order supersedes the Order re TRO issued on April 19, 2021. IT IS SO ORDERED. (shb) (Entered: 04/28/2021)
91 MINUTE IN CHAMBERS-ORDER AND NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Counsel are hereby notified that the above matter is set on the Court's calendar for a Telephonic hearing re Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction set for MAY 3, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Counsel should use a land line and handset from a quiet location, no speaker phone. Wait on the line until your case is called, while you are waiting, please mute your phone as the Court can hear all the noise in the background. The call in number will be given to the pa1iies one day before the hearing. See order for further details. (shb) (Entered: 04/28/2021)
92 RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of Corrected APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to LAPD being restrained and enjoined from using 40 mm and 37 mm projectiles in public
demonstrations. 54 OSC RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by Plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angeles. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/28/2021)
93 SUPPLEMENT to Corrected APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to LAPD being restrained and enjoined from using 40 mm and 37 mm projectiles in public demonstrations. 54

04/28/2021 04/29/2021 04/29/2021 04/29/2021 05/02/2021

FACTS, DECLARATIONS AND EXHIBITS IN RESPONSE TO OSC RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by Plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angeles. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration SUPP GUERRERO DECL, # 2 Exhibit EXHIBIT 21, # 3 Exhibit EXHIBIT 22, # 4 Exhibit EXHIBIT 23, # 5 Declaration SUPP BAFFA DECL AND EXHIBIT 24)(Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/28/2021)
94 REPLY ISO OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE re Corrected APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to LAPD being restrained and enjoined from using 40 mm and 37 mm projectiles in
public demonstrations. 54 AND OSC RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by Plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angeles. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/28/2021)
95 OBJECTIONS EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' DECLARATIONS re: Corrected APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to LAPD being restrained and enjoined from using 40 mm and 37 mm projectiles in public
demonstrations. 54 filed by Plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angeles. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/29/2021)
96 DECLARATION of ANDREW GUERRERO IN SUPPORT OF Corrected APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to LAPD being restrained and enjoined from using 40 mm and 37 mm
projectiles in public demonstrations. 54 AND OSC RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by Plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angeles. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 04/29/2021)
97 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER CHANGING TIME FOR TELEPHONIC HEARING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: On the Court's own motion, the TIME for the hearing set for May 3, 2021 is changed from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (gga) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/29/2021)
98 SUPPLEMENT to Corrected APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to LAPD being restrained and enjoined from using 40 mm and 37 mm projectiles in public demonstrations. 54
FILING DECISION OF SDOH GRANTING INJUNCTION filed by Plaintiff Black Lives Matter Los Angeles. (Sobel, Carol) (Entered: 05/02/2021)

05/03/2021

99 MINUTES OF TELEPHONIC HEARING RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Held and Completed) before Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The case is called and counsel state their appearances. The Court and Counsel Confer. The parties stipulate to extend the current Amended Temporary Restraining

05/07/2021
05/10/2021 05/10/2021

Order 90 until May 7, 2021. Court Reporter: Sharon Seffens. (shb) (Entered: 05/04/2021)

MINUTE IN CHAMBERS - ORDER RE ORDER TO SHOW

100

CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge Consuelo B.

Marshall. Pending before the Court is the Order to Show Cause re

Preliminary Injunction. The parties stipulated to extend the current

amended Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") until today, May 7,

2021. However, the Court is not prepared to issue the Order.

Accordingly, the Court orders that the TRO remains in full force and

effect until 5:00pm on Monday, May 10, 2021. IT IS SO

ORDERED. (shb) (Entered: 05/07/2021)

101 ORDER RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Preliminary Injunction. IT IS SO ORDERED. See order for details. (shb) (Entered: 05/10/2021)

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall:

102

The Court having granted Plaintiffs Request for Preliminary

Injunction issues the following: 1. LAPD is restricted from using the

40mm and 37mm launchers in public demonstrations except by

officers who successfully completed Department training and meet

all annual qualification requirements on the weapons; 2. An officer

may use 40mm less-lethal munitions only when the officer

reasonably believes that a suspect is violently resisting arrest or

poses an immediate threat of violence or physical harm. The use of

40mm less-lethal munitions should be preceded by a warning, if

feasible, consistent with the Use of Force Warning set forth in LAPD

Use of Force Tactics Directive No. 17; 3. An officer may use 37mm

less-lethal munitions as a crowd control tool only with the prior

approval of the incident commander and only when a dispersal order

has been issued, unless immediate action is necessary to stop

violence, to ensure public safety and restore order. A warning to

disperse must be given, consistent with all of the dispersal order

requirements set forth in LAPD Use of Force Tactics Directive No.

11.1, and then the officer may fire the 37 mm at the ground 5 to 10

feet in front of the crowd. The 37 mm may not be used as a target

specific munition unless absolutely necessary to prevent imminent

serious bodily injury to the officer or others; IT IS SO ORDERED.

See order for further details. (shb) (Entered: 05/10/2021)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

05/24/2021 10:06:15

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse

Client Code:

Hill

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:20-cv-05027-CBMAS End date: 5/24/2021

Billable Pages:

21

Cost:

2.10

 
 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 1 Filed 06/05/20 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:1

Cynthia Anderson Barker 1 NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD

2

3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010

3

t. 213 381-3246 f. 213 252-0091

4 e. cablaw@hotmail.com

R. Brent Wisner, Esq. (SBN: 276023) e. rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com Pedram Esfandiary (SBN: 312569)

5 6 7

Paul Hoffman, SBN 71244 John Washington SBN 315991 SCHONBRUN, SEPLOW, HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP 11543 W. Olympic Blvd. SBN 315991

e. pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com Bijan Esfandiari (SBN:223216) Monique Alarcon (SBN: 311650) BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C.

8 Los Angeles, California 90064-1508 10940 Wilshire Blvd., 17th Floor

t. 310 396-0731; f. 310 399-7040

Los Angeles, CA 90024

9 e. hoffpaul@aol.com

t. 310 207-3233

e. jwashington@sshhlaw.com
10

f. 310 820-7444

11 12

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Additional Counsel on Following Page

Barrett S. Litt, SBN 45527 Lindsay Battles SBN 262862

KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT

13

975 E. Green Street Pasadena, California 91106

14

t. 626 844-7660 f. 626 844-7670

15

e. blitt@kmbllaw.com e. lbattles@kmbllaw.com

16

17

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION

20 BLACK LIVES MATTER LOS

Case No.:

ANGELES, CANGRESS (DBA LOS

21 ANGELES COMMUNITY ACTION

COMPLAINT: CLASS ACTION

NETWORK), LINUS SHENTU,

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND

22 WESTON ROWLAND, individually DAMAGES

and on behalf of a class of similarly

23 situated persons,

42 U.S.C. § 1983: FIRST, FOURTH

24

AND FOURTEENTH PLAINTIFFS, AMENDMENTS

25

vs.

26

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal entity, CHIEF MICHEL

27 MOORE , and DOES 1-10 inclusive,

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

28

DEFENDANTS.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 1 Filed 06/05/20 Page 2 of 25 Page ID #:2

1 Carol A. Sobel, SBN 84483 Katherine Robinson SBN 323470
2 LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL 725 Arizona Avenue, Suite 300
3 Santa Monica, CA 90401 t. 310 393-3055
4 e. carolsobel@aol.com 5 e. katherine.robinson@gmail.com

6 Colleen Flynn, SBN 234281

7

LAW OFFICE OF COLLEEN FLYNN 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910

8

Los Angeles, CA 90010 t. 213 252-9444

9 r. 213 252-0091

e. cflynn@yahoo.com

10
Matthew Strugar, SBN 232951 11 LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW STRUGAR
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910

12 Los Angeles, CA 90039

t. 323 696-2299 13 e. matthewstrugar@gmail.com

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Jorge Gonzalez SBN 100799 2485 Huntington Dr., Ste. 238 SAN MARINO, CA 91108-2622 t. 626 328-3081 e. jgonzalezlawoffice@gmail.com
Olu Orange SBN 213653 Orange Law Offices 3435 Wilshire BLvd., Ste. 2910 LOS ANGELES, CA. 90010-2015 T. 213 736-9900 f. 213 417-8800 e. o.orange@orangelawoffices.com

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 1 Filed 06/05/20 Page 3 of 25 Page ID #:3

1

1. This action arises out of the protests across the nation following the

2 murder of George Floyd by officers with the Minneapolis Police Department. The

3 events in Minneapolis, in a very short time frame after the deaths of Breonna Taylor

4 and Ahmaud Arbery, brought out hundreds of thousands of people around the

5 country simultaneously to condemn the deaths of black and brown men and women

6 at the hands of law enforcement and vigilantes condoned by local law enforcement.

7 Some of the larger demonstrations in the country occurred in the Los Angeles area.

8 Over the course of approximately a week, the Los Angeles Police Department

9 arrested more than 2600 individuals engaged in peaceful protest.

10

2. This was not the first time that the LAPD has engaged in these tactics.

11 Over the course of the last several decades, the Defendant City has been sued

12 repeatedly for many of the same tactics on display the past week, including kettling

13 protestors before declaring an unlawful assembly, excessive force with batons and

14 rubber bullets, and prolonged handcuffing and improper conditions of confinement

15 for arrestees, only recently settling a lawsuit raising many of the same challenges in

16 the protests that followed the decision of the Ferguson Grand Jury not to indict the

17 officer who shot and killed Michael Brown. See Chua v. City of Los Angeles, 16-

18 cv-00237-JAK-GJS (C.D. Ca.). By kettling the demonstrators, detaining, keeping

19 them tightly handcuffed on buses for hours, without access to bathroom facilities,

20 water or food, Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the U.S. and California

21 constitution.

22

3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ claims

23 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights

24 jurisdiction). This Court has jurisdiction to issue declaratory or injunctive relief

25 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57.

26

4. Venue is proper in the Central District of California pursuant to 28

27 U.S.C. § 1391, as all Defendants and events giving rise to the claims herein occurred

28 in the Central District of California.

1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 1 Filed 06/05/20 Page 4 of 25 Page ID #:4

1

PARTIES

2

5. Plaintiff BLACK LIVES MATTER LOS ANGELES (“BLMLA”) is

3 part of a nationwide organization with chapters in many major cities, including Los

4 Angeles. The organization originated in Los Angeles with demonstrations on July

5 13, 2013, the date George Zimmerman was acquitted of killing teen-ager Trayvon

6 Martin in Florida.

7

6. BLMLA is one of the largest and most active chapters of the

8 organization, with nearly 500 active members and organized ally groups, including

9 White People for Black Lives. On average, BLM sponsors four actions a week.

10 Defendants’ actions interfered with BLMLA’s right to assembly and speech. The

11 BLMLA plans to assist, plan, participate in, hold similar events in the future, on its

12 own or in conjunction with others, and is fearful that the police actions in response

13 to these and similar protests of sanctioned executions will be repeated absent

14 injunctive relief to prohibit the practices, policies, and customs of the LAPD that

15 resulted in the unlawful action in response to the recent protests throughout the City.

16

7. In response to the murder of George Floyd, BLM organized protests in

17 Los Angeles. One such action was held at Pan Pacific Park in Los Angeles on

18 Saturday, May 30, 2020. During the course of this protest and others over the past

19 week, while BLMLA and its members were engaged in lawful First Amendment

20 activity, the LAPD used force to terminate the protests, including the indiscriminate

21 use of so-called “less lethal” weapons that caused injury to its members and instilled

22 fear in them that, if they chose to assemble in public spaces to express their

23 opposition to police violence across the nation against black men and women, they

24 would be the subject of such violence and arrest.

25

8. Plaintiff CANGRESS, dba Los Angeles Community Action Network

26 (LA CAN), is a grassroots non-profit organization operating in Skid Row for

27 approximately two decades. More than 800 low-income residents of Skid Row are

28 involved with LA CAN, many of whom are unsheltered each night. In addition,

2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 1 Filed 06/05/20 Page 5 of 25 Page ID #:5

1 individuals such as Plaintiff SHENTU are members and supporters of the

2 organization. The primary purpose of the organization is to organize and empower

3 community residents to work collectively to address systemic poverty and

4 oppression in the community. Since its founding in 1999, LACAN has been the only

5 member-driven organization in Skid Row whose goal is to protect the rights and

6 prevent the further disenfranchisement of homeless and poor people in Los Angeles.

7 LA CAN brings this action on behalf of its members and associates who have been

8 arrested, subjected to the use of less-lethal weapons and other tactics aimed at

9 shutting down public spaces over the past 10 days by employees and agents of the

10 City pursuant to the enforcement policies, practices and customs of the City. As a

11 result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, LA CAN has expended personnel resources

12 to try and prevent at-risk individuals from being subjected to these unlawful policies

13 and assist their members and associates to be safe from police actions.

14

9. Plaintiff LINUS SHENTU is a long-time member of CANGRESS. On

15 June 2, 2020, he was participating in a peaceful protest in Hollywood, near Sunset

16 and Vine. When the march was on Van Ness between Melrose and Santa Monica

17 Boulevard, SHENTU observed police started blocking streets and kittling the

18 protestors. The march was accompanied by a car caravan. From a half a block away,

19 SHENTU observed the police dragging people out of cars. All around him, the

20 marchers started running. SHENTU and his partner were able to locate the sister of

21 his partner and jumped in her car. Because the police had blocked off all of the

22 streets, they could not leave the area. To avoid arrest and be safe, they followed

23 other cars to a parking lot ofa nearby apartment building.

24

10. As they remained in their car, they observed a few officers enter the

25 back yard and begin to pull people out of their vehicles. The officers ordered

26 SHENTU, his partner and her sister out of their cars, opened the rear passenger door

27 where his partner was seated and began to yank her harshly by her arm. SHENTU

28 voluntarily exited the rear passenger seat. They were lined up on the side of the

3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 1 Filed 06/05/20 Page 6 of 25 Page ID #:6

1 building with their hands zip tied behind their backs. In all, approximately 30

2 individuals were arrested and held at Elmwood and Van Ness for approximately one

3 hour while officers filled out Field Interview cards with their personal identifiers.

4

11. After approximately one hour, Sheriff’s buses arrived to transport the

5 arrestees. They were driven to a makeshift processing center in Van Nuys. In all,

6 SHENTU estimates that he was detained, handcuffed tightly behind his back, for

7 about four hours. SHENTU, his partner and his partner’s sister experienced

8 numbness, bruising and soreness from the handcuffing and the forced removal from

9 their vehicle.

10

12. The injuries and violations of rights experienced by Plaintiff SHENTU

11 are typical of, and consistent with, the violations of rights and injuries suffered by

12 the arrestee class. `

13

13. In addition to the experience of Plaintiff SHENTU, other members of

14 organizational plaintiff CANGRESS were subjected to excessive force. Most, if not

15 all of these individuals, are unhoused and had no place they could go to avoid

16 violating the curfew. Some were arrested and taken to Jackie Robinson stadium on

17 the VA property in West Los Angeles. They were all tightly handcuffed from the

18 time they were arrested, transported across town to Brentwood, held for processing

19 and then released, homeless on the streets of Los Angeles during a city-wide curfew.

20

14. Still other low-income residents of Skid Row were subjected to

21 excessive force through the indiscriminate use of “rubber bullets” by the LAPD. For

22 example, a participant in LA CAN, “Cincinatti,” was struck in the face by so-called

23 less lethal weapons. Cincinatti is disabled and in a wheelchair. He pleaded with

24 police not to use force on him before being shot in the face. But he was not the only

25 disabled person in a wheelchair to be struck in the face by a rubber bullet as the

26 LAPD enforced curfew laws and other misdemeanors in the last week.

27

28

4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 1 Filed 06/05/20 Page 7 of 25 Page ID #:7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 is the first c

n

12

13

14

15. Plaintiff Weston Rowland is a resident of Los Angeles County. After

15 going to the BLMLA rally in Pan Pacific Park on Saturday, Rowland marched with

16 the protestors to the Fairfax area. As he left the Park, the police was struck with a

17 baton in the ribs and his friend was repeatedly struck with a baton. The police had

18 formed a line blocking the march. Rowland heard no orders from the officers other

19 than “back up.” In a very short time, the officers opened fire with less lethal weapons,

20 aiming directly at the demonstrators and striking many in the upper body. As

21 Weston tried to help a woman on the ground, without notice or warning, he was

22 struck with a rubber bullet in his shoulder and sustained extensive bruising and pain.

23 He sues as an individual and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals.

24

16. Defendants’ actions interfered with BLMLA’s right to assembly and

25 speech. BLMLA plans to assist, plan, participate in, hold similar events in the future,

26 on its own or in conjunction with others, and is fearful that the police actions in

27 response to these and similar protests of sanctioned executions will be repeated

28 absent injunctive relief to prohibit the practices, policies, and customs of the LAPD

5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 1 Filed 06/05/20 Page 8 of 25 Page ID #:8

1 that resulted in the unlawful action in response to the recent protests throughout the

2 City.

3

17. Defendants’ actions also interfered with the work of Plaintiff

4 CANGRESS to advocate for racial and economic justice for the residents of Skid

5 Row, both housed and unhoused. Because Defendants indiscriminately arrested

6 individuals on Skid Row for violations of the curfew and assaulted them with less

7 lethal weapons, Plaintiff CANGRESS has had to shift its resources to protecting its

8 members and other residents of Skid Row from the unlawful conduct of the LAPD.

9 Plaintiff CANGRESS’ time in recent months was heavily focused on advocating for

10 and protecting a highly-vulnerable population for COVID-19 from the greater

11 likelihood of contracting and dying from the virus based on their poverty, underlying

12 medical conditions and race.

13

18. The Plaintiff classes consist of: 1) approximately 2600 individuals who

14 were subjected to excessively tight and prolonged handcuffing, held on buses and in

15 garages for extended periods of time, without access to bathrooms or water when

16 they engaged in the spontaneous protests against a number of recent widely

17 publicized police killings of civilians, the most recent spark being the murder of

18 George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota; and 2) approximately 10,000 individuals,

19 if not more, who were struck by so-called “rubber bullets” and/or baton strikes

20 administered without lawful justification and in a manner contrary that was contrary

21 to proper use and inflicted maximum injury.

22

19. Defendant City of Los Angeles is a municipal corporation duly

23 organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California.

24 The Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) is a local government entity and an

25 agency of Defendant City of Los Angeles, and all actions of the LAPD are the legal

26 responsibility of the City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles is sued in its own

27 right on the basis of its policies, customs, and practices which gave rise to Plaintiffs’

28 federal rights claims.

6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 1 Filed 06/05/20 Page 9 of 25 Page ID #:9

1

20. Defendant Chief Michel Moore, is and was, at all times relevant to this

2 action, the LAPD police chief and a policymaker for his department. He is sued in

3 both his individual and official capacities. .

4

21. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that Does 1

5 through 10 were the agents, servants, and employees of Defendants City of Los

6 Angeles and/or the LAPD. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of

7 Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore sue these

8 Defendant by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege

9 their true names and capacities when ascertained. The individual Doe Defendants

10 are sued in both their individual and official capacities.

11

22. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that at all times

12 relevant hereto Does 1 through 10, in addition to the named Defendants, are

13 responsible in some manner for the damages and injuries alleged herein.

14

23. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that at all times

15 relevant hereto Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants and

16 employees of the other Defendants and were acting at all times within the scope of

17 their agency and employment and with the knowledge and consent of their principal

18 and employer. At all times Defendants were acting under color of state law.

19

24. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that the practices,

20 policies, and customs of the City of Los Angeles and/or the LAPD caused the

21 unlawful action taken against Plaintiffs.

22

FACTS

23

24

25. On May 25, 2020, Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin

25 murdered George Floyd, suspected of forgery for attempting to use a purported

26 counterfeit $20 bill. Officer Chauvin, along with two other officers, held Mr. Floyd

27 on the ground, handcuffed behind his back, and ignored pleas to get off his neck,

28 back and legs and let him breathe. Mr. Floyd died on the street in Minneapolis.

7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 1 Filed 06/05/20 Page 10 of 25 Page ID #:10

1

26. Because of extensive video by onlookers, security cameras and,

2 ultimately police body cameras, both the Minneapolis law enforcement and

3 prosecutors, as well as the public, concluded that George Floyd was just the latest

4 person to die at the hands of police because of deliberate and unlawful tactics of law

5 enforcement.

6

27. The death of George Floyd sparked an extraordinary reaction of

7 protests across the country and the world. In Los Angeles, tens of thousands of

8 people participated in lawful and peaceful protests. While some individuals applied

9 different tactics, the Defendants treated all those who came out to express their

10 opposition to a police state to an unlawful police state with expansive curfews and

11 arrests for failing to comply with the curfews, failing to disperse, unlawful assembly,

12 failure to follow a “lawful” order of an officer and similar misdemeanors

13 undercutting the right to engage in protected expressive activity in public spaces.

14

28. California Penal Code § 409, defining an unlawful assembly, has

15 repeatedly been construed to require a showing of imminent violence that so

16 permeates a lawful expressive activity that law enforcement may curtail the rights

17 of all. Those facts did not exist in this instance. Instead, the LAPD and Mayor

18 Garcetti applied a ham-handed approach, silencing everyone. Nearly 3,000 people

19 were arrested as a result.

20

29. The arrest class of Plaintiffs were transported to LAPD jails around the

21 City. All were held on buses or off-loaded into garages and similar facilities, where

22 they were held handcuffed behind their backs. All members of the arrest class were

23 held in this manner for a minimum of several hours, with some held more than 12

24 hours in these excruciatingly painful conditions. The class members experienced

25 numbness in their hands and requests to loosen the zip ties or remove them went

26 unanswered. Without access to bathrooms, arrestees were compelled to urinate on

27 themselves.

28

8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 1 Filed 06/05/20 Page 11 of 25 Page ID #:11

1

30. The arrest class was held under these unlawful conditions of

2 confinement despite the fact that, to address the COVID-19 pandemic, California

3 currently has a $0 bail for any misdemeanor where the bail would be less than

4 $50,000. The prolonged detention of the arrest class is even more unjustified in light

5 of the mandatory instruction of California California Penal Code § 853.6, requiring

6 that individuals suspected of a misdemeanor violation be cited and released in the

7 field unless one of a limited number of restrictions apply.

8

31. Penal Code § 853.6 imposes a mandatory requirement to release

9 misdemeanor violators on their own recognizance in the field or immediately after

10 booking unless individualized probable cause exists to believe that one or more

11 exceptions to the statute exists as a basis to deny OR release. In this instance, there

12 was no reason why Defendants could not process individuals in the field and release

13 them without the prolonged handcuffing. Both § 853.6 by statute and the First

14 Amendment by constitutional principle require individualized suspicion before

15 fundamental rights may be denied. All but approximately three percent of the nearly

16 2700 individuals arrested by the LAPD over the course of the Floyd protests were

17 charged with misdemeanors for curfew violations, failure to disperse and failure to

18 file a “lawful” order of a law enforcement officer. There was no reasonable basis to

19 believe that each and every one of the arrestee Plaintiffs, or even any of the Plaintiffs ,

20 would engage in a similar purported misdemeanor violation if they had been cited

21 and released in the field. The Defendant LAPD had the capacity to process arrestees

22 in the field. On a daily basis, LAPD officers run individuals they stop on suspected

23 misdemeanor violations for wants and warrants before writing a misdemeanor

24 citation with a notice to appear. The entire Plaintiff class was denied the

25 individualized assessment of criminal liability that is the hallmark of due process

26 and each had their liberty unlawfully restricted as a result of a deliberate decision by

27 Defendant City to ignore the explicit command of Penal Code § 853.6.

28

9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 1 Filed 06/05/20 Page 12 of 25 Page ID #:12

1

32. This action was in keeping with the City’s unlawful policy, beginning

2 on or around November 17. 2011, of denying OR release to individuals arrested for

3 engaging in civil disobedience. According to former LAPD Deputy Chief Perez,

4 who first announced this policy during the Occupy protests in Los Angeles in 2011,

5 the decision was made to deny OR release to those engaged in First Amendment

6 activity to “teach people a lesson.” Subsequently, small groups of individuals

7 involved in acts of civil disobedience at the Bank of America headquarters on

8 November 17, 2011, were arrested on non-violent misdemeanor offenses arising

9 from protest activity and denied OR release. Again, on November 30, 2011, the City

10 denied OR release to the nearly 300 people arrested in connection with the mass

11 arrests at City Hall made in connection with the Occupy L.A. demonstration.

12

33. The same unlawful action occurred in the November 2014 mass arrest

13 of persons protesting the decision of the grand jury in Ferguson Missouri not to indict

14 the police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown. In public statements, then-

15 Chief Beck and other command staff in the LAPD stated that protestors would be

16 held and not released OR for retaliatory reasons and without the requisite

17 individualized suspicion. In this instance, while the Defendants did not deny OR

18 release for arrestees for minor misdemeanors, they nonetheless detained them for up

19 to 14 hours in some instances rather than cite and release them in the field as directed

20 by California Penal Code 853.6.

21

34. Both the Occupy arrests in 2011 and the Ferguson arrests in 2014

22 evince the obvious need for the Defendants to plan to respond to similar protests

23 with the technology the LAPD regularly uses on a daily basis to run wants and

24 warrants in the field, without seizing, handcuffing and detaining individuals for

25 prolonged periods of time. The failure to develop and implement such a plan reflects

26 a gross deficiency in law enforcement operations and/or a deliberate decision to

27 inflict punitive measures against individuals coming together to exercise their First

28

10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 1 Filed 06/05/20 Page 13 of 25 Page ID #:13

1 Amendment rights and express their collective outrage and opposition to police

2 abuse.

3

35. Such a basis for a blanket decision to deny Plaintiffs’ liberty and detain

4 them without justification for prolonged times violates the First, Fourth, and

5 Fourteenth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs and the class members, and was done

6 with the specific and deliberate intent to interfere with the exercise of Plaintiffs’

7 rights to assembly and due process.

8

36. Defendants had ready alternatives to the prolonged detention of the

9 arrest class in tight handcuffs, without access to bathrooms, food or water. In the

10 Ferguson protests in 2014, the LAPD detained a group of approximately 40-50

11 protestors at Beverly and Alvarado, kettled them, handcuffed them with twist-ties,

12 brought in computers and video recording equipment, collected the same

13 information as would be done in an a booking, then released them with orders to

14 disperse and advised the detainees that they would be taken to jail and held if they

15 were found again that night in violation of the dispersal order. In all, people were

16 handcuffed no longer than approximately one hour. No one suffered injury as a

17 result of the prolonged tight handcuffing and, significantly, no one was a repeat

18 offender that night or any other night as the demonstrations protesting the death of

19 Michael Brown continued. The officers patted down the demonstrators’ clothing

20 and searched their personal belongings, including backpacks, as they would do if

21 they were taking them into custody for booking. LAPD officers ran wants and

22 warrants on each detainee in the field, as they do for any traffic stop and as they do

23 with unhoused individuals in the city routinely.

24

37. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit held that a detention of a motorist in

25 handcuffs for more than 20 minutes to issue a citation and release the person was a

26 violation of the driver’s constitutional rights and raised issues of retaliation for

27 “contempt of cop.” This is significant because the length of time held excessive by

28 the Ninth Circuit is similarly to the results of a study conducted by the Los Angeles

11 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 1 Filed 06/05/20 Page 14 of 25 Page ID #:14

1 Board of Police Commissioners in or about 2013, showing the time required to cite

2 and release in the field compared to the time to book and release at the station.

3

4

MONELL ALLEGATIONS

5

38. The City, through Chief Moore and the LAPD, has failed to train its

6 officers in the constitutional responses to peaceful demonstrations as revealed by the

7 above allegations. The City has a custom and police of using excessive force against

8 peaceful protestors, kettling lawful assemblies and arresting the participants, and

9 applying policies that result in prolonged detentions in restraints, causing injury and

10 denying liberty based on some unfounded group “suspicion.” The City is well aware

11 of its constitutional duties in light of the settlement agreements and consent

12 judgments discussed below in National Lawyers Guild v. City of Los Angeles and

13 MIWON v. City of Los Angeles, as well as other agreements entered into on these

14 issues over the years. The need for training and discipline to enforce constitutional

15 guarantees in such circumstances is obvious and ncessary. The City has known of

16 the deficiencies in its training since at least 2000 and entered into settlement

17 agreements in June 2005 and June 2009, each time agreeing to revised policies and

18 training, yet failing to promulgate policies effectuating the settlement agreements

19 and/or to train its command staff and officers on revised policies, if any exist. The

20 current unlawful crowd control and use-of-force policies and the long-standing

21 customs and practices of the Defendants do not meet constitutional requirements.

22

23 THE SETTLEMENT IN NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES:
24

25

39. In June, 2005, the City of Los Angeles entered into a settlement

26 agreement in National Lawyers Guild, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., CV 01-

27 6877 FMC (CWx), an action arising from the disruption of lawful assemblies and

28 use of unlawful force during the Democratic National Convention (“DNC”) in Los

12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 1 Filed 06/05/20 Page 15 of 25 Page ID #:15

1 Angeles in 2000 and a subsequent demonstration on October 22, 2000. The

2 settlement provided for important changes in the policy and practices of the LAPD

3 as applied to demonstrations.

4

40. Significantly, the settlement provided that, prior to declaring an

5 unlawful assembly, the LAPD Incident Commander should evaluate the feasibility

6 of isolating and arresting those responsible for any unlawful conduct, and if feasible,

7 take action only against those individuals. The settlement also addressed the use of

8 less-lethal weapons and chemical irritants to disperse peaceful protestors.

9

10 THE SETTLEMENT IN MULTI-ETHNIC WORKER ORGANIZING 11 NETWORK V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES:

12

41. On May 1, 2007, the LAPD assaulted a peaceful, permitted

13 immigration march in MacArthur Park. The attack on the demonstrators was

14 without warning. No dispersal order was given until more than three minutes into

15 the police action and, even then, the dispersal order was grossly inadequate, given

16 from helicopters in English to a largely Spanish-speaking assembly. During the

17 course of litigating the MIWON action, the LAPD conceded that it had not fully

18 implemented training and policy orders regarding the NLG settlement two years

19 earlier. In fact, no policy changes were ever finalized.

20

42. On June 24, 2009, the federal district court approved and entered a

21 Structural Relief Order as part of the settlement of a class action lawsuit brought on

22 behalf of all those subjected to the LAPD’s May Day action. Through this settlement,

23 the LAPD agreed that it would facilitate demonstrations that may temporarily block

24 traffic. This latter provision is consistent with established law in the Ninth Circuit,

25 recognizing the need for local agencies to accommodate “spontaneous” protests in

26 the streets, particularly in response to allegations of police misconduct.

27

43. The MIWON order also set out requirements to declare an unlawful

28 assembly: an amplified loudspeaker system with an officer at the far side of the

13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 1 Filed 06/05/20 Page 16 of 25 Page ID #:16

1 crowd to record the officer; if there is no serious violence occurring, the order shall

2 be made repeatedly over a period of time, including an “objectively reasonable”

3 period of time to disperse and identification of “a clear and safe route” to follow to

4 disperse. The order should be given so that it is heard by the entire crowd. These

5 requirements were not met in this instance in most locations.

6

44. The terms of the MIWON structural relief agreement were to be

7 included in the LAPD’s Crowd Control and Use of Force Manuals and every officer

8 at the rank of Sergeant I and above, as well as the entire Metropolitan Division, were

9 to undergo training every two years. Chief Moore, as well as those members of his

10 command staff officers to whom he has delegated his responsibility to enact and

11 implement lawful policies for responding to demonstrations are aware of the

12 unlawful policies, practices, and customs of the City and the LAPD which resulted

13 in the settlement in National Lawyers Guild v. City of Los Angeles in June, 2005.

14 Moreover, Chief Moore and his delegated command staff are aware that the use of

15 unlawful dispersal orders, baton strikes and “less-lethal” weapons to break up lawful

16 protests, in particular, is a custom so ingrained in the marrow of the LAPD that it

17 was critical to take all steps necessary to ensure that official policy was implemented

18 in a manner sufficient to address the deeply rooted custom to violate First

19 Amendment rights in the specific ways identified in the National Lawyers Guild

20 settlement agreement. The failure to take such steps directly lead to the injuries

21 suffered by the Plaintiffs.

22

45. Chief Moore, as well as those members of his command staff officers

23 to whom he has delegated his responsibility to enact and implement lawful policies

24 on the declaration of an unlawful assembly, are aware of the unlawful policies,

25 practices, and customs of the City and the LAPD which resulted in the settlements

26 in NLG and MIWON. Moreover, Chief Moore and his delegated command staff are

27 aware that the use of unlawful dispersal orders to break up lawful protests and the

28 use of excessive force is a custom so ingrained in the marrow of the LAPD that it

14 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 1 Filed 06/05/20 Page 17 of 25 Page ID #:17

1 was critical to take all steps necessary to ensure that official policy was implemented

2 in a manner sufficient to address the deeply rooted custom to violate First

3 Amendment rights in the specific ways identified in the settlement agreements. The

4 failure to take such steps directly lead to the injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs. This

5 failure amounted to an “acquiescence in the constitutional deprivations of which

6 [the] complaint is made” and deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with

7 whom the police come into contact, and constituted a conscious choice by the City

8 not to properly train its law enforcement personnel on these issues.

9

46. The City, through Chief Moore and his command staff to whom he

10 delegated decision-making, also knew from the recent litigation involving the

11 Occupy-protest arrests, Aichele v. City of Los Angeles, and Chua v. City of Los

12 Angeles that it violated Plaintiffs’ right to due process and deprived them of their

13 liberty interest in violation of Penal Code § 853.6 based on their perceived

14 association with the protest.

15

47. On information and belief, Chief Moore delegated responsibility and

16 authority to persons within his command staff to act as the final policy maker in

17 determining the response to assemblies at various locations where protests of the

18 death of George Floyd occurred. The persons who made these decisions, acted as

19 the delegated policy maker for the City of Los Angeles on these issues. There was

20 no time, opportunity, or procedure for anyone to review or revise the decisions made

21 by these delegated policy makers prior to their final implementation.

22

23

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

24

48. The named Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of a

25 proposed class of all other persons similarly situated pursuant to FRCivP Rule

26 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3). The damages classes are defined as:

27

1. all persons who were arrested by the LAPD on misdemeanor charges of

28

failure to obey a curfew, failure to disperse, failure to follow a lawful order

15 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 1 Filed 06/05/20 Page 18 of 25 Page ID #:18

1

of a police officer and/or unlawful assembly, all in association with the

2

protests against the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota and

3

who were subjected to prolonged tight hand-cuffing, denied access to

4

bathrooms, water and food;

5

2. all persons who were shot with so-called “less-lethal weapons” and/or

6

struck with batons.

7

49. Each class is inclusive of people present to protest and those otherwise

8 present in the vicinity as bystanders. The first class consists of approximately 2600

9 individuals and the second class consists of a presently unknown number but is

10 estimated as in excess of 1,000 individuals.

11

50. The injunctive relief class is defined as all persons who have in the past,

12 or may in the future, participate in, or be present at, demonstrations within the City

13 of Los Angeles in the exercise of their rights of free speech and petition. Without

14 intervention by this Court, those class members are at risk of having their rights

15 violated in the future due to the City's past and threatened future actions. The

16 injunctive relief Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to protect the future

17 lawful exercise of their constitutional rights, and, without action by this court, will

18 suffer irreparable injury, thereby entitling them to injunctive and declaratory relief.

19 The injunctive relief class is represented by the National Lawyers Guild, as well as

20 the individual class representatives.

21

51. Because the issues in the two classes are substantially the same and

22 arise from the same events, the Rule 23 criteria for the classes are discussed jointly

23 without differentiating between the different classes.

24

52. Questions of law or fact common to putative class members

25 predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and a class action

26 is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this

27 lawsuit. Alternatively, Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the

28 class, thereby making class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief appropriate.

16 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 1 Filed 06/05/20 Page 19 of 25 Page ID #:19

1

53. The claims of the putative class satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule

2 of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and, alternatively, Rule 23(b)(2).

3

54. The putative class consists of approximately 170 individuals – 130

4 individuals in the 6th and Hope Sub-Class and 40 in the Beverly and Alvarado Sub-

5 Class -- and is so numerous as to render joinder impractical.

6

55. Defendants detained and/or arrested the putative class and sub-classes

7 as a group and treated all similarly, acting on ground applicable to the putative class.

8 The named Plaintiffs’ claims that the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment

9 rights—and their analogous state Constitution, statutory, and common law rights—

10 were violated raise common question of law and fact. the Defendants have acted,

11 threaten to act, and will continue to act, on grounds generally applicable to the class,

12 thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or declaratory relief with respect

13 to the class as a whole.

14

56. Questions of law and fact are common to the class and sub-classes,

15 including whether the putative class and sub-classes were detained and/or arrested

16 without probable cause and based on unlawful or non-existent dispersal orders and

17 whether the 6th and Hope sub-class members were denied the liberty interest in OR

18 release as codified in California Penal Code § 853.6.

19

57. The legal theories and factual predicates upon which the damages

20 classes and sub-classes seek relief predominate over any questions affecting only

21 individual members. The legal harms suffered by the named Plaintiffs and the class

22 Plaintiffs are identical.

23

58. The named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the putative class

24 and sub-class each represents, as each was engaged in or associated with peaceable

25 and lawful free speech and assembly activity when each was subjected to excessive

26 force and/or arrested

27

59. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the common

28 class interest. The named Plaintiffs have a strong interest in achieving the relief

17 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 1 Filed 06/05/20 Page 20 of 25 Page ID #:20

1 requested in this Complaint, they have no conflicts with members of the Plaintiff

2 class, and they will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

3

60. The named Plaintiffs are represented by counsel who are well-

4 experienced in civil rights and class action litigation and are familiar with the issues

5 in this case. Attorneys Paul Hoffman, Barry Litt, and Carol Sobel have successfully

6 litigated a number of class action cases on behalf of protesters in Los Angeles. Most

7 recently, they were appointed by the court as class counsel in Aichele, et al. v. City

8 of Los Angeles, et al., No. 2:12-CV-10863-DMG (C.D. Cal. August 26, 2012),

9 challenging, inter alia, the LAPD’s denial of OR release to those arrested during the

10 Occupy action at Los Angeles City Hall. They were also appointed as class counsel

11 in Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Worker Network v. City of Los Angeles, 24 F.R.D. 631

12 (C.D. Cal. 2007), challenging the LAPD’s assault on a lawful immigrant-rights rally

13 in MacArthur Park on May 1, 2007. That case resulted in a settle of $12,850,000 --

14 the largest amount ever paid nationally in a protest case in which there were no

15 arrests of the Plaintiffs. In addition to class action protest litigation, attorneys

16 Hoffman, Litt, and Sobel have served as class counsel in a number of other class

17 actions redressing civil rights violations, including most recently Chua v. City of Los

18 Angeles, arising from the Ferguson protests in 2014.

19

61. Counsel for the named Plaintiffs know of no conflicts among or

20 between members of the class, the named Plaintiffs, or the attorneys in this action.

21

62. The Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally

22 applicable to the putative class. Injunctive and declaratory relief for the putative

23 class as a whole is appropriate.

24

63. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class

25 would create a risk of inconsistent standards of conduct for the Defendants, thereby

26 making a class action a superior method of adjudicating this lawsuit.

27

64. Plaintiffs do not know the identities of all of the class members.

28 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the identities of class

18 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 1 Filed 06/05/20 Page 21 of 25 Page ID #:21

1 members in the arrestee class may be obtained from the personal information

2 compelled by Defendants through arrest records.

3

65. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the LAPD

4 officers acted in accordance with orders given by supervisors from the highest

5 command positions, in accordance with policies and procedures instituted by the

6 LAPD and the City of Los Angeles.

7

66. As a direct and proximate cause of the conduct described herein, the

8 named individual Plaintiffs have been denied their constitutional statutory, and legal

9 rights as stated herein, and have suffered general and special damages, including but

10 not limited to, mental and emotional distress, physical injuries and bodily harm, pain,

11 fear, humiliation, embarrassment, discomfort, and anxiety and other damages in an

12 amount according to proof.

13

67. Defendants’ acts were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive, and

14 done with conscious or reckless disregard for, and deliberate indifference to,

15 Plaintiffs’ rights.

16

68. Defendants’ polices practices, customs, conduct and acts alleged herein

17 resulted in, and will continue to result in, irreparable injury the Plaintiffs, including

18 but not limited to violation of their constitutional and statutory rights. Plaintiffs have

19 no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to address the wrong described herein.

20 The Plaintiffs and class members intend in the future to exercise their constitutional

21 rights of freedom of speech and association by engaging in expressive activities in

22 the City of Los Angeles. Defendants’ conduct described herein has created

23 uncertainty among Plaintiffs with respect to their exercise now and in the future of

24 these constitutional rights. Specifically, Plaintiffs are concerned that, if arrested,

25 whether lawfully or unlawfully, they will again be denied the liberty interest codified

26 at California Penal Code § 853.6 Plaintiffs therefore seek injunctive relief from this

27 court to ensure that Plaintiffs and persons similarly situated will not suffer violations

28

19 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 1 Filed 06/05/20 Page 22 of 25 Page ID #:22

1 of their rights from Defendants’ illegal and unconstitutional policies, customs, and

2 practices described herein.

3

69. Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring

4 that Defendants seal and destroy and records derived from Plaintiffs’ arrests,

5 including fingerprints, photographs, and other identification and descriptive

6 information, and all information, and biological samples and information obtained

7 from such biological samples collected from the Plaintiff class, and identify to the

8 Plaintiff class all entities and agencies to which such information has been

9 disseminated; and that all such disseminated records be collected and destroyed.

10

70. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants in that

11 Plaintiffs contend that the policies, practices, and conduct of Defendants alleged

12 herein are unlawful and unconstitutional, whereas Plaintiffs are informed and

13 believe that Defendants contend that said policies, practices, and conduct are lawful

14 and constitution. Plaintiffs seek a declaration of rights with respect to this

15 controversy.

16

71. All of the following claims for relief are asserted against all Defendants

17

18

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

19

First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

20

72. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the preceding

21 and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.

22

73. Defendants’ above-described conduct violated Plaintiffs’ rights to

23 freedom of speech, assembly, and association under the First Amendment to the

24 United States Constitution. Lawful protests that posed no threat were interrupted by

25 police declaring unlawful assemblies without justification. For example, when

26 plaintiff BLMLA sponsored a large and peaceful protest in Pan Pacific Park, LAPD

27 officers ordered Plaintiffs’ supporters to disband and then used widespread force

28 against BLMLA.

20 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 1 Filed 06/05/20 Page 23 of 25 Page ID #:23

1

74. These tactics were repeated throughout the City based on nothing more

2 than baseless speculation of some potential unlawful activity by some unknown

3 individual(s).

4

75. Plaintiffs suffered harm as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’

5 actions, including but not limited to physical injury and pain and suffering.

6

7

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

8

Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

9

76. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the preceding

10 and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.

11

77. Defendants’ above-described conduct violated Plaintiffs’ rights to be

12 free from unreasonable seizures, excessive or arbitrary force, and arrest or detention

13 without reasonable or probable cause under the Fourth Amendment to the United

14 States Constitution. Defendants detained, seized, handcuffed, searched their persons

15 and their personnel property.

16

78. Defendants used excessive force against peaceful protestors. In

17 particular, Defendants engaged in the indiscriminate use of less lethal weapons and

18 baton strikes contrary to law. Members of the Plaintiff class who were shot with

19 “rubber bullets” and struck with batons were injured in a manner that evinced that

20 Defendants applied force unlawfully. Many individuals were struck with rubber

21 bullets in the face, head, shoulder and neck areas. Video footage of various incidents

22 shows officers shooting straight at peaceful protestors who posed no threat to the

23 police or the public. See the Instagram video May 30, 2020 at Fairfax at

24 https://www.instagram.com/p/CA3GPPYB7dz/ Similarly, individuals suffered

25 baton strikes meant not to compel people to retreat, but to injure and punish them on

26 site. See In the case of Plaintiff Rowland, he was shot in the shoulder with sufficient

27 force to cause bruising down his entire upper arm and struck with a baton when he

28

21 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 1 Filed 06/05/20 Page 24 of 25 Page ID #:24

1 attempted to help a woman who had been hit with a bator with sufficient force to

2 knock her down.

3

79. Defendants detained the arrest class of Plaintiffs for prolonged periods

4 of time, handcuffed tightly behind their back and held on buses and in garages

5 without access to bathrooms, water or food.

6

7

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

8

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983);

9

80. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the preceding

10 and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.

11

81. Plaintiffs had a liberty interest created by California Penal Code § 853.6

12 to be cited and released for a misdemeanor absent specific information and

13 individualized suspicion that they would immediately repeat the allegedly unlawful

14 conduct if promptly released and not subjected to a prolonged detention.

15 Defendants’ conduct deprived Plaintiffs of liberty without due process of law under

16 the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Based on their

17 perceived association with the protests against the continued government-sanctioned

18 killings of Black and Brown men and women at the hands of law enforcement,

19 Plaintiffs were uniformly denied the mandatory “liberty” interested codified at

20 California Penal Code § 853.6 when they were denied individualized assessment and

21 held in custody for approximately fourteen hours.

22
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
23

24

Wherefore, Plaintiffs seek judgment as follows:

25

1. An order certifying the class and each sub-class defined herein pursuant

26 to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(2) and (3);

27

2. A preliminary and permanent injunction restraining Defendants from

28 engaging in the unlawful and unconstitutional actions detailed above;

22 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 1 Filed 06/05/20 Page 25 of 25 Page ID #:25

1

3. A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ conduct detailed herein was a

2 violation of the rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States and of

3 Plaintiffs and the class members;

4

4. General and compensatory damages for Plaintiffs and the class they

5 represent for the violations of their federal constitutional and statutory rights, pain

6 and suffering, all to be determined according to proof;

7

5. An award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;

8

6. Costs of suit;

9

7. Pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law;

10

8. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

11

12 Dated: June 5, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

13

14
Schonbrun, Seplow, Harris & Hoffman
15

16

/s/ Paul L. Hoffman

17

By: PAUL L. HOFFMAN

18

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

23 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 
 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 1 of 59 Page ID #:95

Cynthia Anderson Barker SBN 75764

1 NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD

2

3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010

Barrett S. Litt, SBN 45527

3

t. 213 381-3246 f. 213 381-3246 e. cablaw@hotmail.com

Lindsay Battles SBN 262862 KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT

4

975 E. Green Street Pasadena, California 91106

5

Paul Hoffman, SBN 71244 Michael Seplow SBN 150183

t. 626 844-7660 f. 626 844-7670 e. blitt@kmbllaw.com

6 Aidan McGlaze SBN 277270

e. lbattles@kmbllaw.com

John Washington SBN 315991

7 SCHONBRUN, SEPLOW, HARRIS,

Pedram Esfandiary SBN 312569

HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP

e. pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com

8 11543 W. Olympic Blvd.

Monique Alarcon SBN 311650

Los Angeles, California 90064-1508 e. malarcon@baumhedlundlaw.com

9 t. 310 396-0731; f. 310 399-7040

Bijan Esfandiari SBN 223216

e. hoffpaul@aol.com

e. besfandiari@baumhedlundlaw.com

10 e. jwashington@sshhlaw.com

R. Brent Wisner SBN 276023

11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 12 Additional Counsel on Next Page

e. rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com
BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C.
10940 Wilshire Blvd., 17th Floor

13

Los Angeles, CA 90024 t. 310 207-3233 f. 310 820-7444

14

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION

17

BLACK LIVES MATTER LOS ANGELES, CANGRESS (DBA LA

Case No.: 2:20-cv-05027 CBM-AS

18 CAN), STEVEN ROE, NELSON

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT:

LOPEZ, TINA ČRNKO, JONATHAN CLASS ACTION; INJUNCTIVE

19 MAYORCA, ABIGAIL RODAS,

RELIEF AND DAMAGES

KRYSTLE HARTFIELD, NADIA

20 KHAN, CLARA ARANOVICH,

42 U.S.C. § 1983: FIRST, FOURTH

ALEXANDER STAMM, MAIA

AND FOURTEENTH

21 KAZIM, ALICIA BARRERA-

AMENDMENTS; CALIFORNIA

22

TRUJILO, SHANNON LEE MOORE, CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1, §§ DEVON YOUNG, LINUS SHENTU, 2 (FREEDOM OF SPEECH), 3

23

individually and on behalf of a class of (RIGHT OF PETITION AND

similarly situated persons,

ASSEMBLY), 7 (DUE PROCESS)

24

13 (SEARCH AND SEIZURE), 19 PLAINTIFFS, (CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT;

25 v.

CIVIL CODE § 52.1; PENAL CODE §853.5; GOVT. CODE §815.

26

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal entity, CHIEF MICHEL

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

27 MOORE , and DOES 1-10 inclusive,

28

DEFENDANTS.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 2 of 59 Page ID #:96

1 Carol A. Sobel, SBN 84483

2

Katherine Robinson SBN 323470 Weston Rowland SBN 327599

3

LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL 725 Arizona Avenue, Suite 300

4

Santa Monica, CA 90401 t. 310 393-3055

5

e. carolsobel@aol.com e. klrobinsonlaw@gmail.com

6 e. rowland.weston@gmail.com

7
Colleen Flynn, SBN 234281 8 LAW OFFICE OF COLLEEN FLYNN
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910 9 Los Angeles, CA 90010
t. 213 252-9444 10 r. 213 252-0091 11 e. cflynn@yahoo.com

Jorge Gonzalez SBN 100799 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2485 Huntington Dr., Ste. 238 SAN MARINO, CA 91108-2622 t. 626 328-3081 e. jgonzalezlawoffice@gmail.com Olu Orange SBN 213653 Orange Law Offices 3435 Wilshire BLvd., Ste. 2910 LOS ANGELES, CA. 90010-2015 T. 213 736-9900 f. 213 417-8800 e. o.orange@orangelawoffices.com

12

Matthew Strugar, SBN 232951 LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW STRUGAR

13

3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90039

14 t. 323 696-2299

e. matthewstrugar@gmail.com

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 3 of 59 Page ID #:97

1 I.
2

INTRODUCTION 1. This action arises out of protests across the nation following the murder

3 of George Floyd by Minneapolis Police Department officers. The events in

4 Minneapolis, soon after the deaths of Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery, brought

5 out millions of people around the country at once to condemn the deaths of black

6 and brown men and women by law enforcement and vigilantes condoned by local

7 law enforcement. Some of the larger demonstrations in the country occurred in the

8 Los Angeles area. Over the course of six days, the Los Angeles Police Department

9 arrested approximately 3000 individuals. Defendant Chief Moore told the public that 10 well more than 92 percent of those arrested were engaged in peaceful protest.1

11 Nonetheless, the Los Angeles Police Department ended the protests through the use

12 of force (batons and rubber bullets), and imposed unconstitutional conditions of

13 confinement on arrestees by holding them on enclosed buses for up to six hours or

14 longer, tightly handcuffed, without access to bathroom facilities, food or water.

15

2. On the buses, arrestees were seated just inches apart, with windows

16 closed and with no ventilation (significantly compounding the potential of exposure

17 to Covid-19). In hundreds of cases, the LAPD made false arrests where the charges

18 filed were solely infractions for which custodial authority does not exist.

19

3. The LAPD also used unreasonable and unnecessary force directly

20 against residents of Skid Row, both housed and unhoused, and caught them in the

21 crossfire of attacks on protestors through indiscriminate and improper use of kinetic

22 impact projectiles. Perhaps no image embodies this more than the photograph of a

23 homeless man in a wheelchair on Skid Row. He was shot in the head at close range

24 when police fired large projectiles while chasing a small group of protestors.

25

26

27
1 https://ktla.com/news/lapd-arrests-more-than-2700-people-amid28 protests-chief/
1 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 4 of 59 Page ID #:98

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

4. The Plaintiffs’ injuries caused by the use of so-called “rubber bullets”

14 are strong evidence in this instance that the training of the LAPD in the use of these

15 potentially lethal weapons was absent, seriously deficient, or intentionally

16 indifferent to the known serious harm that can result from the use and misuse of

17 kinetic impact projectiles (KIPs). The force of KIPS can cause serious organ injuries 18 and death, especially when the point of impact is the head, neck, and torso.2 The

19 injuries of just the few plaintiffs identified by name in this class action demonstrate

20 this finding. Several required surgery for head wounds.

21

5. All told, approximately 3000 LAPD arrests followed by the above

22 described bus detentions occurred over six nights from May 29 to June 3. On May

23 29, the protests began at the LAPD headquarters at First and Main Streets. The police

24 fired Kinetic Impact Projectiles (“KIPs”) at the protestors, causing many in the group

25

26

27
2 Haar RJ, et al. BMJ Open 2017;7:e018154. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-201728 018154
2 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 5 of 59 Page ID #:99

1 to leave and march through downtown’s jewelry district before circling back to the

2 LAPD headquarters. At about 9:30 p.m., an unlawful assembly was declared,

3 resulting in 533 arrests that night, mostly for failure to disperse, but only after first

4 using chemical irritants against the protestors. See “Arrests During George Floyd

5 Protests Swell to Near 3000 in L.A. County; Many are Locals,” Los Angeles Times

6 June 2, 2020: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-02-george-floyd-

7 protests-los-angeles-arrests-locals.

8

6. On May 30, 2020, most of the arrests occurred in the Fairfax area,

9 following a peaceful rally organized by BLM LA. When the rally ended in the early

10 afternoon, many of the participants continued peaceful protests, marching

11 throughout the Fairfax area, along Beverly and other streets. Throughout the area,

12 heavily armed officers, several lines deep at times, used unwarranted and unlawful

13 force to kettle and arrest the protestors. Most of the protestors followed orders yelled

14 at them by the officers but each time they moved in the direction that they were told

15 to move, they soon found no avenue to disperse. They were kettled, targeted with

16 impact projectiles and struck with batons as they were ordered to move back.

17 Surrounded by officers, there was nowhere for them to move. Defendant Chief

18 MOORE was on site and spoke to the kettled protestors twice, although his words

19 were inaudible to most of the trapped protestors. Chief Moore authorized, approved,

20 and ratified the unwarranted assault on the protestors with projectiles and batons.

21 Alternatively, he did nothing to stop the assault on the protestors as he witnessed it.

22

7. On Sunday, May 31, nearly 700 individuals were arrested, with many

23 subjected to unlawful force, primarily in downtown Los Angeles. See Los Angeles

24 Times June 2, 2020, available at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-

25 02-george-floyd-protests-los-angeles-arrests-locals. Of that total, approximately 10

26 percent were for property crimes, primarily looting. Tens of thousands of

27 demonstrators started a march from Pershing Square. While few arrests were made

28

3 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 6 of 59 Page ID #:100

1 during the day, at approximately 5:45 p.m., the LAPD advised the assembled

2 protestors that a curfew would go into effect at 6 p.m. and they would be arrested.

3

8. On June 1, nearly 600 individuals were arrested in Hollywood, with

4 only 20 or so charged with property crimes, such as looting. Earlier in the day, the

5 LAPD put out a news release “requesting” residents of the City not to come to

6 Hollywood that evening. Shortly before 4 p.m., the City announced the curfew that

7 night would begin at 5 p.m. instead of at 6 p.m. as on previous nights. Barely an hour

8 later, a mobile alert was sent out, announcing the curfew would, in fact, start at 6

9 p.m. Despite the correction, the police began arrests at 5 p.m. In addition to

10 Hollywood, about 100 individuals were arrested on June 1 in a protest in Van Nuys.

11

9. Mass arrests occurred on the evening of June 2, when approximately

12 1000 protestors assembled outside Mayor Garcetti’s Hancock Park home,

13 demanding that the Mayor’s budget defund the police. After a few hours,

14 participants in the protest outside the residence split up, with groups marching away

15 peacefully to the north and south. They were followed and soon kettled by the police,

16 then arrested. Approximately 120 individuals were arrested at about 8 p.m. in the 17 vicinity of Crenshaw Avenue and 8th Street on curfew violation charges, only

18 enforceable as an infraction under the Los Angeles Municipal Code.

19

10. The chart at footnote 3 lists some central arrest events and rough

20 estimates for each.3

21

22

23 3

24

DATE

AREA

# ARRESTED

25

May 29

Downtown LA

533

26

May 30

Downtown LA

398

27

May 31

Pan Pacific Park/Fairfax

700

28

June 1

Hollywood

585

4

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 7 of 59 Page ID #:101

1

11. On May 29, the third day of protests, protestors blocked the 101

2 freeway in downtown and engaged LAPD officers who responded. At 9:30 p.m.

3 Defendants declared nearly all of downtown LA an “unlawful assembly” and

4 imposed an immediate curfew for the area from the 10 freeway to the 101 freeway,

5 and from the 110 freeway to Alameda. The curfew was announced on the LAPD and 6 Mayor Garcetti Twitter accounts, and at Mayor Garcetti’s press conference.4

7

12. On Twitter, the LAPD wrote: “This [curfew order] is being made

8 following repeated acts of violence and property damage. Residents should stay

9 inside. Business should close. Those on the street are to leave the area.” This was

10

11

12

13

June 2

Mayor’s home

200

14

4

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

I.Mayor Eric Garcetti @MayorOfLA

24 We will always protect free speech and Angelenos’ right to live without fear of 25 violence or vandalism. To increase safety for demonstrators, law enforcement
and all citizens of Los Angeles, we are... 26 pscp.tv

27 https://www.pscp.tv/w/caGHiDExMTkzNjN8MWVhS2JRV21lcEJ4WLAxZ0Dzz228 iobDlWBufDWNeHPcCb-7O-UR_4tQbozv4 …

5 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 8 of 59 Page ID #:102

1 inadequate notice as it is unlikely that all, most or even many of the 10 million

2 residents of the City follow the LAPD on Twitter.

3

13. In a similar vein, the May 31 curfew, preemptively declaring all of

4 downtown to be an “unlawful assembly,” was announced in a news release posted

5 on lapdonline.org. See http://www.lapdonline.org/newsroom/news_view/66585.

6 California Penal Code §407 defines an unlawful assembly as two or more people

7 who come together to do “an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act in a “violent,

8 boisterous or tumultuous” manner. To comply with the First Amendment, the

9 California Supreme Court construed this statute narrowly to apply only to assemblies

10 that are “violent or pose a clear and present danger of imminent violence.” In re

11 Brown, 9 Cal.3d 612, 623 (1973). Defendants could not preempt all public

12 assemblies in downtown on the actions of a few at other locations and other times.

13

14. On June 1, the LAPD posted a news release on the its website, issuing

14 a “request” to the public to stay away from the Hollywood Area. See

15 http://www.lapdonline.org/newsroom/news_view/66592.

16

15. The curfew in place from the night of June 2 to the morning of June 3

17 was also announced in a press release posted on the LAPD website. See

18 http://www.lapdonline.org/newsroom/news_view/66598.

19

16. Although public outcry regarding the LAPD’s/City’s unlawful protest

20 suppression tactics resulted in the cessation of such conduct, nothing guarantees that

21 it will not resume. Resumption of this unlawful conduct is a serious risk confirmed

22 by the fact that this was not the first time that the LAPD has engaged in these tactics,

23 even after committing on prior occasions not to engage in such conduct. See Los

24 Angeles Times, June 15, 2020 (“LAPD Violence Against George Floyd Protests

25 Erodes Decades of Reform”). https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-

26 14/lapd-protest-history-criticism-heavy-tactics.

27

17. Over the course of the last several decades, the Defendant City has

28 been sued repeatedly for many of the same tactics challenged herein, including

6 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 9 of 59 Page ID #:103

1 kettling (i.e., corralling) protestors before declaring an unlawful assembly and

2 blocking all exit routes, excessive force with batons and rubber bullets, and

3 prolonged handcuffing and improper conditions of confinement for arrestees. The

4 day after George Floyd was killed in Minneapolis, the City of Los Angeles paid a

5 settlement of $750,000 for a lawsuit raising many of the same violations in the

6 protests after the Ferguson Grand Jury decision not to indict the officer who shot and

7 killed Michael Brown. See Chua v. City of Los Angeles, 16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS (C.D.

8 Ca.). By kettling the demonstrators, detaining them tightly handcuffed on buses for

9 hours, without access to bathrooms, water or food, and through other conduct

10 detailed below, Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ federal and state constitutional rights.

11

18. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ claims

12 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights

13 jurisdiction). This Court has jurisdiction to issue declaratory or injunctive relief

14 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 57.

15

19. Venue is proper in the Central District of California pursuant to 28

16 U.S.C. § 1391, as all Defendants and events giving rise to the claims herein occurred

17 in the Central District of California.

18
19 II. PARTIES - PLAINTIFFS

20

A. ORGANIZATIONAL PLAINTIFFS:

21

20. Plaintiff BLACK LIVES MATTER LOS ANGELES (“BLMLA”) is

22 part of a nationwide organization with chapters in many major cities, including Los

23 Angeles. The organization originated in Los Angeles with demonstrations on July
24
13, 2013, the date George Zimmerman was acquitted of killing teenager Trayvon
25
Martin in Florida.
26

27

21. BLMLA is one of the largest and most active chapters of the

28 organization, with nearly 500 active members and organized ally groups, including

7 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 10 of 59 Page ID #:104

1 White People for Black Lives. In response to the death of George Floyd, BLMLA

2 sponsored protests in Los Angeles and participated in demonstrations organized by

3 other groups. On average, BLMLA sponsors four actions a week. Defendants’

4 actions interfered with BLMLA’s right to assembly and speech. BLMLA plans to

5 assist, plan, participate in, hold similar events in the future, on its own or in

6 conjunction with others, and is fearful that the same unlawful police actions in

7 response to these and similar protests of institutional racism and police brutality will

8 be repeated absent injunctive relief to prohibit the LAPD’s practices, policies, and

9 customs that caused the unlawful action in response to the recent protests.

10

22. In response to the murder of George Floyd, BLMLA organized protests

11 in Los Angeles. One such action was held at Pan Pacific Park in Los Angeles on

12 Saturday, May 30, 2020. During the course of this protest and others over the past

13 week, while BLMLA and its members were engaged in lawful First Amendment

14 activity, the LAPD used force to terminate the protests, including the indiscriminate

15 use of so-called “less lethal” weapons that caused injury to its members and instilled

16 fear in them that, if they chose to assemble in public spaces to express their

17 opposition to police violence across the nation against black men and women, they

18 would be the subject of such violence and arrest.

19

23. Plaintiff CANGRESS, dba Los Angeles Community Action Network

20 (LA CAN), is a grassroots non-profit organization in Skid Row for approximately

21 two decades. More than 800 low-income residents of Skid Row are involved with

22 LA CAN, many of whom are unsheltered each night. In addition, individuals such

23 as Plaintiff SHENTU are members and supporters of the organization. The primary

24 purpose of the organization is to organize and empower community residents to

25 work collectively to address systemic poverty and oppression in the community.

26 Since its founding in 1999, LA CAN has been the only member-driven organization

27 in Skid Row whose goal is to protect the rights and prevent the further

28 disenfranchisement of homeless and poor people in Los Angeles. LA CAN brings

8 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 11 of 59 Page ID #:105

1 this action on behalf of its members and associates who have been arrested and/or

2 subjected to the use of less-lethal weapons and other tactics aimed at shutting down

3 public spaces over the past 10 days by City employees and agents pursuant to the

4 enforcement policies, practices and customs of the City. As a result of Defendants’

5 unlawful actions, LA CAN has expended personnel resources to try and prevent at-

6 risk individuals from being subjected to these unlawful policies, assist those who

7 have been physically injured by these unlawful policies, and assist their members

8 and associates to be safe from police actions.

9

B. MAY 29 ARRESTS AND FORCE PLAINTIFFS

10

24. Plaintiff STEVEN ROE participated in a peaceful protest in downtown

11 Los Angeles at or about the intersection of Temple and Spring Streets, near City Hall.

12 Around 9:00 that night, ROE observed the police form a line and begin pushing the

13 protestors toward City Hall. Approximately 100-200 people were assembled. The

14 crowd moved in compliance with the police orders, but each time the demonstrators

15 did so, they were met by other lines of police officers that blocked them. The

16 demonstrators realized that they were being herded by the police into a confined

17 space as a group and completely surrounded by officers. ROE and others asked to

18 leave the demonstration but were refused by the officers at the scene.

19

25. ROE observed a single bottle thrown at the police from behind him.

20 The police made no effort to isolate that one individual. Instead, the officers

21 advanced more aggressively toward the demonstrators. An officer took aim at ROE

22 and shot him in the stomach with kinetic impact projectile. ROE did not present a

23 threat to and was walking backward facing the officers when he was struck. The

24 KIP struck with such force that it broke the skin and caused a deep and very painful

25 injury. Two weeks after being hit, ROE still has a welt under the skin.

26

26. At approximately 9:45 p.m., the LAPD announced that everyone in the

27 group should sit down on the ground. Before this, ROE heard no announcement to

28 disperse and all requests to the LAPD to leave were ignored or denied for 45 minutes.

9 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 12 of 59 Page ID #:106

1 ROE later learned that, at about 9:35 p.m., the LAPD tweeted a declaration of an

2 unlawful assembly order. ROE does not follow the LAPD on Twitter, and besides,

3 he and more than 100 others were already kettled when the “unlawful assembly”

4 was declared on Twitter. ROE and the others were handcuffed behind their backs

5 with plastic zip ties that were very tight and caused a lot of pain and discomfort.

6 After waiting for buses to transport the group to a jail facility, they were loaded onto

7 buses and held in close contact with each other. They were driven to a location just

8 a few blocks away and could have walked there faster without extending the time

9 that they were handcuffed or creating congregate conditions on the buses that

10 increased the exposure to COVID-19. During the entire time they were in custody

11 they were not provided with any water or given access to a bathroom. ROE and

12 others asked for the zip ties to be removed because of the pain but their persistent

13 requests were ignored or refused. In all, ROE spent 2 hours and 15 minutes

14 handcuffed. His fingers were numb, and he had visible injuries from the zip ties.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

27. Plaintiff NELSON LOPEZ participated in a peaceful protest in front

25 of Los Angeles City Hall at First and Spring Street in downtown Los Angeles on the

26 evening of May 29, 2020. At approximately 7:30 p.m., he arrived at City Hall. The

27 crowd was very peaceful, with some children holding signs. LOPEZ soon observed

28 a line of officers form around the group on all sides, blocking anyone from leaving.

10 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 13 of 59 Page ID #:107

1

28. LOPEZ never heard a dispersal order. A helicopter flew over the

2 crowd, making it hard to hear. At some point, the group was told to sit on the ground

3 because they were being arrested. After about 40 minutes, LAPD officers informed

4 them that they would be issued a citation, like a traffic ticket. While seated, LOPEZ

5 called his mother, a nurse who worked nearby. After ending her 12-hour shift, she

6 came to get him on her way home. She was trapped by the LAPD and arrested.

7

29. It took about two to three hours for everyone in the group trapped at

8 City Hall to be handcuffed. Some homeless people were also swept up in these

9 arrests. Some detainees were screaming because of the tight handcuffs. Others were

10 upset because, after the officers told the group that they would only be cited and

11 release, they were now handcuffed and taken into custody.

12

30. LOPEZ estimates that approximately several hundred people were in

13 the group arrested with him. Once handcuffed, they were loaded onto buses and

14 held in close contact with each other. They were taken to what appeared to be a

15 police garage just a few blocks from City Hall. However, LOPEZ sat on the bus

16 for approximately 45 minutes, waiting for the bus to enter the garage. When

17 LOPEZ entered the garage, he observed approximately 1,000 people inside being

18 processed. He also observed more buses arriving at the location.

19

31. LOPEZ’s handcuffs were very tight, bruising his wrists and injuring

20 his shoulder (rotator cuff). He asked an officer to loosen the handcuffs but was told

21 they could not do so because they did not have sufficient replacement zip ties.

22 LOPEZ heard multiple, if not most, of the arrestees complain about tight handcuffs.

23 He did not see anyone’s handcuffs loosened in response to these complaints. He

24 was not released until approximately 3:30 a.m. He was held in handcuffs for several

25 hours in the garage before being issued a citation for a violation of LAMC 80.02

26 (“obedience to an officer”), which is only punishable as an infraction.

27

28

11 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 14 of 59 Page ID #:108
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
C. MAY 30 ARRESTS AND FORCE PLAINTIFFS
11
32. Plaintiff TINA ČRNKO attended the Black Lives Matter Los Angeles
12
rally at Pan Pacific Park on May 30, 2020, arriving at approximately 12:30 p.m. At
13
approximately 1 p.m., some of the participants began marching peacefully toward
14
the Beverly Center. After another two hours without incident, the group split into 15 three groups. One group was protesting near the intersection of 3rd Street and
16
Edinburgh peacefully. Plaintiff ČRNKO was part of that group.
17
33. Sometime before 5:30 p.m., Defendant MOORE arrived and spoke to
18
the group; however, he could not be heard over the protestors as he lacked adequate
19
amplification equipment that would allow him to be heard. At that time, additional
20
officers, wearing riot gear and brandishing more weapons, arrived on the scene.
21
Eventually, several lines of officers in riot gear kettled the group on all sides,
22
preventing everyone from leaving.
23
34. A short time after Moore spoke to the group, ČRNKO observed 24 protestors running east on 3rd Street, followed by a swarm of LAPD officers. About
25
30 minutes later, the demonstrators marched south and were able to leave the kettling
26
when Chief MOORE directed the officers on the south to allow people to exit.
27 28
12 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 15 of 59 Page ID #:109

1

35. ČRNKO then marched to the northeast corner of the intersection of 3rd

2 and Fairfax. She observed ever increasing number of LAPD officers arrive at the

3 intersection attired in riot gear, heavily armed and forming what appeared to be an

4 impenetrable wall of officers at least 10 deep stretching across a wide area.

5

36. Once again, Chief Moore appeared, this time in riot gear, and

6 addressed the crowd but, once again, he could not be heard because of the poor

7 quality of the amplification equipment he used.

8

37. At about 6:00 p.m., plaintiff observed what appeared to be some

9 panicked protestors running east on 3rd Street, followed by a large number of LAPD

10 officers moving behind them and coming toward the area where ČRNKO was

11 assembled. She began moving east, as well, but soon realized that was not an

12 available option. Soon after that, she observed a line of officers coming toward the

13 group from the west.

14

38. At approximately 6:25 p.m., she heard shots being fired. She was hit in

15 the left bicep and ribcage by KIPs. As the group she was with moved east, the

16 officers fired KIPs at them, including small projectiles colloquially referred to as

17 “rubber bullets.” She was struck on the forehead above her right eye, causing a

18 temporary hearing loss and extreme pain. She was bleeding profusely. With officers

19 continuing to advance on the group, she could not get help from a medic on site.

20 The resulting wound required seven stitches. She still suffers nerve damage in the

21 area of impact.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 16 of 59 Page ID #:110

1

39. Plaintiff JONATHAN MAYORCA is a journalist for an independent

2 media. On May 30, 2020, along with two crew members, he was filming a peaceful

3 demonstration on Beverly Boulevard in the Fairfax area of Los Angeles. He

4 observed LAPD officers begin to form a line and push back everyone in the area of

5 the protest. Mr. MAYORCA soon realized he was trapped by the officers, and they

6 were kettling the group of protestors he was with toward an alley. His press badge

7 was clearly visible, but the LAPD officers ignored his attempts to show his press

8 credentials and continued pushing the entire group toward the alley, surrounding

9 them and refusing all requests to leave. MAYORCA did not hear a dispersal order

10 and was not given an opportunity to leave before he was arrested.

11

40. Once in the alley area, MAYORCA was ordered to stop filming and to

12 sit on the ground. The LAPD forced him to the ground, breaking his camera. He was

13 handcuffed tightly with zip ties, causing pain and discomfort. He was then stood up

14 against a wall. After the entire group was handcuffed, they were moved into a van,

15 sitting close together. Others in the same arrest group were protestors, whom

16 MAYORCA had filmed engaging in a peaceful protest.

17

41. After about thirty minutes, the group was driven to the Van Nuys station,

18 a considerable distance away. At the station, Mr. MAYORCA was issued a citation

19 for failing to obey lawful orders, LAMC 80.02, which is expressly and only

20 chargeable as an infraction pursuant to the Los Angeles Municipal Code.

21

42. MAYORCA was handcuffed tightly for approximately two hours and

22 15 minutes. His repeated requests to remove or loosen the handcuffs because of the

23 pain were ignored. During the entire time that the group was handcuffed, they were

24 denied access to a bathroom or water.

25

43. Plaintiff ABIGAIL RODAS participated in a peaceful event organized

26 by BLM LA in the Fairfax area on May 30, 2020 of Los Angeles to protest the

27 murder of George Floyd. She was walking on Beverly Boulevard near LaCienega

28

14 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 17 of 59 Page ID #:111

1 Boulevard when the protestors were met by a line of LAPD officers, who began to

2 push them back.

3

44. Although there had been no dispersal order, RODAS and a friend

4 decided to leave the protest at that point and began walking toward her car when an

5 officer began shooting projectiles at them. She was struck in the face by a projectile

6 and momentarily lost consciousness. She fell to the ground, bleeding. Someone

7 drove her to nearby Cedar Sinai Hospital, where she was quickly taken to surgery.

8 When she arrived at the hospital, she was unable to talk. She was diagnosed with a

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
severe fracture to her right mandible and underwent surgery. Stitches were required
21
on both the inside and outside of her mouth to close the lacerations, and a steel plate
22
was used to repair the fractured jawbone. RODAS spent two days in the hospital on
23
Monday afternoon and has been recuperating at home since. She was unable to talk
24
for about 10 days. For one week, she could only drink liquids and is still on a soft
25
food diet. Nearly three weeks after the injury, she has screws in her gums and rubber
26
bands to immobilize her jaw while the bones rejoin.
27

28

15 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 18 of 59 Page ID #:112

1

45. Plaintiff KRYSTLE HARTSFIELD participated in a peaceful protest

2 in the Fairfax area of Los Angeles on the afternoon of May 30, 2020. She is

3 employed in the Artist Management department of a Los Angeles media company.

4 When the protestors were near the Trader Joe’s on Third Street and Fairfax Avenue,

5 HARTSFIELD observed officers begin to physically direct the movement of the

6 group of protesters. A short time thereafter, at around 3:30 p.m., she heard a dispersal

7 order made by the LAPD. At the point the dispersal order was given, the group was

8 directed to leave through the alleyway next to the Trader Joe’s. HARTSFIELD

9 complied and began to leave the area and was walking way when she heard an officer

10 say “don’t let them leave.” An officer then grabbed her and pulled her from behind,

11 and other officers surrounded her in front. As they did this, one of the other female

12 protesters grabbed her hand and repeatedly said, “don’t round her up – don’t round

13 her up” but the officers pulled her away and pushed HARTSFIELD into the parking

14 lot near the alley.

15

46. HARTSFIELD and the others were handcuffed and lined up on Third

16 Street where they remained, tightly handcuffed, for approximately two hours while

17 they waited to be transported. The group was then put in a van, seated closely

18 together, and taken to Van Nuys. Despite repeated requests to loosen their handcuffs,

19 they remained very tightly handcuffed throughout, causing considerable pain. In all,

20 she was handcuffed for approximately six hours before her release.

21

47. HARTSFIELD was not released until approximately 10:30 p.m. She

22 heard LAPD officers warn those released that if they remained in front of the station,

23 they would be rearrested for violating the curfew, which went into effect at 8:30 that

24 night. She was fortunate that family members arrived at the station to take her home.

25

48. Plaintiff NADIA KHAN participated in the rally organized by Black

26 Lives Matter Los Angeles at Pan Pacific Park on May 30, 2020, in the Fairfax area.

27 She arrived there at approximately 11 a.m. At around noon, the rally concluded and

28 the protesters left the park and began a march.

16 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 19 of 59 Page ID #:113

1

49. When the march neared the intersection of 3rd and Fairfax, KHAN

2 observed lines of police in riot gear. KHAN observed the officers shoot projectiles

3 at the group, although she not hit at this time.

4

50. The march continued north on Fairfax to Beverly Boulevard where it

5 met up with a large group of young people. KHAN marched with them to the

6 Beverly Center and back on Beverly Boulevard toward Fairfax. When the marchers

7 neared Beverly and Fairfax, the police deployed a chemical irritant that made

8 KHAN’s eyes burn and tear up. In addition, the gas got into her lungs, making her

9 cough. At or about the same time, the police were also shooting small pellet-like

10 impact projectiles at the group. She was hit in the legs, but because she was not close

11 to the police and was wearing jeans, she did not suffer serious injury.

12

51. KHAN continued with the peaceful protestors north on Fairfax towards

13 Melrose. The police kettled the group there at about 7:45 p.m. There were

14 approximately 100 people detained at this location. All of the demonstrators were

15 handcuffed behind their back with zip ties. KHAN’s zip ties were very tight and

16 caused pain. She asked the officers to loosen the zip ties but was ignored. The

17 arrestees were loaded on to two crowded buses. KHAN was wearing both a mask

18 and goggles to protect against exposure to COVID-19 contagions but most of the

19 officers and some of the detainees did not have masks.

20

52. The group was taken to Wilshire Division on Venice Boulevard and

21 cited for a violation of LAMC 80.02, an infraction. KHAN was released about

22 midnight. She was handcuffed for approximately four hours, leaving her wrists sore

23 and painful for several days.

24

53. Plaintiff CLARA ARANOVICH is a filmmaker in Los Angeles. On

25 May 30, 2020, she participated in a peaceful demonstration in the Fairfax district

26 following a rally in Pan Pacific Park organized by Black Lives Matter Los Angeles.

27 ARONOVICH arrived in the vicinity between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. and observed

28

17 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 20 of 59 Page ID #:114

1 a group of protestors gathered at the intersection of Fairfax Avenue and 3rd Street.

2 She also observed a line of police officers across the street from the protestors.

3

54. Just before 6:00 p.m., ARANOVICH observed Defendant Moore

4 addressed the protestors. Initially, he spoke to the protestors without amplification,

5 making it nearly impossible to hear what he was saying. He then used an

6 amplification device that someone handed to him, but it was still difficult to hear

7 him over the crowd noise. ARANOVICH did not hear Chief MOORE or anyone

8 else make an unlawful assembly announcement, or that the protestors were required

9 to disperse. About 30 minutes after Chief MOORE spoke, the line of police officers

10 began to move the protestors back by using aggressive, physical force. As the

11 officers advanced, they used the ends of their batons to jab people with force in their

12 chest and abdomen area. Some of the officers hit protestors with their batons in an

13 overhand swinging motion. ARANOVICH was struck in her chest and abdomen

14 multiple times, with sufficient force to cause a painful bruise on her breast.

15

55. As ARANOVICH left the protest, she was struck with a kinetic impact

16 projectile in the calf. This resulted in a painful welt and a bruise that was still visible

17 on her leg as of June 18, 2020, almost three weeks later.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 21 of 59 Page ID #:115

1

2

C. MAY 31 ARRESTS AND FORCE PLAINTIFFS (SKID ROW)

3

56. Plaintiff JEFFREY TROTTER is a 51-year-old African American

4 man and a resident of the Rosslyn Hotel on Skid Row. On Sunday, May 31, at about 5 5 p.m., TROTTER walked two blocks from the Rosslyn, at 5th and Main Streets, to 6 the RiteAid drug store at 5th and Broadway. The Rite Aid was closed, so he started

7 to walk back to the Rosslyn.

8

57. When he neared 5th and Spring streets, he saw a line of LAPD officers

9 in riot gear. One officer, a white male, stepped toward him and asked where he was

10 going. Mr. TROTTER responded that he was walking home from the Rite Aid.

11 Without further discussion, the officer took a few steps back and shot Plaintiff with

12 hard rubber or foam projectiles at close range four times, once in the chest, twice in

13 the stomach, and once on the left hand. The projectile that hit his chest struck with

14 such force that it tore off skin in the shape of the projectile. The one that hit his hand

15 also tore off a chunk of skin about an inch long and half and an inch across.

16

58. Mr. Trotter collapsed from the impact. As he lay on the ground, the

17 officers stepped over him and walked away. After a period of time, he was able to

18 walk the block back to the Rosslyn. When he arrived there, a friend called the

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 22 of 59 Page ID #:116

1 paramedics, who treated him there. He was in intense pain for more than a week and

2 two weeks later, his stomach, chest and hand are still swollen and bruised.

3

59. Plaintiff ORLANDO HINKSTON, also known as “Cincinnati,” is

4 disabled and uses a wheelchair for mobility. He is a participant in LA CAN. He was

5 struck multiple in the head, shoulder and back by impact projectiles on Sunday, May

6 31, while sitting in his wheelchair near the Rosslyn Hotel on Skid Row. He was not

7 engaged in any protest and pleaded with police not to use force on him before being

8 shot multiple times. Two weeks after he was struck with projectiles, a red welt is

9 still visible on his shoulder.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

D. June 1 Arrests And Force Plaintiffs

23

24

60. Plaintiff ALEXANDER STAMM participated in a peaceful

25 demonstration in Hollywood on the afternoon of June 1, 2020. He arrived at

26 approximately 4 p.m. and was joined by his husband at around 5:30 p.m. While

27 marching, he saw the police block off streets, forcing protestors down side streets.

28

20 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 23 of 59 Page ID #:117

1 As the protestors moved down side streets in response to the lines of officers

2 blocking their march.

3

61. STAMM observed that the police kettled the protestors in these side

4 streets so they could arrest them.

5

62. Plaintiff STAMM smelled some chemical irritants in the air around the

6 protestors. He also observed someone hit with an impact projectile in the thigh.

7 Terrified by what was happening, STAMM and his husband decided to leave and

8 go home to their nearby apartment. At around 8 p.m., they started down Schrader

9 Boulevard because Wilcox was blocked by a police line. As STAMM walked down

10 Schrader, between Selma Avenue and Sunset Boulevard, the police blocked the

11 streets and surrounded the group he was walking with. Although he was only a few

12 blocks from his home, he was not permitted to leave.

13

63. There were approximately 200 to 300 people in the group. All were

14 ordered by the police to get on their knees and put their hands behind their backs.

15 There were all handcuffed then. STAMM did not hear a dispersal order before being

16 ordered to get down on his knees.

17

64. All the arrestees were loaded onto LASD buses, seated two to a bench

18 with no social distancing. Some people’s face masks had fallen down, but they could

19 not reposition the masks because they were handcuffed.

20

65. The arrestees were driven from Hollywood to Jackie Robinson

21 Stadium, on the Veterans Administration property in West Los Angeles. The drive

22 from Hollywood took approximately 45 minutes. Once they arrived at the VA, they

23 were held on the buses for another two hours before their citations were processed

24 and they were released. They were taken off the closed bus only two at a time and

25 then lined up be processed. During all this time, he remained tightly handcuffed,

26 causing bruising on his wrists, and in an unventilated bus without social distancing

27 or masks.

28

21 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 24 of 59 Page ID #:118

1

66. At about 1:00 a.m., STAMM’s handcuffs were finally removed and he

2 was told he was free to leave. To get home to Hollywood, STAMM had to take two

3 buses then walk approximately four miles to his apartment. He did not arrive home

4 until 2:30 a.m., long after the curfew went into effect.

5

67. On June 1, 2020, Plaintiff MAIA KAZIM participated in a peaceful

6 demonstration on Spring St. near the intersection of 5th Street in downtown Los

7 Angeles. At about 6:30 p.m., LAPD officers blocked about 300 people from moving

8 north or south on Spring Street, forming a blockade at both ends of Spring Street.

9 Some people tried to leave through a parking lot on Spring, but police blocked them.

10

68. KAZIM was at the front of the protestor group. Prior to the blockade

11 by the LAPD, she heard no dispersal order, or warning that the group was in violation

12 of a curfew order, or that they would be arrested if they did not leave the area.

13

69. KAZIM was handcuffed with zip ties. About 15 minutes after that, she

14 was given a citation for a curfew violation but not released. Instead, the hundreds

15 of people in the group were loaded on to buses. Eventually, the arrestees were taken

16 from downtown Los Angeles to a UCLA parking lot. Once there, they were kept on

17 the buses from 7:30 until about 1:00 a.m., handcuffed behind their backs, with no

18 access to food, water or bathrooms. While on the bus, KAZIM observed a woman

19 on the bus in physical distress from a dislocated shoulder. Someone on the bus was

20 able to access their cell phone and called 911. The woman next to KAZIM was

21 panicking because she needed to take medication. Someone on the bus was able to

22 use their cell phone to call 911 for this woman, as well. Requests to the officers to

23 address these situations were ignored.

24

70. When she was finally released, KAZIM asked an officer whether her

25 boyfriend would be violating the curfew if he picked her up. The officer responded

26 that it would be a violation of the law, but he should be fine. Uneasy with this

27 response, KAZIM did not want to risk arrest of her boyfriend, so she got a ride from

28 the friend of someone on the bus. She was handcuffed behind her back with plastic

22 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 25 of 59 Page ID #:119

1 zip-ties for more than seven hours until she was released at 1:00 a.m. The handcuffs

2 were painful and caused minor tenderness on both wrists for 2-3 days.

3

71. Plaintiff ALICIA BARRERA-TRUJILLO also participated in a

4 peaceful protest in downtown Los Angeles on June 1, 2020. She arrived with her

5 younger sister and a friend at 5th and Grand, near the main public library, at

6 approximately 2:00 pm with her younger sister and friend. The crowd was very

7 peaceful and diverse, including families with children holding signs.

8

72. At around 4:00 p.m., she started making plans to leave the area. Soon

9 thereafter, we received a text that the curfew for Los Angeles that night was 5:00

10 p.m. BARRERA-TRUJILLO was confused because she also received a text

11 informing her that the curfew was at 6:00 p.m.

12

73. She attempted to leave the area shortly before 5:00 p.m. and observed

13 that the police had blocked off all exit streets. Police surrounded them on all sides,

14 making it impossible for anyone to exit the area. BARRERA-TRUJILLO began

15 to panic and observed that everyone around her also appeared to panic as officers

16 surrounded them. BARRERA-TRUJILLO never heard a dispersal order,

17 providing notice and an opportunity to leave before the group was kettled. A

18 helicopter flew over the crowd, making it was very hard to hear.

19

74. Once they were kettled, BARRERA-TRUJILLO saw some type of

20 rubber bullets being fired into the protest group. She also saw a police officer direct

21 some type of aerosol spray at a woman with a young child. The child was crying

22 and both the woman and the child appeared to be in pain from the effects of the spray.

23

75. Approximately 500 people were in the group before it was split in half

24 to handcuff and process them. BARRERA-TRUJILLO was searched, handcuffed

25 and received her citation while detained on the street. She was then placed on a bus

26 and waited an hour for the bus to leave downtown. Ultimately, the arrestees were

27 driven to Westwood, near the National Cemetery.

28

23 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 26 of 59 Page ID #:120

1

76. While on the bus, she saw several people who seemed to need medical

2 aide. There were no officers on the bus and no way to get their attention. One of

3 the arrestees was able to get out of her handcuffs and call for emergency assistance.

4 Only when the ambulances arrived did the police check on the arrestees on the bus.

5 Near plaintiff, one woman asked to use the bathroom but was denied by the officers.

6 When the woman was later taken off the bus, she urinated on herself.

7

77. Once released, BARRERA-TRUJILLO and her sister had no way to

8 get home. Her cell phone was not charged. Several volunteers with the National

9 Lawyers Guild waited with them until they could arrange a ride home. BARRERA-

10 TRUJILLO was handcuffed from about 6:50 p.m. until 4:00 a.m. The tight

11 handcuffs cut into her wrists, stripping skin off and causing bleeding.

12

E. JUNE 2 ARRESTS AND FORCE PLAINTIFFS

13

78. Protests took place in several areas of the City throughout the day on

14 June 2, 2020. At Hollywood and Vine, a peaceful protest occurred mid-day with

15 approximately 30 people, most standing on Hollywood Boulevard and a smaller

16 group of about 10 people on Vine Street. Plaintiff SHANNON MOORE arrived

17 with a friend at the protest shortly before 3 p.m. Within about five minutes, she was

18 shot in the back of the head by a KIP. A tall male in the group threw a water bottle

19 at the police as she arrived. Rather than isolate and arrest him, the police shot her.

20

79. Because MOORE saw the officer take aim at her head, she was able to

21 turn away so that she was struck in the back of the head. She was able to prevent

22 the projectile(s) from hitting her directly in her face and suffered much more serious

23 injury. She sought medical treatment and suffers intense headaches.

24

25

26

27

28

24 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 27 of 59 Page ID #:121

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

80. Plaintiff DEVON YOUNG is a mental health therapist in Los Angeles.

11

On June 2, 2020, she participated in a large, peaceful demonstration outside Mayor

12
Eric Garcetti’s house on the corner of South Irving Blvd. and 6th Street in Windsor

13

Square. The protest was organized by Black Lives Matter Los Angeles to protest the

14

killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and the countless other

15

victims of police brutality and racism.

16

81. YOUNG arrived at the protest at approximately 5:00 p.m. and

17

remained in the area until about 8:00 p.m. The group she was with then began

18

marching away from the Mayor’s home. While marching, the group was surrounded

19

and kettled by LAPD officers. No one was able to exit the group of about 100 people.

20 The officers pushed the group aggressively and silently toward Crenshaw and 8th

21

Street. Officers ignored the protestors’ pleas: “We want to leave. Let us go home!”

22

82. Finally, at around 8:45 p.m., near the intersection of Crenshaw and 8th

23

Street, the officers announced that they were all under arrest. There was no dispersal

24

order. The officers did not inform them that they were going to be arrested for a

25

curfew violation before the arrests took place. All were handcuffed with their hands

26

behind their backs using zip-ties. YOUNG was handcuffed at about 9:45 p.m. The

27

officers separated the group into two lines – one for men and one for women. The

28

25 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 28 of 59 Page ID #:122

1 officers performed pat down searches that were intrusive and uncomfortable for

2 many of the women. In addition, most of the officers were not wearing masks and

3 came in close proximity to the women during the pat down.

4

83. During the pat down searches, a transgender woman in the group was

5 separated from her female partner because she did not have female sex organs.

6 YOUNG asked an officer what was happening to her and he replied that she was

7 being placed in a holding area labeled “other” so she could be searched separately

8 for her own safety. She and her partner were frightened and upset by the separation.

9

84. While handcuffed, YOUNG’s skirt was raised up such that her

10 underwear was exposed to the group and she had no ability to pull her skirt down

11 because she was handcuffed. She asked the officers if she could pull her skirt down

12 and they refused to let her do so. Only after she walked through the group with her

13 underwear completely exposed was she allowed to adjust her skirt. She was very

14 uncomfortable and felt humiliated.

15

85. Approximately two hours after they were first detained and handcuffed,

16 the group was loaded onto a bus. The arrestees were forced to be close together,

17 many without masks. The handcuffs were very tight and uncomfortable. When

18 finally uncuffed, YOUNG had bruises and marks on her wrist from the handcuffs.

19

86. The group was taken to a parking lot in Van Nuys where they were

20 processed and released with a citation for a violation of LAMC 80.02, a curfew

21 violation. Throughout the time they were detained, the arrestees were denied access

22 to bathrooms, water and food. For some of the women, this situation was

23 compounded by the inability to change their tampon.

24

87. YOUNG was released in the middle of the night at 1:30 a.m. with no

25 ability to call for a ride or instruction on how to get home safely. A police officer

26 told them they would be rearrested if they did not go home immediately. Fortunately,

27 some volunteers arrived to give people a ride home.

28

26 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 29 of 59 Page ID #:123

1

88. Plaintiff LINUS SHENTU is a long-time member of CANGRESS. On

2 the evening of June 2, 2020, he was participating in a peaceful protest in Hollywood,

3 near Sunset and Vine. When the protestors marched and reached Van Ness between

4 Melrose and Santa Monica Boulevards, SHENTU observed police starting to block

5 streets and kettle the protestors. The march was accompanied by a car caravan. From

6 a half a block away, SHENTU observed the police dragging people out of cars. All

7 around him, the marchers started running. SHENTU and his partner were able to

8 locate his partner’s sister, who had been in the car caravan, and jumped in her car.

9 Because the police had blocked off all of the streets, they could not leave the area.

10 To avoid arrest and be safe until they could safely drive home, they followed other

11 cars to the parking lot of a nearby apartment building.

12

89. As they remained in their car, they observed a few officers enter the

13 parking lot and pull people out of their vehicles. The officers ordered SHENTU, his

14 partner and her sister out of their car, opened the rear passenger door where his

15 partner was seated and yanked her harshly by her arm. SHENTU voluntarily exited

16 the rear passenger seat. They were lined up on the side of the building with their

17 hands zip tied behind their backs. In all, approximately 30 individuals were arrested

18 at this one location and held at Elmwood and Van Ness for approximately one hour

19 while officers filled out Field Interview cards with their personal identifiers.

20

90. After approximately one hour, Sheriff’s buses arrived to transport the

21 arrestees. They were driven to a makeshift processing center in Van Nuys at Roscoe

22 and Woodman. There were multiple buses at the location with arrestees who

23 appeared to SHENTU to be protestors. In all, SHENTU estimates that he was

24 detained, handcuffed tightly behind his back, for about four hours. SHENTU, his

25 partner and his partner’s sister experienced numbness, bruising and soreness from

26 the handcuffing and the force used to remove them from their vehicle. His partner

27 was pulled from the vehicle with such force that it caused bruises on her forearm.

28

27 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 30 of 59 Page ID #:124

1

91. Defendants’ actions interfered with BLMLA’s right to assembly and

2 speech. BLMLA plans to assist, plan, participate in, hold similar events in the future,

3 on its own or in conjunction with others, and is fearful that police actions in response

4 to these and similar protests of sanctioned executions will be repeated absent

5 injunctive relief to prohibit the practices, policies, and customs of the LAPD that

6 resulted in the unlawful action in response to the recent protests throughout the City.

7

92. Defendants’ actions also interfered with the work of Plaintiff

8 CANGRESS to advocate for racial and economic justice for the residents of Skid

9 Row, both housed and unhoused. Because Defendants indiscriminately arrested

10 individuals on Skid Row for violations of the curfew and assaulted them with less

11 lethal weapons, Plaintiff CANGRESS has had to shift its resources to protecting its

12 members and other residents of Skid Row from the unlawful conduct of the LAPD.

13 Plaintiff CANGRESS’ time in recent months was heavily focused on advocating for

14 and protecting a highly-vulnerable population for COVID-19 from the greater

15 likelihood of contracting and dying from the virus based on their poverty, underlying

16 medical conditions and race.

17

93. The Plaintiff injunctive relief class includes all persons who

18 participated, or intend to exercise their First Amendment rights by participating, in

19 future demonstrations, in particular in protest against police violence and racism.

20

94. The Plaintiff damages classes consist of: 1) approximately 3000

21 individuals who were arrested and subjected to excessively tight and prolonged

22 handcuffing, held on buses and in garages for extended periods of time, without

23 access to bathrooms, water or food when they engaged in the spontaneous protests

24 against a number of recent widely publicized police killings of civilians, the most

25 recent spark being the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota; 2)

26 several thousand individuals who were struck by so-called “rubber bullets” and/or

27 baton strikes administered without lawful justification and in a manner contrary to

28 proper use and inflicted maximum injury; 3) individuals charged solely with

28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 31 of 59 Page ID #:125

1 infractions who were arrested and taken into custody rather than being released in

2 the field despite their right to field release.

3 II. PARTIES-DEFENDANTS

4

95. Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES is a municipal corporation duly

5 organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California.

6 The Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) is a local government entity and an

7 agency of Defendant City of Los Angeles, and all actions of the LAPD are the legal

8 responsibility of the City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles is sued in its own

9 right on the basis of its policies, customs, and practices which gave rise to Plaintiffs’

10 federal rights claims.

11

96. Defendant CHIEF MICHEL MOORE, is and was, at all times

12 relevant to this action, the LAPD police chief and a policymaker for his department.

13 He is sued in both his individual and official capacities.

14

97. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that Does 1

15 through 10 were the agents, servants, and employees of Defendants City of Los

16 Angeles and/or the LAPD. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of

17 Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore sue these

18 Defendant by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege

19 their true names and capacities when ascertained. The individual Doe Defendants

20 are sued in both their individual and official capacities.

21

98. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that at all times

22 relevant hereto Does 1 through 10, in addition to the named Defendants, are

23 responsible in some manner for the damages and injuries alleged herein.

24

99. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that at all times

25 relevant hereto Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants and

26 employees of the other Defendants and were acting at all times within the scope of

27 their agency and employment and with the knowledge and consent of their principal

28 and employer. At all times Defendants were acting under color of state law.

29 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 32 of 59 Page ID #:126

1

100. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereupon allege that the practices,

2 policies, and customs of the City of Los Angeles and/or the LAPD caused the

3 unlawful action taken against Plaintiffs.

4 III. FACTS

5

101. On May 25, 2020, Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin

6 murdered George Floyd, suspected of forgery for attempting to use a purported

7 counterfeit $20 bill. Officer Chauvin, along with two other officers, held Mr. Floyd

8 on the ground, handcuffed behind his back, and ignored pleas to get off his neck,

9 back and legs and let him breathe. Mr. Floyd died on the street in Minneapolis.

10

102. Because of extensive video by onlookers, security cameras and police

11 body cameras, both the Minneapolis law enforcement and prosecutors, as well as the

12 public, concluded that George Floyd was just the latest person to die at the hands of

13 police because of deliberate and unlawful tactics.

14

103. The death of George Floyd sparked an extraordinary wave of protests

15 across the country and the world. In Los Angeles, tens of thousands of people

16 participated in lawful and peaceful protests. Based on the alleged unlawful conduct

17 of a few, Defendants responded to these mass protests with expansive curfews and

18 mass arrests for curfew violation, failure to disperse, unlawful assembly, failure to

19 follow a “lawful” order of an officer, similar misdemeanors and infractions, all

20 designed to punish protestors. The routine and undifferentiated use of such

21 widespread arrest and dispersal tactics impinged the protestors’ right to engage in

22 protected expressive activity in public spaces without preemption and curtailment

23 based on group guilt.

24

104. California Penal Code § 409, which defines an unlawful assembly, has

25 repeatedly been construed to require a showing of imminent violence that so

26 permeates a lawful expressive activity that law enforcement may curtail the rights

27 of all demonstrators. Facts justifying the declaration of an unlawful assembly order

28 anywhere, let alone throughout the City, or even all of downtown Los Angeles in

30 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 33 of 59 Page ID #:127

1 advance of any expressive activity, did not exist. Instead, Chief MOORE and Mayor

2 Garcetti applied a ham-handed approach, announcing an unlawful assembly without

3 adequate notice and unlawfully employing indiscriminate, untargeted use of force,

4 silencing everyone.

5

105. Thousands of peaceful protestors, the arrest class of Plaintiffs (defined

6 further on), were transported to LAPD jails and make-shift detention sites around

7 the City. All those arrested were held on buses for extended periods of time before

8 being off-loaded into garages and parking lots to be cited and released. Because there

9 was no plan for processing mass arrests and despite the fact that the City has

10 repeatedly been sued for the same unlawful policy and practice, many arrestees were

11 held on the buses and driven around the City for long periods of time in close contact

12 in unventilated buses - handcuffed and without any bathroom access - in search of a

13 location where they could be processed and released. As a result, arrestees for

14 infractions and misdemeanors were driven to far distant locations in the City and,

15 after processing, released in the middle of the night without their property and with

16 no way to get home, all the while being out during a time of curfew and risking

17 rearrest if detained again by the LAPD.

18

106. Throughout the time they were arrested and held in LAPD custody,

19 Plaintiffs were handcuffed tightly behind their backs and denied food, water and

20 access to bathroom facilities, resulting in many arrestees urinating on themselves in

21 the closed buses. All arrestees, regardless of the alleged crime, were unnecessarily

22 and unreasonably confined in close, enclosed quarters without any ventilation,

23 increasing the risk of COVID-19 exposure. It is well known and was, or should have

24 been known to Defendants, that being in closed spaces without vigorous air

25 movement significantly increases the risk of COVID-19 exposure. Moreover, both

26 the City and the Defendant MOORE were well aware of the increased risk of

27 COVID-19 exposure because 1) of the institution of $0 bail for low-level offenses

28 and 2) the City and LAPD’s involvement in mitigation efforts for COVID-19 for

31 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 34 of 59 Page ID #:128

1 individuals in congregate spaces, including the temporary placement of unhoused

2 individuals at the City’s recreation centers. All members of the arrest class (defined

3 in ¶ 123a) were held in restraint for a minimum of three hours, with some held more

4 than 12 hours in these excruciatingly painful conditions from the time they were first

5 handcuffed. The class members experienced numbness in their hands and requests

6 to loosen the zip ties or remove them went unanswered. Without access to bathrooms,

7 arrestees were forced to urinate on themselves.

8

107. The harm caused by this practice is well-established. The Ninth Circuit

9 has long recognized that tight handcuffs for even relatively short period of time less

10 than an hour can cause significant pain and damage. For more than a quarter of a

11 century, law enforcement in California have “been on notice that abusive

12 handcuffing can amount to excessive force and no officer could reasonable believe

13 it is proper to fail to assist arrestees who complain that their handcuffs are too tight”. 14 See e.g., Alexander v. County of Los Angeles, 64 F.3d 1315, 1323 (9th Cir. 1995).5

15

108. Arrestees were uniformly held under these unlawful conditions of

16 confinement despite the fact that, to address the COVID-19 pandemic, California

17 currently has a $0 bail for any misdemeanor where the bail would be less than

18 $50,000. The prolonged detention of the arrest class is even more unjustified in light

19 of the California Penal Code § 853.6, which permits individuals suspected of a

20 misdemeanor violation to be cited and released promptly, in the field or after

21 booking, unless one of a limited number of restrictions apply.

22

109. Applying § 853.6, in 2013 the Los Angeles Police Commission

23 conducted a research project that demonstrated that it took an officer approximately

24

25

26

27

5 JJ Payne-James, “Restraint Techniques, Injuries, and Death:

Handcuffs” Encyclopedia of Forensic and Legal Medicine, Volume 4 (December 28 2016): Lists studies of neurology injuries caused by handcuffing.

32

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 35 of 59 Page ID #:129

1 15 minutes to prepare a cite and release in the field with a Notice to Appear; 45

2 minutes to transport an individual to the station and prepare a “short-form” booking

3 document, cite and release the individual with a Notice to Appear; and two and one-

4 half hours to complete a “long-form” booking document. As a result of this review,

5 a directive was issued to follow the cite-and-release option, while reserving

6 individual discretion to book and release at the station. On information and belief,

7 in this instance the LAPD elected to transport every arrestee, regardless of the

8 offense, to a “station” for booking, even though many, if not nearly all, were

9 processed outside of a building and simply cited and released at that location. This

10 was done to punish demonstrators for their protest activity.

11

110. A large number of individuals in this instance, as many as 1,000 or more,

12 were arrested on infractions. They were handcuffed and many had their citations

13 prepared on site and put in their pockets. Instead of releasing them once the citation

14 was completed, all were held on buses and booked, in violation of Cal. Penal Code

15 § 853.5, which imposes a mandatory requirement to release infraction arrestees on

16 their own recognizance in the field. (“ In all cases, except as specified in Sections

17 40302, 40303, 40305, and 40305.5 of the Vehicle Code, in which a person is arrested

18 for an infraction, a peace officer shall only require the arrestee to present his or her

19 driver’s license or other satisfactory evidence of his or her identity for examination

20 and to sign a written promise to appear contained in a notice to appear…. Only if the

21 arrestee refuses to sign a written promise, has no satisfactory identification, or

22 refuses to provide a thumbprint or fingerprint may the arrestee be taken into

23 custody”). All those arrested and charged with infractions were denied the citation

24 release process guaranteed by § 853.5, which creates a liberty interest for such

25 arrestees to be released in the field so long as they provide sufficient identification

26 and agree to sign a written notice to appear. The infraction arrestees were denied the

27 opportunity for a field release without any individualized determination of whether

28 they met one of the three narrow exceptions allowing a custodial arrest pursuant to

33 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 36 of 59 Page ID #:130

1 § 835.5. Section 835.5 creates a liberty interest in a field arrest for those within the

2 statute’s ambit and adherence to it is a mandatory governmental duty within the

3 meaning of Govt. Code § 815.6.

4

111. The unlawful detention of thousands of arrestees pursuant to the City’s

5 unlawful policy beginning on or around November 17. 2011, of denying OR release

6 to individuals arrested for engaging in civil disobedience is a policy applied to the

7 Occupy LA protests. According to former LAPD Deputy Chief Perez, who first

8 announced this policy during the 2011 Occupy protests, the decision was made to

9 deny OR release to those engaged in First Amendment activity to “teach people a

10 lesson.” Subsequently, small groups of individuals involved in acts of civil

11 disobedience at the Bank of America headquarters on November 17, 2011, were

12 arrested on non-violent misdemeanor offenses arising from protest activity and

13 denied OR release. Again, on November 30, 2011, the City denied OR release to the

14 nearly 300 people arrested in connection with the mass arrests at City Hall made in

15 connection with the Occupy L.A. demonstration.

16

112. The same unlawful actions occurred in the November 2014 mass arrest

17 of persons protesting the decision of the grand jury in Ferguson Missouri not to indict

18 the police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown. In public statements, then-

19 Chief Beck and other command staff in the LAPD stated that protestors would be

20 held and not granted OR, as required by law, for retaliatory reasons and without the

21 requisite individualized suspicion. In this instance, while the Defendants did not

22 deny OR release for arrestees for minor misdemeanors, they nonetheless detained

23 them for up to 14 hours in some instances rather than cite and release them in the

24 field as mandated by California Penal Code § 853.6. On information and belief,

25 Plaintiffs allege that, without any individual suspicion that the arrestees would

26 violate the law if released, Defendants opted to arrest and detain all protestors to

27 preempt even lawful expressive activity.

28

34 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 37 of 59 Page ID #:131

1

113. Both the Occupy arrests in 2011 and the Ferguson arrests in 2014

2 demonstrate the crucial need for the Defendants to have a plan to respond to similar

3 future protests employing the technology the LAPD regularly uses to run wants and

4 warrants in the field, not seizing, handcuffing and detaining protestors for prolonged

5 periods of time. The failure to implement such a plan indicates a deliberate decision

6 to inflict punitive measures against protestors exercising their First Amendment

7 rights to assemble and speak.

8

114. In this instance, Defendants’ failures were exacerbated because the

9 obligation to release those arrested in the field and charged with infractions is

10 mandatory under § 853.5. LAPD’s past history shows Defendants’ intent to deny

11 Plaintiffs’ basic rights without justification in retaliation for the exercise of their First

12 Amendment rights violated the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights of

13 Plaintiffs and the class members, and with the specific and deliberate intent to

14 interfere with the exercise of Plaintiffs’ rights to assembly and due process.

15

115. Defendants had ready alternatives to the prolonged detention of the

16 Arrest Class. The LAPD has the technological capability to cite and release in the

17 field using modern technology. In the Ferguson protests in 2014, the LAPD detained

18 a group of approximately 40-50 protestors at Beverly and Alvarado, kettled them,

19 handcuffed them with twist-ties, brought in computers and video recording

20 equipment, collected the same information as would be done in a booking at a station,

21 then released them with orders to disperse and advised the detainees that they would

22 be taken to jail and held if they were found again that night in violation of the

23 dispersal order. In all, people were handcuffed in the Beverly and Alvarado detention

24 no longer than approximately one hour. No one suffered injury as a result of the

25 prolonged tight handcuffing, no one urinated on themselves in an enclosed bus after

26 being denied bathroom access, and, significantly, no one was a repeat offender that

27 night or any other night as the demonstrations protesting the death of Michael Brown

28 continued. The officers patted down the demonstrators’ clothing and searched their

35 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 38 of 59 Page ID #:132

1 personal belongings, including backpacks, as they would do if they were taking them

2 into custody for booking. LAPD officers ran wants and warrants on each detainee in

3 the field, as they do for any traffic stop and as they do with unhoused individuals in

4 the city routinely and released the detainees with a warning. There is no reason why

5 the protestors in the Plaintiff Arrest Class could not have been processed, without

6 injury or anguish, exactly the same way.

7 IV. MONELL ALLEGATIONS

8

116. The LAPD engaged in repeated, widespread violations of law, as

9 outlined above, over the course of at least four nights, shutting down the exercise of

10 First Amendment activities through the use of indiscriminate and unreasonable force

11 against thousands of protestors; imposing curfews without accommodating, or

12 attempting to accommodate, the right to peaceable assembly and protest; at times

13 declaring unlawful assemblies without adequate sound amplification and without

14 providing both directions, means and opportunity to disperse before taking

15 aggressive police action; hitting at least close to a thousand protestors with batons

16 and/or “rubber bullets” through the use of unreasonable and excessive force;

17 arresting and not releasing in the field at least hundreds of persons charged solely

18 with infractions in violation of California law; and unlawfully imposing on arrestees

19 unlawful conditions of confinement for many hours – including but not limited to

20 tight handcuffing, no bathroom access, no access to food or water, and lack of

21 ventilation in small congregate spaces – while on buses as previously outlined. In

22 conjunction with Defendants’ long history of protest-related constitutional

23 violations (outlined below in sub-sections A and B), Defendants’ repeated

24 widespread and unlawful acts over several nights and involving many locations

25 constitute an unlawful custom and policy of violating protest participants’

26 constitutional rights.

27

117. LAPD chief MOORE was fully knowledgeable and apprised of these

28 actions and was on site on several days and at several locations, including but not

36 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 39 of 59 Page ID #:133

1 limited to the first two days of protest, observing this operation and directing

2 protestors, without repudiating or stopping the actions of the LAPD officers, thereby

3 ratifying them. Moreover, in his reports to the Police Commission and in other

4 public statements, MOORE stated that the actions of the LAPD were proper.

5

118. As stated above, the City, through CHIEF MOORE and the LAPD,

6 has failed to train its officers in the appropriate constitutional responses to peaceful

7 demonstrations. The City is well aware of its constitutional duties in these

8 circumstances in light of the settlement agreements and consent judgments discussed

9 below in National Lawyers Guild v. City of Los Angeles and MIWON v. City of Los

10 Angeles, as well as other settlements entered into specifying these constitutional

11 duties over the years. The need for training and discipline to preserve constitutional

12 guarantees in these circumstances is obvious. The City has known of the deficiencies

13 in its training since at least 2000 and entered into settlement agreements in June 2005

14 and June 2009, each time agreeing to revised policies and training, yet the City has

15 failed to promulgate adequate policies effectuating the terms of the settlement

16 agreement and/or to train its command staff and officers on the revised policies, if

17 any exist. This constitutes a separate Monell violation from those outlined above.

18

A. THE SETTLEMENT IN NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD V. CITY OF LOS

19

ANGELES:

20

119. In June, 2005, the City of Los Angeles entered into a settlement

21 agreement in National Lawyers Guild, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., CV 01-

22 6877 FMC (CWx), an action arising from the disruption of lawful assemblies and

23 use of unlawful force during the Democratic National Convention (“DNC”) in Los

24 Angeles in 2000 and a subsequent demonstration on October 22, 2000. The

25 settlement provided for important changes in the policy and practices of the LAPD

26 as applied to demonstrations.

27

120. Significantly, the settlement provided that, prior to declaring an

28 unlawful assembly, the LAPD Incident Commander should evaluate the feasibility

37 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 40 of 59 Page ID #:134

1 of isolating and arresting those responsible for any unlawful conduct, and if feasible,

2 take action only against those individuals. The settlement also addressed the use of

3 less-lethal weapons and chemical irritants to disperse peaceful protestors.

4

B. THE SETTLEMENT IN MULTI-ETHNIC WORKER ORGANIZING NETWORK

5

V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES:

6

121. On May 1, 2007 (May Day), the LAPD assaulted a peaceful, permitted

7 immigration march in MacArthur Park. The attack on the demonstrators was without

8 warning. No dispersal order was given until more than three minutes into the police

9 action and, even then, the dispersal order was grossly inadequate, given from

10 helicopters in English to a largely Spanish-speaking assembly. During the course of

11 litigating the MIWON action, the LAPD conceded that it had not fully implemented

12 training and policy orders regarding the NLG settlement two years earlier. In fact,

13 no policy changes were ever finalized.

14

122. On June 24, 2009, the federal district court approved and entered a

15 Structural Relief Order as part of the settlement of a class action lawsuit brought on

16 behalf of all those subjected to the LAPD’s May Day action. Through this settlement,

17 the LAPD agreed that it would facilitate demonstrations that may temporarily block

18 traffic. This latter provision is consistent with established law in the Ninth Circuit,

19 recognizing the need for local agencies to accommodate “spontaneous” protests in

20 the streets, particularly in response to allegations of police misconduct.

21

123. The MIWON order also set out requirements to declare an unlawful

22 assembly: an amplified loudspeaker system with an officer at the far side of the

23 crowd to record the officer; if there is no serious violence occurring, the order shall

24 be made repeatedly over a period of time, including an “objectively reasonable”

25 period of time to disperse and identification of “a clear and safe route” to follow to

26 disperse. The order should be given so that it is heard by the entire crowd. These

27 requirements were not met in this instance in most locations.

28

38 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 41 of 59 Page ID #:135

1

124. The terms of the MIWON structural relief agreement were to be

2 included in the LAPD’s Crowd Control and Use of Force Manuals and every officer

3 at the rank of Sergeant I and above, as well as the entire Metropolitan Division, were

4 to undergo training every two years. Chief Moore, as well as those members of his

5 command staff to whom he has delegated his responsibility to enact and implement

6 lawful policies for responding to demonstrations, are aware of the unlawful policies,

7 practices, and customs of the City and the LAPD which resulted in the settlement in

8 National Lawyers Guild v. City of Los Angeles in June, 2005. Moreover, Chief

9 Moore and his delegated command staff are aware that the use of unlawful dispersal

10 orders, baton strikes and “less-lethal” weapons to break up lawful protests, in

11 particular, is a custom so ingrained in the marrow of the LAPD that it was critical to

12 take all steps necessary to ensure that official policy was implemented in a manner

13 sufficient to address the deeply rooted custom to violate First Amendment rights in

14 the specific ways identified in the National Lawyers Guild settlement agreement.

15 The failure to take such steps directly lead to the injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs.

16 This failure amounted to an “acquiescence in the constitutional deprivations of

17 which [the] complaint is made” and deliberate indifference to the rights of persons

18 with whom the police come into contact, and constituted a conscious choice by the

19 City not to properly train its law enforcement personnel on these issues.

20

125. The City, through Chief MOORE and command staff to whom he

21 delegated decision-making, also knew from the litigation for the Occupy-protest

22 arrests, Aichele v. City of Los Angeles (filed in 2012), and Chua v. City of Los

23 Angeles (filed in 2016) that it was violating Plaintiffs’ right to due process and

24 depriving them of their liberty interest by unlawfully and unreasonably refusing to

25 release arrestees in the field based not on individualized suspicion but, rather, on

26 group guilt based on their perceived association with the George Floyd protests.

27

126. On information and belief, to the extent he did not make the decision

28 and approve the plan himself, Chief MOORE delegated responsibility and authority

39 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 42 of 59 Page ID #:136

1 to persons within his command staff to act as the final policy maker in determining

2 the response to assemblies at various locations where protests of the death of George

3 Floyd occurred. The persons who made these decisions, acted as the delegated policy

4 maker for the City of Los Angeles on these issues. There was no time, opportunity,

5 or procedure for anyone to review or revise the decisions made by these delegated

6 policy makers prior to their final implementation.

7 V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

8

A. CLASS DEFINITION – 23(B)(2)) (INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLASS)

9

127. The injunctive relief class is defined as all persons who have in the past

10 participated, presently are participating, or may in the future participate in, or be

11 present at, demonstrations within the City of Los Angeles in the exercise of their

12 rights of free speech, assembly and petition in general, and particularly as it relates

13 to protesting police violence and discrimination against people of color, especially

14 African-Americans.

15

B. CLASS DEFINITIONS – 23(B)(3) (DAMAGES CLASSES)

16

128. One or more of the named Plaintiffs (which are indicated for each class

17 or subclass) bring this action individually and on behalf of a proposed class of all

18 other persons similarly situated pursuant to FRCivP Rule 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3).

19 The damages classes are defined as:

20

a. Arrest Class: Beginning May 29, 2020, and continuing until judgment or

21

other resolution of this case, all persons present at or during the aftermath

22

of protests regarding the killing of George Floyd in the City of Los Angeles,

23

who were arrested by the LAPD on misdemeanor charges of failure to obey

24

a curfew, failure to disperse, failure to follow a lawful order of a police

25

officer and/or unlawful assembly, and who were held on buses and

26

subjected to prolonged tight hand-cuffing, denied access to bathrooms,

27

water and food, and enclosed spaces without ventilation. The Class

28

Representatives for this class are KRYSTLE HARTSFIELD, DEVON

40 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 43 of 59 Page ID #:137

1

YOUNG, LINUS SHENTU, ALEXANDER STAMM, STEVEN ROE,

2

MAIA KAZIM and JONATHAN MAYORCA.

3

b. Direct Force Class: Beginning May 29, 2020, and continuing until

4

judgment or other resolution of this case, all persons present at or during

5

the aftermath of protests regarding the killing of George Floyd in the City

6

of Los Angeles, who were shot with so-called “less-lethal weapons” and/or

7

struck with batons. The Class Representatives for this class are

8

SHANNON LEE MOORE, TINA ČRNKO, CLARA ARANOVICH,

9

STEVEN ROE, ABIGAIL RODAS.

10

c. Infraction Class: Beginning May 29, 2020, and continuing until judgment

11

or other resolution of this case, all persons present at or during the

12

aftermath of protests regarding the killing of George Floyd in the City of

13

Los Angeles, who were charged with infractions, arrested and taken into

14

custody and not released in the field, as required by Penal Code § 853.5.

15

The Class Representatives for this class are JONATHAN MAYORCA,

16

NADIA KHAN, NELSON LOPEZ, ALICIA BARRERA-TRUJILLO,

17

MAIA KAZIM, DEVON YOUNG.

18

C. RULE 23 PREREQUISITES

19

i. Numerosity

20

124. Each class is inclusive of people present to protest and those otherwise

21

present in the vicinity as bystanders. In accordance with F.R.Civ. P. Rule

22

23(a), the members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all members

23

is impracticable. The Protest Class is composed of tens of thousands of

24

people. The arrest Class exceeds 2500 people. The Direct Force Class

25

consists of at least several hundred people, likely in excess of 1000. The

26

Infraction Class consists of at least several hundred people. The Homeless

27

Class consists of approximately 100 people.

28

41 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 44 of 59 Page ID #:138

1

ii. Common Issues Of Fact Or Law

2

125. Although the actions complained of in this Complaint occurred at

3

different times and locations, Defendants acted uniformly with respect to

4

each class. For example, all arrestees were placed on buses and subjected

5

to the described conditions of confinement; all those charged with

6

infractions were taken into custody and placed on buses even though they

7

were entitled to field release; and so forth.

8

126. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the LAPD

9

officers acted in accordance with orders given by supervisors from the

10

highest command positions, in accordance with policies and procedures

11

instituted by the LAPD and the City of Los Angeles.

12

127. The common questions of fact include, but are not limited to:

13

a. Did Defendants impose curfews without accommodating, or attempting

14

to accommodate, the right to peaceable assembly and protest;

15

b. Did Defendants declare unlawful assemblies without adequate sound

16

amplification and without providing both directions, means and

17

opportunity to disperse before taking aggressive and injurious –

18

potentially deadly police action;

19

c. Did Defendants routinely break up George Floyd protests through the

20

use of force (batons and rubber bullets) without regard to whether the

21

individuals against whom such force was used were engaged in conduct

22

justifying such force;

23

d. Did Defendants routinely, while breaking up George Floyd protests, hit

24

people with batons and/or rubber bullets although those people were

25

not engaging in conduct justifying such force;

26

e. When arresting people at the George Floyd protests, did Defendants

27

routinely subject arrestees to prolonged detention on buses, while

28

42 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 45 of 59 Page ID #:139

1

tightly hand-cuffed, denied access to bathrooms, water and food, and

2

where they were kept in enclosed spaces without ventilation;

3

f. When arresting people at the George Floyd protests, did Defendants

4

routinely subject arrestees charged solely with infractions to custodial

5

arrest without regard to whether they were entitled to field release as

6

provided in Cal. Penal Code § 853.5?

7

128. The common questions of law include, but are not limited to:

8

a. Must Defendants, when imposing a curfew based on some present at a

9

protest that is unlawful, accommodate, or attempt to accommodate, the

10

right to peaceable assembly and protest?

11

b. Must Defendants when declaring unlawful assemblies, provide

12

adequate sound amplification and provide both directions, means and

13

opportunity to disperse before taking aggressive and injurious –

14

potentially deadly - police action?

15

c. Did Defendants routine break up George Floyd protests through the use

16

of force (batons and rubber bullets) without regard to whether the

17

individuals against whom such force was used were engaged in conduct

18

justifying such force violate the First, Fourth or Fourteenth

19

Amendments and their state law analogues?

20

d. Did the LAPD, while breaking up George Floyd protests and routinely

21

hitting people with batons and/or rubber bullets although those people

22

were not engaging in conduct justifying such force violate the First,

23

Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments and their state law analogues?

24

e. Did the LAPD, after arresting people at the George Floyd protests, and

25

routinely subjecting arrestees to prolonged detention on buses, while

26

tightly hand-cuffed, denied access to bathrooms, water and food, and

27

where they were kept in enclosed spaces without ventilation violate the

28

Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments and their state law analogues?

43 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 46 of 59 Page ID #:140

1

f. Did the LAPD’s custodial arrest of people at the George Floyd protests

2

who were charged solely with infractions, and who qualified under

3

Penal Code § 853.5 for field release, violate their rights under 853.5

4

and/or Govt. Code § 815.6, and their rights under the Fourth and

5

Fourteenth Amendments and their state law analogues.

6

g. Did some or all of the conduct described above constitute a policy or

7

custom of Defendants?

8

h. Is any individual Defendant sued in his individual capacity entitled to

9

qualified immunity on the federal claims?

10

i. Did any of the conduct alleged herein violate Cal. Civil Code § 52.1

11

(the Bane Act)?

12

j. Are general classwide damages available to the various classes?

13

k. Are statutory damages under § 52.1 available to the various classes?

14

129. Defendants detained and/or arrested the putative class and sub-classes

15

as a group and treated all similarly, acting on ground applicable to the

16

putative class. The named Plaintiffs’ claims that the First, Fourth, and

17

Fourteenth Amendment rights—and their analogous state Constitution,

18

statutory, and common law rights—were violated raise common question

19

of law and fact. the Defendants have acted, threaten to act, and will

20

continue to act, on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby

21

making appropriate final injunctive relief or declaratory relief with respect

22

to the class as a whole.

23

130. The questions of law and fact common to the classes, which are outlined

24

above, predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.

25

iii. Typicality

26

131. In accordance with F.R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a), the claims of the

27

representative Plaintiffs are typical of the class. Plaintiffs were all present

28

at Floyd protests in the City of Los Angeles; were subjected to one or more

44 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 47 of 59 Page ID #:141

1

of the violations previously enumerated; and seek redress for the past

2

violations of their rights and protection to bar the repeat of those violations

3

in the future.

4

132. Thus, Plaintiffs have the same interests and have suffered the same

5

type of damages as the class members. Plaintiffs’ claims are based upon

6

the same or similar legal theories as the claims of the class members of

7

each class. Each class member suffered actual damages as a result of being

8

subjected to one or more of the violations enumerated above. The actual

9

injuries suffered by Plaintiffs are similar in type to the actual damages

10

suffered by each class member although the severity of those injuries may

11

vary among class members.

12

133. In accordance with F.R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a), the representative Plaintiffs

13

will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The interests of

14

the representative Plaintiffs are consistent with and not antagonistic to the

15

interests of the class.

16

iv. Adequate Representation

17

134. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the common

18

class interest. The named Plaintiffs have a strong interest in achieving the

19

relief requested in this Complaint, they have no conflicts with members of

20

the Plaintiff class, and they will fairly and adequately protect the interests

21

of the class.

22

135. The named Plaintiffs are represented by counsel who are well-

23

experienced in civil rights and class action litigation and are familiar with

24

the issues in this case. Attorneys Paul Hoffman, Barry Litt, and Carol Sobel

25

have successfully litigated a number of class action cases on behalf of

26

protesters in Los Angeles. They were appointed by the court as class

27

counsel in Aichele, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., No. 2:12-CV-10863-

28

DMG (C.D. Cal. August 26, 2012), challenging, inter alia, the LAPD’s

45 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 48 of 59 Page ID #:142

1

denial of OR release to those arrested during the Occupy action at Los

2

Angeles City Hall. They were appointed by the court as class counsel in

3

Chua v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. CV 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS(x)

4

(C.D. Cal. January 12, 2016), which involved protests over the police

5

killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson Mo.). They were also appointed as

6

class counsel in Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Worker Network v. City of Los

7

Angeles, 24 F.R.D. 631 (C.D. Cal. 2007), challenging the LAPD’s assault

8

on a lawful immigrant-rights rally in MacArthur Park on May 1, 2007.

9

That case resulted in a settle of $12,850,000 -- the largest amount ever paid

10

nationally in a protest case in which there were no arrests of the Plaintiffs.

11

In addition to class action protest litigation, attorneys Hoffman, Litt, and

12

Sobel have served as class counsel in a number of other class actions

13

redressing civil rights violations.

14

136. Counsel for the named Plaintiffs know of no conflicts among or

15

between members of the class, the named Plaintiffs, or the attorneys in this

16

action.

17

v. Maintenance and Superiority

18

137. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(1)(A), prosecutions of

19

separate actions by individual members of the classes would create a risk

20

that inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual

21

members of the class would establish incompatible standards of conduct

22

for the parties opposing the class.

23

138. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(1)(B), prosecutions of

24

separate actions by individual members of the classes would create a risk

25

of adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which

26

would, as a practical matter, substantially impair or impede the interests of

27

the other members of the class to protect their interests.

28

46 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 49 of 59 Page ID #:143

1

139. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(2), Defendants have acted

2

on grounds generally applicable to the class.

3

140. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3), the questions of law or

4

fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions

5

affecting only individual members, and this class action is superior to other

6

available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy

7

between the parties. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege,

8

that the interests of class members in individually controlling the

9

prosecution of a separate action is low in that most class members would

10

be unable to individually prosecute any action at all. Plaintiffs are informed

11

and believe, and thereon allege, that the amounts at stake for individuals

12

are such that separate suits would be impracticable in that most members

13

of the class will not be able to find counsel to represent them. Plaintiffs are

14

informed and believe, and thereon allege, that it is desirable to concentrate

15

all litigation in one forum because all of the claims arise in the same

16

location, i.e., the County of Los Angeles. It will promote judicial efficiency

17

to resolve the common questions of law and fact in one forum rather than

18

in multiple courts.

19

141. Plaintiffs do not know the identities of most class members. Plaintiffs

20

are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that the identities of the class

21

members are ascertainable in significant part from LAPD records, at least

22

as it relates to those class members who were arrested. Plaintiffs are

23

informed and believe, and thereon allege, that a significant number of class

24

members may be reached by the use of outreach efforts by organizations

25

that participated in organizing the affected protests.

26

142. Plaintiffs know of no difficulty that will be encountered in the

27

management of this litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a

28

class action. Leading members of Plaintiffs’ counsel organized The class

47 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 50 of 59 Page ID #:144

1

action is superior to any other available means to resolve the issues

2

managed similar litigation with similarly disparate damages as a result of

3

LAPD conduct in breaking up the May Day 2007 protests that resulted in

4

the MIWON litigation described previously, as well as the Aichele and

5

Chua litigation, all of which was against the City of Los Angeles and the

6

LAPD. Liability can be determined on a class-wide basis. General

7

damages can also be determined on a classwide.

8

143. In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3), class members must be

9

furnished with the best notice practicable under the circumstances,

10

including individual notice to all members who can be identified through

11

reasonable effort. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that LAPD computer

12

records contain a last known address for class members who were arrested.

13

Plaintiffs contemplate that individual notice be given to class members at

14

such last known address by first class mail, email and cell phone outreach,

15

social media and efforts of organizations that organized the protests.

16

Plaintiffs contemplate that the notice inform class members of the

17

following regarding their damages claims:

18

A. The pendency of the class action, and the issues common to the

19

class;

20

B. The nature of the action;

21

C. Their right to ‘opt out’ of the action within a given time, in

22

which event they will not be bound by a decision rendered in

23

the class action;

24

D. Their right, if they do not ‘opt out,’ to be represented by their

25

own counsel and enter an appearance in the case; otherwise,

26

they will be represented by the named Plaintiffs and their

27

counsel; and

28

48 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 51 of 59 Page ID #:145

1

E. Their right, if they do not ‘opt out,’ to share in any recovery in

2

favor of the class, and conversely to be bound by any judgment

3

on the common issues, adverse to the class.

4

144. As a direct and proximate cause of the conduct described herein,

5

the named individual Plaintiffs and the class members have been denied

6

their constitutional, statutory, and legal rights as stated herein, and have

7

suffered general and special damages, including but not limited to,

8

mental and emotional distress, physical injuries and bodily harm, pain,

9

fear, humiliation, embarrassment, discomfort, and anxiety and other

10

damages in an amount according to proof.

11

145. Plaintiffs have not yet filed a Cal. Govt. Code § 910 class claim

12

addressing their state law damages claims but intend to do so in the near

13

future. Once that occurs, and the time permitted by California law to

14

file a lawsuit on such claims has elapsed, Plaintiffs intend to amend this

15

complaint to add state law damages claims. Because injunctive relief

16

under state law does not require the filing of a prior administrative

17

claims, Plaintiffs’ injunctive relief claims currently entail violation of

18

Plaintiffs’ rights under California as well as federal law, including but

19

not limited to Cal. Const. Article 1, §§ 1, 2, 3, 7, 13, 17 and 26; Civil

20

Code § 52.1; Penal Code § 835.5; and Govt. Code § 815.6.

21

146. Defendants’ acts were willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive,

22

and done with conscious or reckless disregard for, and deliberate

23

indifference to, Plaintiffs’ rights.

24

147.

All of the following claims for relief are asserted against all

25

Defendants.

26

148. Although Plaintiffs’ legal theories significantly overlap, they

27

apply differently to different classes. Accordingly, Plaintiffs state their

28

claims by class.

49 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 52 of 59 Page ID #:146

1

149.

Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference each of the

2

foregoing and ensuing paragraphs in each of the following causes of

3

action as if each paragraph was fully set forth therein.

4 VI. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF – INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 5 (First, Fourth And Fourteenth Amendments To The U.S. Constitution, 42
U.S.C. § 1983; California Constitution Articles 1 §§ 2, 3, 7, 13, Penal Code 6 § 835.5, Civil Code § 52.1, And Civil Code § 815.6 For Injunctive Relief)

7

150. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the

8

preceding and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.

9

151. The Defendants engaged in repeated, widespread violations of

10

law, as outlined above, over the course of at least several nights, shutting

11

down the exercise of First Amendment activities through the use of

12

indiscriminate and unreasonable force against thousands of protestors;

13

imposing curfews without accommodating, or 3fen attempting to

14

accommodate, the right to peaceable assembly and protest; at times

15

declaring unlawful assemblies without adequate sound amplification

16

and without providing both directions, means and opportunity to

17

disperse before taking aggressive police action; hitting at least hundreds

18

of protestors with batons and/or rubber bullets through the use of

19

unreasonable and excessive force; arresting and not releasing in the field

20

at least hundreds of persons charged solely with infractions in violation

21

of California law; unlawfully imposing on arrestees unlawful conditions

22

of confinement for many hours – including but not limited to tight

23

handcuffing, no bathroom access, no access to food or water, and lack

24

of ventilation, placing detainees at great risk of exposure to COVID-19

25

– while on buses as previously outlined; and booking and collecting

26

information on arrested individuals.

27

152.

The City, through Chief Moore and the LAPD, has failed to train

28

its officers in the constitutional responses to peaceful demonstrations as

50 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 53 of 59 Page ID #:147

1

revealed by the above allegations despite the long history of such

2

violations in the past, and Defendants’ commitment to correct them in

3

the form of both court orders and settlement agreements. The recurrence

4

of the same violations with respect to these arrests indicates an

5

intentional refusal to preserve the constitutional rights of protestors.

6

153. Without intervention by this Court, the Injunctive Relief class

7

members, who have participated and wish to participate in protest

8

activities, particularly related to police violence, are at risk of having

9

their rights violated in the future due to the Defendants’ demonstrated

10

pattern of constitutional violations and threatened future actions. The

11

Injunctive Relief Class has no adequate remedy at law to protect the

12

future lawful exercise of their constitutional rights, and, without action

13

by this court, will suffer irreparable injury, thereby entitling them to

14

injunctive and declaratory relief. The injunctive relief class is

15

represented by Black Lives Matter Los Angeles and CANGRESS, as

16

well as each of the individual class representatives.

17

154. The Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds

18

generally applicable to the putative class. Injunctive and declaratory

19

relief for the putative class as a whole is appropriate.

20

155. Defendants’ polices practices, customs, conduct and acts alleged

21

herein resulted in, and will continue to result in, irreparable injury to the

22

Plaintiffs, including but not limited to violation of their constitutional

23

and statutory rights. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate, or complete

24

remedy at law to address the wrongs described herein. The Plaintiffs and

25

class members intend in the future to exercise their constitutional rights

26

of freedom of speech and association by engaging in expressive

27

activities in the City of Los Angeles. Defendants’ conduct described

28

herein has created uncertainty among Plaintiffs with respect to their

51 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 54 of 59 Page ID #:148

1

exercise now and in the future of these constitutional rights, and has

2

chilled their exercise of these rights.

3

156. Specifically, Plaintiffs are concerned that, if arrested, whether

4

lawfully or unlawfully, they will again be denied the liberty interest

5

codified at California Penal Code § 853.5, will be subjected to unlawful

6

conditions of confinement exposing them to increased risk of COVID-

7

19, and will be subjected to unreasonable and excessive force by LAPD.

8

157.

Plaintiffs are also concerned that, when engaged in protest

9

activities, Defendants will impose curfews without accommodating or

10

attempting to accommodate First Amendment rights; will not provide

11

adequate notice in the event unlawful assemblies are declared; will not

12

provide adequate means and opportunity to disperse; and will again

13

employ indiscriminate, unreasonable or excessive force, injuring and

14

terrifying protestors.

15

158. Plaintiffs therefore seek injunctive relief from this court to ensure

16

that Plaintiffs and persons similarly situated will not suffer violations of

17

their rights from Defendants’ illegal and unconstitutional policies,

18

customs, and practices described herein.

19

159. Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief in the form of an order

20

requiring that Defendants seal and destroy and records derived from

21

Plaintiffs’ arrests, including fingerprints, photographs, and other

22

identification and descriptive information, and all information, and

23

biological samples and information obtained from such biological

24

samples collected from the Plaintiff class, and identify to the Plaintiff

25

class all entities and agencies to which such information has been

26

disseminated; and that all such disseminated records be collected and

27

destroyed.

28

52 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 55 of 59 Page ID #:149

1 VII. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF – ARREST CLASS

(Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §

2

1983 for damages)

3

160. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the

4

preceding and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.

5

161. All Arrest Class members were arrested on misdemeanor

6

charges of failure to obey a curfew, failure to disperse, failure to follow

7

a lawful order of a police officer and/or unlawful assembly during

8

Floyd protests and were placed on buses and driven to a variety of

9

facilities where they were processed and released. All those arrestees

10

were on the buses for several hours – both to get to their destination

11

and then held on the bus until they were processed. The times the

12
arrest class was held on the congregate space of the buses ranged from

13

and lasting for as long as twelve hours or more. While held on buses or

14

otherwise detained prior to their release, Arrest Class members were
15

16

subjected to prolonged tight hand-cuffing; denied access to bathrooms,

17

water and food.; and held in enclosed spaces without ventilation, which

18

significantly increased their risk of Covid-19 exposure because, even if

19

they had previously been similarly distanced from others during

20

outside protests, the risk of exposure is significantly greater in

21

enclosed, unventilated spaces.

22

162. Defendants’ above-described conduct violated Arrest Class

23

members’ rights to be free from unreasonable seizures under the

24

Fourth Amendment and under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due

25

process clause and the state constitutional analogues.

26

163.

As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Arrest Class

27

members suffered damages as alleged above.

28

53 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 56 of 59 Page ID #:150

1

164. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, and the potential

2

that such conduct will recur, the Injunctive Relief Class is entitled to

3

relief from the potential that such violations will recur.

4 VIII. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF – DIRECT FORCE CLASS

5 (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 42 U.S.C. §

6

1983 for damages)

165. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the
7
preceding and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.
8
166. All Direct Force Class members were shot with so-called “less-
9

lethal weapons” and/or struck with batons.
10

167. Members of the Direct Force Class who were shot with “rubber
11

bullets” and struck with batons were injured in a manner that evinced
12

that Defendants applied force unlawfully. Many class members were
13

struck with rubber bullets in the face, head, shoulder and neck areas.
14

Video footage of various incidents shows officers shooting straight at
15

peaceful protestors who posed no threat to the police or the public. See:
16

Instagram video May 30, 2020 in the Fairfax area, near Pan Pacific Park
17

after the BLMLA rally https://www.instagram.com/p/CA3GPPYB7dz/
18

Similarly, individuals suffered baton strikes meant not to compel people

19

to retreat, but to injure and punish them on site.

20

168.

Defendants used unreasonable and excessive force in

21

indiscriminately engaging in baton strikes and shooting rubber bullets at
22

protestors, not based on an individualized determination of individual
23

conduct justifying such force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and
24

its state law analogues. Further, this conduct was deliberately indifferent
25

to the Direct Force Class members’ rights, shocks the conscience, and
26

violates the decencies of civilized conduct, under the Fourteenth
27

Amendment and its state law analogues.
28

54 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 57 of 59 Page ID #:151

1

169. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Direct Force Class

2

members suffered damages as alleged above.

3

170. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, and the potential

4

that such conduct will recur, the Injunctive Relief Class is entitled to

5

relief from the potential that such violations will recur.

6 IX. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF – INFRACTION CLASS

7 (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for damages)

8

171. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the preceding

9

and any subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint.

10

172. All Infraction Class members were charged with infractions, arrested

11

and taken into custody and not released in the field, as required by Penal

12

Code § 853.5. Section 835.5 created a liberty interest for Infraction Class

13

members to be cited and released in the field and not subjected to custodial

14

arrests.

15

173. The custodial arrests of Infraction Class members violated their rights

16

to be free from unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment and its

17

state constitutional analogue, and their rights under the Fourteenth

18

Amendment’s due process clause and its state constitutional analogue not

19

to be deprived of their liberty without due process of law, and violated their

20

rights under Penal Code § 853.5 and Govt. Code § 815.6.

21

174. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Direct Force Class

22

members suffered damages as alleged above.

23

175. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, and the potential that such

24

conduct will recur, the Injunctive Relief Class is entitled to relief from the

25

potential that such violations will recur.

26 X. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

27

Wherefore, Plaintiffs seek judgment as follows:

28

55 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 58 of 59 Page ID #:152

1

1. An order certifying the class and each sub-class defined herein pursuant

2 to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(2) and (3);

3

2. A preliminary and permanent injunction restraining Defendants from

4 engaging in the unlawful and unconstitutional actions detailed above and retaining

5 Court jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the injunction;

6

3. A declaratory judgment that Defendants’ conduct detailed herein was a

7 violation of the rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States and of

8 Plaintiffs and the class members;

9

4. An order directing that all arrest records be removed from all criminal

10 databases, whether operated by the City or County of Los Angeles, or the State of

11 California, and that all arrests be reduced to a “detention” other than those cases in

12 which the individual arrested is convicted of the charge;

13

5. General and compensatory damages for Plaintiffs and the class they

14 represent for the violations of their federal constitutional and statutory rights, pain

15 and suffering, all to be determined according to proof;

16

6. An award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Cal. Civil

17 Code §§ 52(b) & 52.1(h) and Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 1021.5;

18

7. Costs of suit;

19

8. Pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law;

20

9. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

21

22 Dated: June 21, 2020
23 24 25

Respectfully submitted,
Schonbrun, Seplow, Harris & Hoffman & Zeldes LLP s/ Paul L. Hoffman By: Paul L. Hoffman

26

Law Office of Carol A. Sobel

27

s/ Carol A. Sobel

28

By: Carol Sobel

56 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 9 Filed 06/21/20 Page 59 of 59 Page ID #:153

1

Kaye, McLane, Bednarski & Litt

2

s/ Barrett S. Litt

3

By: Barrett S. Litt

4

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

5

6

7

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

8

Plaintiffs hereby make a demand for a jury trial in this action.

9
/s/ Paul L. Hoffman

10

By: Paul L. Hoffman

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

57 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 
 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 1 of 87 Page ID #:207

1 Cynthia Anderson Barker SBN 75764 Barrett S. Litt, SBN 45527

2

NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910

Lindsay Battles SBN 262862 KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT

3

Los Angeles, CA 90010 t. 213 381-3246 f. 213 381-3246

975 E. Green Street Pasadena, California 91106

4 e. cablaw@hotmail.com

t. 626 844-7660 f. 626 844-7670 e. blitt@kmbllaw.com

5

Paul Hoffman, SBN 71244 Michael Seplow, SBN 150183

e. lbattles@kmbllaw.com

6 Aidan McGlaze, SBN 277270

Pedram Esfandiary SBN 312569

John Washington, SBN 315991

e. pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com

7 SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS

Monique Alarcon SBN 311650

HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP

e. malarcon@baumhedlundlaw.com

8 11543 W. Olympic Blvd.

Bijan Esfandiari SBN 223216

Los Angeles, California 90064-1508 e. besfandiari@baumhedlundlaw.com

9 t. 310 396-0731; f. 310 399-7040

R. Brent Wisner SBN 276023

10

e. hoffpaul@aol.com e. mseplow@sshhzlaw.com

e. rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com
BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI &

11

e. amcglaze@sshhzlaw.com e. jwashington@sshhlaw.com

GOLDMAN, P.C.
10940 Wilshire Blvd., 17th Floor

12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Los Angeles, CA 90024 t. 310 207-3233 f. 310 820-7444

13 [Additional Counsel on Next Page]

14

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION

17

BLACK LIVES MATTER LOS ANGELES, CANGRESS (DBA LA

Case No.: 2:20-cv-05027 CBM-AS

18 19

CAN), STEVEN ROE, NELSON LOPEZ, TINA ČRNKO, JONATHAN MAYORCA, ABIGAIL RODAS, KRYSTLE HARTFIELD, NADIA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE VOLUME I OF II IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION

20 KHAN, CLARA ARANOVICH,

FOR A TEMPORARY

21 22

ALEXANDER STAMM, MAIA KAZIM, ALICIA BARRERATRUJILO, SHANNON LEE MOORE,

RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

DEVON YOUNG, LINUS SHENTU,

23

individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,

24 25 v.

PLAINTIFFS,

26

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal entity, CHIEF MICHEL

27 MOORE, and DOES 1-10 inclusive,

28

DEFENDANTS.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE VOLUME I OF II IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 2 of 87 Page ID #:208

1 Carol A. Sobel, SBN 84483

2

Katherine Robinson SBN 323470 Weston Rowland SBN 327599

3

LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL 725 Arizona Avenue, Suite 300

4

Santa Monica, CA 90401 t. 310 393-3055

5

e. carolsobel@aol.com e. klrobinsonlaw@gmail.com

6 e. rowland.weston@gmail.com

7

Colleen Flynn, SBN 234281

8 LAW OFFICE OF COLLEEN FLYNN

3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910

9 Los Angeles, CA 90010

10

t. 213 252-9444 r. 213 252-0091

11 e. cflynn@yahoo.com

Jorge Gonzalez SBN 100799 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2485 Huntington Dr., Ste. 238 SAN MARINO, CA 91108-2622 t. 626 328-3081 e. jgonzalezlawoffice@gmail.com Olu Orange SBN 213653 Orange Law Offices 3435 Wilshire BLvd., Ste. 2910 LOS ANGELES, CA. 90010-2015 T. 213 736-9900 f. 213 417-8800 e. o.orange@orangelawoffices.com

12

Matthew Strugar, SBN 232951 LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW STRUGAR

13

3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90039

14

t. 323 696-2299 e. matthewstrugar@gmail.com

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE VOLUME I OF II IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 3 of 87 Page ID #:209

1

Plaintiffs submit the following evidence in support of their Application for

2 Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.

3

4

INDEX OF EVIDENCE

5 Tab and Exhibit No. Description

6

1.

Declaration of Melina Abdullah

7

2.

Declaration of Clara Aranovich

8

3.

Declaration of Alicia Barrera-Trujillo

9

4.

Declaration of Tina Črnko

10

5.

Declaration of Eva Grenier

11

6.

Declaration of Krystle Hartsfield

12

7.

Declaration of Maia Kazin

13

8.

Declaration of Erik J. Lessac-Chenen

14

9.

Declaration of Nelson Lopez

15

10.

Declaration of Jonathan Mayorca

16

11.

Declaration of Shannon Lee Moore

17

12.

Declaration of Nadia Khan

18

13.

Declaration of Abigail Rodas

19

14.

Declaration of Steven Christian Roe

20

15.

Declaration of Linus Shentu

21

16.

Declaration of Alexander Stamm

22

17.

Declaration of Jefferey Trotter

23

18.

Declaration of Pete White

24

19.

Declaration of Devon Young

25

20.

Declaration of Orlando Hinkston

26

27

28

1

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE VOLUME I OF II IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’

APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 4 of 87 Page ID #:210

1 DATED: June 24, 2020 2 3 4 5

SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP
LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL
KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT

6

By: /s/ Paul Hoffman

7

Paul Hoffman

8

Michael Seplow Aidan McGlaze

9

John Washington

10

Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE VOLUME I OF II IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’

APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 5 of 87 Page ID #:211
EXHIBIT 1

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 6 of 87 Page ID #:212

1

DECLARATION OF MELINA ABDULLAH

2 I, MELINA ABDULLAH, declare:

3 1. I am providing this declaration as a representative of the organizational

4

plaintiff, BLACK LIVES MATTER LOS ANGELES (“BLMLA”). I have

5

personal knowledge of the facts contained within this declaration and, if I

6

were called to testify to those facts, I could and would do so competently.

7
2. BLMLA is an official chapter of the Black Lives Matter Global Network

8
with chapters in major cities in the United States and worldwide, including
9
Los Angeles.
10
3. BLMLA is one of the largest and most active chapters of the organization,
11
with nearly 500 active members and organized ally groups, including White
12

13

People for Black Lives. In response to the death of George Floyd, BLMLA

14

sponsored scores of protests in Los Angeles and participated in

15

demonstrations organized by other groups.

16 4. The demonstrations organized by BLMLA to protest police violence are

17

ongoing and will continue for as long as it takes to make real and lasting

18

change in policing. On average, BLMLA sponsors four demonstrations a

19

week and organizes a weekly demonstration in front of the Hall of Justice in

20

downtown Los Angeles to protest the failure of the Los Angeles District

21

Attorney to prosecute law enforcement for police killings.

22 5. Defendants’ actions have interfered with BLMLA’s right to assembly and

23

free speech. Defendants’ actions during these protests have impeded the

24

ability of BLMLA to organize future events by instilling fear in its members.

25

Our members who protested police violence during these demonstrations

26

were themselves subjected to unlawful conduct and police violence by the

27

LAPD. The LAPD’s illegal conduct harmed our organization because

28
BLMLA put money and resources into organizing the demonstrations which

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 7 of 87 Page ID #:213

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 8 of 87 Page ID #:214
EXHIBIT 2

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 9 of 87 Page ID #:215

1

DECLARATION OF CLARA ARANOVICH

2

3

I, CLARA ARANOVICH, declare:

4

1. I am a filmmaker living in Los Angeles, California. I am a plaintiff in this action. This

5

declaration is based on facts of which I have personal knowledge. If called to testify to

6

these facts, I could and would do so competently.

7

2. On May 30, 2020, I participated in a peaceful demonstration in the Fairfax district to

8

protest racism, police brutality, and, specifically, the killings of George Floyd, Breonna

9

Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery.

10

3. It is my understanding that the demonstration continued after a rally organized by Black

11

Lives Matter Los Angeles at Pan Pacific Park. When I arrived at about 5:00 pm, I got in

12

line with a group of protestors who were marching east on 3rd Street toward The Grove

13

Farmer’s Market, culminating in a gathered line of demonstrators at the intersection of 3rd

14

and Fairfax Avenue.

15

4. I observed that police officers formed a line across the street in front of the group of

16

protestors. I joined the protesters who were at the front, closest to the police officers.

17

5. Just before 6:00 pm, Los Angeles Police Chief Moore addressed the protestors. Initially,

18

he was speaking to the protestors without any amplification, so it was nearly impossible

19

to hear what he was saying at times. He then began using a megaphone that someone

20

handed to him, but it was still difficult to hear amid the noise of the crowd. I did not hear

21

him or anyone else announce that the assembly had been declared unlawful or that we

22

were required to disperse. Chief Moore addressed the crowd in English and I did not hear

23

an announcement being made in any other language.

24

6. Approximately 30 minutes after Chief Moore spoke, the line of police officers began to

25

move back the frontline of protestors by using aggressive, physical force.

26

7. As the police officers advanced, they used the ends of their batons to jab people with

27

force in their chest and abdomen area.

28

8. A police officer hit me using the end of their baton in my chest and abdomen multiple

29

times. I had a painful bruise on my breast in one of the places where I was hit.

30

9. I also saw police officers striking protestors with their batons in an overhand motion.

ARANOVICH DECLARATION 1

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 10 of 87 Page ID #:216

1

10. As I was leaving the protest, I was hit with a rubber bullet on my calf. This resulted in a

2

painful welt and the bruise is still visible on my leg as of the date of this declaration.

3

11. I also witnessed the police using some kind of smoke cannisters in their attempts to dispel

4

the crowd.

5

12. While I want to continue to participate in lawful protest activity in public spaces, I know

6

that doing so comes with the risk of being injured again or arrested. I fear that all

7

protestors, particularly Black people and people or color, will continue to be subjected to

8

aggressive and violent behavior from the Los Angeles Police Department when they take

9

to the streets to exercise their rights. I fear that Los Angeles Police Department will not

10

be held accountable for these violations against our bodies and rights.

11

12

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this

13 day of June 19, 2020.

14

15

16

CLARA ARANOVICH

ARANOVICH DECLARATION 2

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 11 of 87 Page ID #:217
EXHIBIT 3

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 12 of 87 Page ID #:218

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 13 of 87 Page ID #:219

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 14 of 87 Page ID #:220

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 15 of 87 Page ID #:221
EXHIBIT 4

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 16 of 87 Page ID #:222

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3 4 Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, et al.

Case No. 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall

5 6 vs.

DECLARATION OF TINA ČRNKO

7 8 City of Los Angeles, et al.

9

10

I, Tina Črnko, declare and state as follows:

11

1. I am a recent university graduate residing in Los Angeles, California and have been

12 present at various protests occurring between May 30, 2020 and the current date. The information

13 contained in this declaration is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I am of majority age

14 and competent to personally testify to the matters set forth herein.

15

2. On Saturday May 30, 2020, I was personally subjected to police violence in the form of

16 being hit by rubber bullets and other “non-lethal” projectiles while peacefully protesting within the

17 Fairfax district of Los Angeles.

18

3. On that day of May 30, my friends and I arrived at a protest organized by Black Lives

19 Matter Los Angeles and other grassroots/activist organizations, scheduled to commence at Pan-Pacific

20 Park in west Los Angeles. By the time I arrived at or around 12:30 pm in the afternoon, the rally had

21 been ongoing for approximately thirty (30) minutes. I participated in a large crowd of protesters that

22 started peacefully marching towards the Beverly Center at approximately 1:00 pm.

23

4. By 3:00 pm, the crowd of those marching had separated into some three smaller groups.

24 I was part of a group of protesters that were kettled by police officers from the Los Angeles Police

25 Department (LAPD) at the intersection of 3rd St./Edinburgh Avenue. The crowd of which I was part

26 continued to peacefully protest – at times taking a knee – at the intersection for approximately one (1)

27 hour. I did not witness any aggression against police officers at the hands of protesters throughout the

28 entire day of protesting.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF TINA ČRNKO

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 17 of 87 Page ID #:223

1

5. Over time, I witnessed the line of LAPD officers blocking the south end of the

2 intersection becoming increasingly heavily armed such that by approximately 4.30 pm there appeared

3 to be several hundred officers surrounding our group on all sides, armed with riot gear and other forms

4 of crowd-control equipment. We faced the line of officers to the south and kneeled.

5

6. Between approximately 5:15 and 5:30 pm, Chief Michel Moore of the LAPD appeared

6 amongst the line of officers facing our group from the south. We informed Chief Moore that we would

7 not leave and intended to continue peacefully protesting. Chief Moore withdrew the line of officers

8 blocking the south end of the intersection and allowed us to pass through, at which point we marched

9 south on Edinburgh Avenue, proceeded east on Blackburn Avenue and made our way to the 10 intersection of 3rd St/Fairfax Avenue, where I took up position in front of the Starbucks located at

11 north-east end of the intersection.

12

7. By approximately 5:45 pm, large groups of LAPD officers had formed lines blocking

13 west and north points of the 3rd St/Fairfax Avenue intersection. Over the course of time, I observed

14 what appeared to be hundreds of LAPD officers arriving at the 3rd St./Fairfax Avenue intersection,

15 attired in full riot gear and armed with an array of different firearms. Officers formed an impenetrable

16 wall that appeared to be at least ten (10) officers deep, stretching from as far south as Whole Foods to

17 Trade Joes on Fairfax Avenue. A group of some 50-60 protesters formed a line facing west at the

18 intersection, still peacefully protesting, and expressing frustration at the ever-growing number of police

19 officers in riot gear on both ends of Fairfax Avenue. Around this time, I again witnessed Chief Moore

20 appearing from amongst the throng of officers. Chief Moore, attired in full riot gear, made a series of

21 announcements addressed – presumably – at those protesting. However, I was unable to decipher any

22 of Chief Moore’s announcements due to the weak volume of the bullhorn he was using.

23

8. At approximately 6:00 pm, I witnessed a panicked group of protesters emerging from

24 behind Citibank on the south end of the 3rd St./Fairfax Avenue intersection, fleeing east on 3rd St.

25 (presumably because officers were advancing towards them) as, contemporaneously, a large group of

26 LAPD officers swarmed into the 3rd St./Fairfax Avenue intersection from the north on Fairfax. I, along 27 with others, started retreating east on 3rd St., but soon realized that this was a false start and quickly 28 resumed position on the northeast corner of 3rd St./Fairfax Avenue. At this juncture, I noticed that a

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF TINA ČRNKO

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 18 of 87 Page ID #:224

1 line of LAPD officers was advancing towards us from the west on 3rd St. A gentleman who was

2 positioned further in front of me – facing the line of officers – was aggressively pushed down on the

3 ground by officers and appeared to be arrested. I and others expressed vocal outrage at this

4 unnecessary show of force against a peaceful demonstrator.

5

9. At approximately 6:25 pm, I heard the first rounds of non-lethal ammunition being fired

6 by the advancing officers, and I was struck in the left bicep and ribcage by what appeared to be a round

7 of foam projectiles. As I and others continued to retreat east, rubber bullets were suddenly – and

8 without warning – fired at us by the advancing officers, and I was struck by a rubber bullet on the

9 forehead above my right eye. I immediately lost all sense of hearing except for a loud, continual

10 ringing in both ears and pain reverberating throughout my skull. My forehead was bleeding profusely

11 as a friend pulled me to the side of the road to apply gauze to the wound, and I was informed by a

12 medic present on the scene to immediately seek medical treatment. However, officers were still

13 advancing and firing, forcing us to continue retreating and not allowing for the opportunity to assess

14 and address my wound.

15

10. I was able to shelter at a friend’s residence in the Fairfax district, close to the site of the

16 protests and police violence, and immediately sought medical attention at a nearby facility where I

17 received seven individual stiches for the laceration on my forehead. The rubber bullet had torn open

18 the skin on my forehead to the bone. Over the following days, a large swelling appeared above my

19 right eye, resulting in poor eyesight and a yellowish tinge covering the right side of my face. The

20 ringing in my ears – caused by the impact of the rubber bullet – subsided some 48 hours following the

21 injury. However, the excruciating pain persisted. I have likely sustained permanent nerve damage on

22 the top of my skull, and I still experience considerable pain in an area stretching some four inches from

23 the scar on my forehead to the back of my scalp. I have no sensation in the area on my forehead where

24 the skin was torn.

25

11. The experience of police violence – merely for exercising my constitutional rights of

26 free speech and assembly – has been extremely traumatic. I suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder

27 (“PTSD”) associated with the firing of projectiles by officers and feel panic and great distress

28 whenever I hear sudden loud noises (such as fireworks in my neighborhood), and am concerned about

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION OF TINA ČRNKO

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 19 of 87 Page ID #:225

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 20 of 87 Page ID #:226

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 21 of 87 Page ID #:227
EXHIBIT 5

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 22 of 87 Page ID #:228

1

;DECLARATION OF EVA GRENIER

2

3

I, Eva Grenier, declare:

4

1. I am a plaintiff in this action. This declaration is based on facts of which I have personal

knowledge. If called to testify to these facts, I could and would do so competently.
5
2. On May 30th, 2020, I arrived to 3rd and Fairfax Ave around 2:40pm to observe the
6
peaceful march of protestors who had gathered earlier at Pan Pacific Park. This group

7
was protesting the killing of George Floyd and other victims of police brutality and

8

racism. I observed some protesters who were holding signs. The crowd was peaceful.

9

People of all ages appeared to be at the protest. I was wearing my bright green NLG hat

10

at the time and identified myself as a legal observer to anyone who inquired.

11

3. When I arrived at the protest, officers had formed a scrimmage line on 3rd street at 7930

12

3rd Ave. As the crowds continued to grow, the officer line retreated back several

13

buildings from the 7930 address on 3rd street. I observed the line as police began using

force to push the protestors back. Prior to this, I did not see any provocation by the
14
protestors. During the time that I was present at this area before the police started
15
pushing the protestors back, I did not hear an unlawful assembly declared at this point.

16
4. At around 3:00 pm, Officer Arrias, who had an identifying helmet number 38654, began

17

shooting rubber bullet projectiles in 2 to 3 second succession at the crowd. Arrias

18

appeared to be aiming into the crowd directly. Many protestors were shot in the legs,

19

including the friend I was with. None of them were engaged in any aggressive or hostile

20

conduct towards the officers.

21

5. At approximately 3:02 pm, one officer, who did not have an identifying number on the

22

front of his helmet, shoved a protestor about five feet from me. I observed another

officer, whose name I believe was Peters but who did not have an identifying number on
23
the front of his helmet, join in and both started shoving and hitting protestors with their
24
batons in the protestors’ torso and ribs. A few minutes later, the unidentified officer and
25
Peters were joined by a third officer, Watson, who did not have an identifying number on

26

the front of his helmet. All three were shoving protestors and hitting them directly with

27

batons in their torsos and ribs. I observed all three officers also began swinging and

28

hitting protestors’ legs. Officer Watson hit me in the stomach with his baton. Officers

EVA GRENIER DECLARATION - 1

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 23 of 87 Page ID #:229

1

paused for a minute or two and then began marching toward the protestors and swinging

2

batons again around 3:06pm. I observed one woman who appeared to me was visibly in

3

pain as officers continued to hit her. Officer Watson hit me again multiple times,

4

specifically in the stomach and arm. I screamed in pain multiple times. The hits to my

arm caused bruising. I had not done anything to provoke this assault.
5
6. At this point, I could also see officers shoot some type of concussion flash projectiles into
6
the crowd. The projectiles emitted smoke, a loud bang noise, and some type of

7
combustion. I believe that Officer Martin shot these from a weapon he had.

8

7. At around 3:11pm, officers began to swing batons and march against the crowd again. I

9

saw specifically Officer Rodriguez, helmet number 38654, advance upon the crowd

10

swinging his baton wildly. He made one particularly hard right swipe towards the heads

11

of some of the protestors, holding his baton like it was a baseball bat. At about the same

12

time, I observed Officer Salazar, helmet number 36860, begin running towards protestors

13

holding his baton like a battering ram. An officer whose helmet number was 40558 also

made three-feet lunges towards the crowd jabbing his baton into the rib region of
14

protestors. I observed multiple protestors fell to the ground as officers lunged and swung
15
batons against the group. At this point no audible or recognizable dispersal order had
16
been made while I was present.

17

8. Officer Watson again advanced toward me. He hit me with his baton at least two more

18

times. Again, I had not engaged in any aggressive, violent or provocative conduct, nor

19

had I seen anyone around me do so. Protestors were yelling at the police to stop pushing

20

them but were not attacking the police. I also observed multiple officers continue to

21

swing their batons indiscriminately and strike protestors.

22

9. Starting at about 3:17pm, Officer Watson, Officer Peters, the third unidentified Officer

and Officer Martin again began advancing on the protestors closest to me and I observed
23
Officer Martin shoot projectiles into the crowd from approximately 2-3 feet in front of
24
the protestors. These projectiles caused smoke, a loud bang, and some type of combustion
25
as all three officers continued to push, shove, and hit protestors with their batons.

26

10. As the officers continued to attack the protestors with batons and to throw some type of

27

flash explosives in the crowd, I heard officers near me say they were going to push

28

protestors back 15 feet.

EVA GRENIER DECLARATION - 2

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 24 of 87 Page ID #:230

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 25 of 87 Page ID #:231
EXHIBIT 6

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 26 of 87 Page ID #:232
DECLARATION OF KRYSTLE HARTSFIELD
I, KRYSTLE HARTSFIELD, hereby declare and say as follows: 1. I am a named plaintiff in this action. This declaration is based on facts of which I have personal knowledge. If called to testify to these facts, I could and would do so competently. 2. On May 30, 2020, I participated in a peaceful demonstration in the Fairfax area of Los Angeles to protest the death of George Floyd by police officers from the Minneapolis Police Department. 3. I am employed as an Artist Manager for a Music Entertainment company in Los Angeles. While I was participating in the demonstration near the Trader Joe.s on Third Street and Fairfax Avenue, officers began to physically direct the movement of the group of protesters I was in. A short time thereafter, at around 3:30 p.m., a dispersal order was given. 4. At the point the dispersal order was given, we were directed to leave via the alleyway next to the Trader Joe s. So, following the order, I began to leave the area and was walking way, when I heard an officer say don t let them leave. Several officers surrounded me and blocked me off. As they did this, one of the other female protesters grabbed my hand and repeatedly said, don t round her up don t round her up but the officers pulled her away from me and pushed me into the parking lot near the alley. At that point I was handcuffed.
DECLARATION OF KRYSTLE HARTSFIELD - 1

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 27 of 87 Page ID #:233
5. My friend and Artist, Chika, with whom I attended the demonstration, was walking in front of me and turned around just in time to see an officer give the order to get me specifically. The officer said get her with the phone . Chika was subsequently pushed into the parking lot with me. I heard Chika ask the officers why they were detaining me. Then, an officer said, get her too referring to Chika. After I was suppressed back into the parking lot, an officer I understand to be Officer Terrence, pulled my cell phone out of my hand and put it in my purse. I had been using my cellphone to record video of what was happening. 6. After handcuffing us behind our backs, the officers then walked us across the street and put us up against a wall on Third Street near a store called Wow LA. The officers required us to stand there against the wall for two hours. I observed that Chika appeared to be in great discomfort from her handcuffs. I also saw the lack of circulation in another protesters wrists. So, I asked an officer for some help with Chika s handcuffs. The officer told me, we don t have supplies to take them off. I then asked if the officers had been trained as to how to take them off. An officer said, no. Some time later, an officer came and added an additional set of handcuffs to Chika s and the one other protester s to relieve that pain and pressure. However, other protesters that I saw who were also in pain from tight handcuffs were not given an adjustment. An officer said, we do not have additional handcuffs to do this for the other protesters.
DECLARATION OF KRYSTLE HARTSFIELD - 2

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 28 of 87 Page ID #:234
7. While we were handcuffed standing up against the wall, one of the officers came up to me and said, I saw you guys, you were walking away. So, I asked why he did not help us. He responded that they have to follow once the arresting officer gives the order. 8. We were then put on a van and told we would be taken to downtown Los Angeles for booking. However, instead, we were taken to Van Nuys. The bus we were transported on had 12 to 15 individual cages and each protester was put in one, including me, with the handcuffs on and hands behind our backs. Even so, we were not six feet apart. The buses were extremely dirty and not saniti ed according to the CDC regulations for COVID-19. While we were protesting we had on masks, on the bus we did not, many of the protesters masks were removed during detainment and could not be reapplied due to the handcuffs. 9. While I was on the bus, I observed multiple protesters complain about painfully tight handcuffs, that they needed water and that they needed to use the bathroom. Once we arrived at the station in Van Nuys, we were taken off the bus two at a time for processing. An 8:30p.m. curfew was issued that night while we were detained. 10. By the time I was taken off the bus, I was past the 8:30 curfew when I was unhandcuffed and processed for release. At that time, I asked, How are people supposed to get home. An officer then told me that we can t stand outside the police station or we will be taken inside and booked. Fortunately for me, members
DECLARATION OF KRYSTLE HARTSFIELD - 3

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 29 of 87 Page ID #:235
of my family followed the bus to the police station when we were first arrested, so I had a ride home. 11. I signed the citation and I was told to stand along the wall to wait for others to be released. They then had us line up in a single file line, and escorted us to the front of the police station at around 10:00 p.m. In all, I was kept in tight handcuffs for more than 6 hours. 12. At the time of our detention our group was acting peaceful, had not done anything of an assaultive nature against the police. They would order us to move as a group in a certain direction, and when we did there was another line of officers blocking our way. Although we fully followed police orders to disperse through the alleyway, their actions prevented us from walking away. 13. During the entire time we were in custody we were not provided with any water or given access to a bathroom. I personally observed multiple protesters ask for their hand restraints to be adjusted because of the pain but the officers refused. 14. I want to continue going to the demonstrations that are still happening because I want to express support for police reforms and better treatment of my community members, but I am afraid of being arrested again or injured. I still strongly believe in the motives of the demonstrators to complain, denounce, and call for the end of arbitrary and violent police actions against people of color, and in particular, African-Americans.
DECLARATION OF KRYSTLE HARTSFIELD - 4

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 30 of 87 Page ID #:236
15. I am also a class representative in this action. I understand that, if the Court grants plaintiffs class certification motion, I would represent a large number of people who are part of this lawsuit. I understand that the lawsuit is seeking damages, as well as changes in policy. I understand that I would represent the interests of those persons who were present at Third and Fairfax on May 30, 2020, and who were kettled, detained, and/or arrested despite being peaceful protesters that did not present any threat of harm to the police officers or others. 16. As a class representative:
i. I understand that I and other plaintiffs are claiming that the conduct of the City employees and agents was unlawful and that I am acting on behalf of many people besides myself whose rights were violated as the result of the foregoing law enforcement activity.
ii. I also understand that I and other plaintiffs are claiming that the conduct of the City employees and agents was unlawful and that I am acting on behalf of many people besides myself whose rights were violated as the result of the foregoing law enforcement activity.
iii. I understand that, as a class representative, it is my responsibility to represent the interests of the class as a whole, and not just my personal interests.
iv. I understand that a class representative has claims which are typical of the members of the class or sub-class being represented. I understand that
DECLARATION OF KRYSTLE HARTSFIELD - 5

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 31 of 87 Page ID #:237
typical means that my claims against the defendants are like the claims of the other class and/or sub-class members because each of us was injured as a result of a common policy, practice, or law implemented by the defendants. v. I understand that my responsibilities as a class representative continue until the Court decides that this case is no longer a class action or the case ends. vi. I understand that, through my attorneys, I have a duty and responsibility to let class members know about important developments in the case. I understand that my attorneys and the Court will let me know what those events are. vii. I understand that, if and when the Court requires notification to class members about significant events in the case, my attorneys will prepare the notices to class members and send them out. I understand that this includes notices to let class members know their rights and how they can participate in the case. viii. I understand that any resolution of this lawsuit must be accepted by the class as a whole. ix. I understand that as a class representative, I have an ongoing obligation to make reasonable efforts to provide my attorneys with the information they need to prosecute this case. This includes providing any documents I have related to this case, if required; to testify a deposition, hearing or trial, if necessary; to maintain current contact information and any other contact
DECLARATION OF KRYSTLE HARTSFIELD - 6

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 32 of 87 Page ID #:238
information necessary for my attorneys to be able to reach me on short notice. x. I understand that, as a class representative, I am volunteering to represent many people with similar claims and damages. I believe that it is important for all people whose rights were violated as mine were on to benefit from the lawsuit. Based on what I have been told, preceding with this lawsuit as a class action will save time, money, and effort and allow individuals with relatively small monetary claims to vindicate their rights. xi. I am not aware of any conflicts with any other members of the class.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 18th day of June, 2020, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.
KRYSTLE HARTSFIELD
DECLARATION OF KRYSTLE HARTSFIELD - 7

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 33 of 87 Page ID #:239
EXHIBIT 7

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 34 of 87 Page ID #:240

1

DECLARATION OF MAIA KAZIN

2 I, MAIA KAZIN, declare:

3 1. I am a high school tutor living in Los Angeles, California. I am a plaintiff in

4

this action. This declaration is based on facts of which I have personal

5

knowledge. If called to testify to these facts, I could and would do so

6

competently.

7
2. On June 1, 2020, I participated in a peaceful demonstration on Spring St.

8
near the intersection of 5th Street in downtown Los Angeles to protest the
9
killing of George Floyd and other victims of police brutality.
10
3. At 6:30 p.m. officers from the Los Angeles Police Department moved in and
11

blocked about 300 people from moving north or south on Spring Street. The
12

13

police formed a blockade at both ends of Spring Street. Some people tried

14

to leave through a parking lot on Spring, but the police quickly blocked their

15

exit.

16 4. I was at the front of the protest. Prior to the police blockade of the protesters,

17

there was no disbursal order. Nor did I hear any warning or advisal that we

18

were in violation of a curfew. There was no instruction to leave the area or

19

that we would be arrested if we did not leave.

20 5. The police arrested us by blockading all 300 individuals from both ends on

21

the section of Spring Street where we had gathered. Then the officers

22

handcuffed us with zip-ties and removed us one by one from the group. I

23

did not receive the citation for a curfew violation until 15 minutes after I was

24

handcuffed.

25 6. After were zip-tied, we were loaded onto buses. There were about 5-6 buses

26

to transport the people who were arrested and about 48 people were on my

27

bus. We were not told where we were being taken. I learned that we had

28

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 35 of 87 Page ID #:241

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 36 of 87 Page ID #:242
EXHIBIT 8

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 37 of 87 Page ID #:243

1

DECLARATION OF ERIK J. LESSAC-CHENEN

2

3

I, Erik J. Lessac-Chenen, declare:

4

1. I am a plaintiff in this action. I am employed as an aerospace engineer. This declaration

5

is based on facts of which I have personal knowledge. If called to testify to these facts, I

6

could and would do so competently.

7

2. On May 30th, 2020, I observed a peaceful demonstration originating in Pan Pacific Park

8

to protest the killing of George Floyd and other victims of police brutality and racism. I

9

drove to the Fairfax area with my girlfriend and two friends.

10

3. I arrived at the location at around 2:00 pm. I observed some protesters who were

11

holding signs. The crowd was peaceful. People of all ages appeared to be at the protest.

12

The first thing I saw upon arriving to the location was a group of First Nation people

13

performing what I assume was a culturally significant dance. I, with my companions,

14

observed the dancing for about ten minutes.

15

4. After watching the dance for some time, we decided to advance forward to see what the

16

front of the crowd looked like. By the time I caught up with the main group, I observed

17

that police officers had formed a scrimmage line on 3rd street at the 7944 address. At

18

this point, it was around 2:30 pm.

19

5. I stayed a little further back and watched as my friend Weston Rowland moved to the

20

front of the crowd to speak to some of the National Lawyers Guild volunteers. Around

21

that time, I also observed police using excessive force to push the protestors back. To my

22

knowledge, no unlawful assembly had been declared at this point.

23

6. As I watched, the police held this position for over an hour, transitioning between using

24

batons to push back the crowd and firing some type of projectiles into the crowd. At

25

around 4:20, I saw a car that looked like a red Dodge Charger drive through the crowd.

26

Officers allowed opened the scrimmage line to allow the vehicle through while still firing

27

projectiles into the crowd.

28 DECLARATION OF ERIK J. LESSAC-CHENEN
- 1 -

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 38 of 87 Page ID #:244

1

7. I remember hearing officers say to the protestors to leave the area but I did not hear an

2

announcement that an unlawful assembly had been declared. Also, I did not hear any

3

announcement of which direction to leave by. At this point, I observed that the

4

demonstrators were very agitated because of the tactics of the police.

5

8. As the police continued to push and shoot the group, protestors started to leave the area,

6

marching up Fairfax instead of taking the previous route down 3rd street.

7

9. When the march reached Beverly and Fairfax at around 4:45 p.m., we saw another line of

8

officers blocking our passage around the Chase bank on the north east corner of the

9

intersection. As protestors started to fill the intersection, I heard police officers yell at us

10

to get back. At this point, I observed several officers start using their batons in overhand

11

swings into the crowd. At one point, I observed an office use his baton in an overhead

12

strike at a woman standing near me. It appeared to me that the baton would strike her

13

skull. head. I was able stop the baton with my hand before the officer made contact with

14

the woman’s head.

15

10. However, the force of the baton strike was so strong that it broke the skin on my hand

16

and my whole palm and thumb immediately started swelling to twice the normal size. I

17

had bleeding in the lower thumb area, which took the majority of the impact of the baton.

18

I continued to have pain in the area for nearly three weeks after the event. For the first

19

week I could not pick up objects with the injured hand without experiencing a great deal

20

of pain.

21

11. At approximately 5:00 p.m., I observed that the police had formed another line, blocking

22

entry onto Beverly Blvd. The protestors maintained a wide distance from officers of

23

approximately 20 feet. The majority of protestors had their hands up, facing the officers.

24

At this point, I observed officers fire rubber bullets into the crowd. The rounds were

25

not shot at the ground but directly at protestors upper body as protestors were chanting

26

“don’t shoot” with their hands up. I observed rubber projectiles hit multiple protestors

27

28 DECLARATION OF ERIK J. LESSAC-CHENEN
- 2 -

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 39 of 87 Page ID #:245

1

directly and ricochet through the crowd. I was struck with some type of projectile at this

2

time.

3

12. At this point. having been hit with a baton and multiple projectiles, my friends and I

4

decided to leave the protest to inspect our injuries and wait until the police stopped

5

attacking the demonstrators..

6

13. We left the protest and sat in a nearby business park. We sat in that same spot for

7

approximately one hour. We tried to get an Uber to pick us up so we could go home, but

8

no Uber would pick us up. I did not observe that buses were running in the area. We

9

then walked several miles back to where I had parked my car.

10

14. By 7:00 p.m., we had made our way to Beverly and Edinburg on our way to reach my

11

car. At this point, we saw a group of protestors facing another police line blocking our

12

route. The police appeared to be armed with projectile weapons. I observed at this point

13

that there was approximately 30 feet between officers and protestors. As I watched, I

14

saw a male officer, make a hand motion as he laughed and shot at protestors with rubber

15

bullet rounds. At one point after firing rubber bullets he asked “who else wants one?” I

16

was close enough to hear what he said.

17

15. Several other protestors and I saw this interaction and asked both that officer and the

18

officers around him to identify the unmarked unnamed officer. No officer was willing to

19

give the officer’s name.

20

16. At around 7:08, I saw a woman was struck multiple times with rubber bullets. She fell

21

to the ground. My friend and I approached the woman to aid her. My friend was then

22

shot directly in the upper body with a projectile. My friend immediately took off his

23

overshirt to reveal a bright red bleeding wound the size of a golf ball. A good amount of

24

skin was hanging off the wound and he appeared to be in a great deal of pain.

25

17. At this point my friends and I decided that it was too risky to be in this area because of

26

the police shooting protestors. We started heading south on Fairfax.

27

28 DECLARATION OF ERIK J. LESSAC-CHENEN
- 3 -

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 40 of 87 Page ID #:246

1

18. By around 7:20 we were near Fairfax and Third. I observed that a line of officers

2

were blocking the street even though at that location there were no protestors. We

3

attempted to cross the street but the fficers would not let us cross the street. The police

4

kept telling us to go home but had blocked multiple routes to get to my car. . Eventually

5

we were able to get past that scrimmage line and return to my car.

6

7

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 23rd

8 day of June 2020.

9

10

11

DECLARATION OF ERIK J. LESSAC-CHENEN

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 DECLARATION OF ERIK J. LESSAC-CHENEN
- 4 -

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 41 of 87 Page ID #:247
EXHIBIT 9

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 42 of 87 Page ID #:248

1

DECLARATION OF NELSON LOPEZ

2 I, NELSON LOPEZ, declare:

3
1. I am a maintenance repairman living in Los Angeles, California. I am a
4
named plaintiff in this action. This declaration is based on facts of which I
5

have personal knowledge. If called to testify to these facts, I could and
6

7

would do so competently.

8 2. On May 29, 2020, I participated in a peaceful demonstration in front of Los

9

Angeles City Hall at First and Spring Street in downtown Los Angeles

10

organized by Black Lives Matter Los Angeles to protest the killing of

11

George Floyd and other victims of police brutality and racism.

12 3. On the day of the protest I parked my car at about 7:30 p.m. on 9th Street

13

near the 9th Street exit off the 110 freeway in downtown Los Angeles. I

14

stood with some protesters who were peacefully holding signs. Some people

15

had gotten up on the freeway but I did not join the protesters there. The

16

police then used flash bang gernades on the protesters so the group started

17

marching east on 9th Street toward City Hall.

18 4. After about an hour, I arrived at Spring and First Street outside City Hall.

19

The crowd was very peaceful. People were handing out snacks and water

20

and I saw little kids holding signs. However, the police had formed a

21

rectangle of officers around the group and we were blocked in from all sides

22
unable to exit the area. We were never given a dispersal order and there was

23
no opportunity to leave. A helicopter flew over the crowd and it was very
24
hard to hear. I did not hear a dispersal order or any other announcement
25
coming from the helicopter.
26

5. The police surrounding the crowd said, “You need to take a seat. Everyone
27

is going to be peacefully arrested.” People in the crowd kept asking the
28

DECLARATION 1

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 43 of 87 Page ID #:249

1

police what they meant by “peacefully arrested.” We waited about 40

2

minutes for an answer and then we were told we would be given a ticket that

3

was like a traffic citation and nothing would go on our record.

4 6. I sat down. While I was detained at City Hall, I got in touch with my mother

5

who is a registered nurse at California Hospital. She got off her 12-hour shift

6

and came to look for me. She found me and said, “Lets go!” However, she

7
also got trapped. She was arrested and detained with the people who were

8
surrounded by police at City Hall, even though she was coming from work
9
and came to take me home with her.
10
7. It took about two to three hours for everyone in the group at City Hall to be
11
handcuffed. Some homeless people were also swept up in the arrests. Some
12

13

folks were screaming about the tight handcuffs. Others were upset because

14

the police lied to them. We were initially told we would just be cited but

15

now we were being handcuffed and told we would need to be fingerprinted,

16

placed on a bus, and taken to a police station.

17 8. People were stuffed like sardines into the bus and most people did not have

18

masks. The police garage was just a few minutes from City Hall. However,

19

we sat on the bus for about 45 minutes waiting to get into the police garage.

20

Once I was taken into the garage, it seemed as though there were already

21

1,000 people inside being processed. More and more busloads of people

22

arrived.

23 9. My tight handcuffs were extremely uncomfortable. Later, I discovered that

24

they caused bruising. My right shoulder rotator cuff was sore for about a

25

week from the prolonged handcuffing. Then the pain went away. I asked a

26

police officer to loosen the handcuffs and he said they did not have enough

27

handcuffs to do this. Another officer to loosen by cuffs and he said they did

28

DECLARATION 1

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 44 of 87 Page ID #:250

1

not have the right tool. Everyone complained that their handcuffs were too

2

tight.

3 10. It took 2-3 hours to get my citation while I was in the police garage. I was

4

never photographed and fingerprinted. I was cited for a violation of LAMC

5

80.02 - failure to obey a lawful order of a police officer.

6

My mother was one of the first to be put on a bus with other women and

7
taken to the same police garage where I was processed. After I signed my
8
citation and was released, I found my mom. She was released around 1:00
9
a.m. and waited for me until I was released at 3:30 a.m. It took us about 40
10
minutes to walk to her car which was still in the California Hospital parking
11
lot where she left it.
12

13

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

14

Executed this ___ day of June 2020.

15

16

__________________________
NELSON LOPEZ

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 DECLARATION 1

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 45 of 87 Page ID #:251

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 46 of 87 Page ID #:252
EXHIBIT 10

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 47 of 87 Page ID #:253

1

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN MAYORCA

2

I, JONATHAN MAYORCA, hereby declare and say as follows:

3 1. I am a named plaintiff in this action. This declaration is based on facts of

4 which I have personal knowledge. If called to testify to these facts, I could and

5 would do so competently.

6 2. On May 30, 2020, I participated in a peaceful demonstration in the Fairfax

7 area of Los Angeles to protest the death of George Floyd by police officers from

8 the Minneapolis Police Department.

9 3. I am a journalist for an independent media company, and was out filming

10 with my crew, including my sister Fiorella Mayorca, and our cameraman Eva

11 Crowder. We were filming demonstrators on Beverly Boulevard, when officers

12 from the Los Angeles Police Department began to form a line on the street near the

13 CVS and push us back. I was able to move my car, but then I realized we were

14 trapped by the officers, and they were kettling us toward an alley. I showed them

15 my press badge which was clearly visible. They ignored me and continued

16 pushing us toward the alley. We were surrounded by police officers and unable to

17 exit despite our protests.

18 4. We were then ordered to sit down and stop filming. I was arrested first.

19 They forcefully put me on the ground, during which time they broke my camera.

20 Then they handcuffed me with plastic zip ties that were very tight and caused a lot

21 of pain and discomfort.

22 5. Then we were forced up against a wall and frisked (my sister felt violated).

23 They looked at my wallet and forced us in to a van, sitting all together with no

24 regard for social distancing. Others in the same group were protestors who were

25 arrested and received the same treatment as did I.

26 6. After thirty minutes we were driven to the Los Angeles police station in Van

27 Nuys, California, a considerable distance from where we were and where my car

28 was parked. At the station a police officer wrote out a citation for failing to obey

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN MAYORCA - 1

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 48 of 87 Page ID #:254
1 lawful orders, LAMC 80.02. I have a court date of June 24, 2020, in the Van Nuys 2 courthouse. 3 7. At the time of our arrest the group was acting peaceful, and we had not done 4 anything of an assaultive nature against the police. I did not hear any dispersal 5 orders from the police. They would order us to move as a group in a certain 6 direction, and when we did there was another line of officers blocking our way. 7 Their actions prevented us from walking to my car. We were never given the 8 option of leaving before being arrested. 9 8. During the entire time we were in custody we were not provided with any 10 water or given access to a bathroom. I asked them to please remove the zip ties 11 because of the pain but they refused. I was the first person arrested, and the last 12 person released, after approximately 2 hours and 15 minutes in zip cuffs. 13 9. The zip cuffs were very tight and they had difficulty removing them, having 14 to insert a pair of scissors between my skin and the zip ties to break or cut them. 15 10. During the event my crew and I filmed the actions of both the protesters and 16 the Los Angeles police officers, including live streaming the events on the internet. 17 11. I continue going to the demonstrations that are still happening because that 18 is my profession , but I am afraid of being arrested again or injured. I still strongly 19 believe in the motives of the demonstrators to complain, denounce, and call for the 20 end of arbitrary and violent police actions against people of color, and in particular, 21 African-Americans. 22 12. I am also a class representative in this action. I understand that, if the Court 23 grants plaintiffs’ class certification motion, I would represent a large number of 24 people who are part of this lawsuit. I understand that the lawsuit is seeking 25 damages, as well as changes in policy. I understand that I would represent the 26 interests of those persons who were present at Beverly and Fairfax/La Cienega on 27 May 30, 2020, and who were kettled, detained, and/or arrested despite being
28
DECLARATION OF JONATHAN MAYORCA - 2

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 49 of 87 Page ID #:255

1 peaceful protesters that did not present any threat of harm to the police officers or

2 others.

3 13. As a class representative:

4

i. I understand that I and other plaintiffs are claiming that the conduct of the

5

City employees and agents was unlawful and that I am acting on behalf of

6

many people besides myself whose rights were violated as the result of the

7

foregoing law enforcement activity.

8

ii. I also understand that I and other plaintiffs are claiming that the conduct of

9

the City employees and agents was unlawful and that I am acting on behalf

10

of many people besides myself whose rights were violated as the result of

11

the foregoing law enforcement activity.

12

iii. I understand that, as a class representative, it is my responsibility to

13

represent the interests of the class as a whole, and not just my personal

14

interests.

15

iv. I understand that a class representative has claims which are typical of the

16

members of the class or sub-class being represented. I understand that

17

“typical” means that my claims against the defendants are like the claims

18

of the other class and/or sub-class members because each of us was injured

19

as a result of a common policy, practice, or law implemented by the

20

defendants.

21

v. I understand that my responsibilities as a class representative continue until

22

the Court decides that this case is no longer a class action or the case ends.

23

vi. I understand that, through my attorneys, I have a duty and responsibility to

24

let class members know about important developments in the case. I

25

understand that my attorneys and the Court will let me know what those

26

events are.

27 vii. I understand that, if and when the Court requires notification to class

28

members about significant events in the case, my attorneys will prepare the

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN MAYORCA - 3

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 50 of 87 Page ID #:256

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 51 of 87 Page ID #:257
EXHIBIT 11

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 52 of 87 Page ID #:258

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 53 of 87 Page ID #:259

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 54 of 87 Page ID #:260
EXHIBIT 12

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 55 of 87 Page ID #:261

1

DECLARATION OF NADIA KHAN

2 I, NADIA KHAN, declare:
3

4

1. I am a plaintiff in this action. This declaration is based on facts of which I have

5

personal knowledge. If called to testify to these facts, I could and would do so

6

competently.

7

2. On Saturday, May 30, 2020, at about 11 a.m. I arrived at Pan Pacific Park in Los

8 Angeles to attend a Black Lives Matter protest against police brutality and the killing
9

10

of George Floyd.

11

3. About noon the protest left the park and began a march. I joined the march and when

12

we got near the intersection of 3rd and Fairfax I saw police in riot gear. They shot

13

projectiles at the march but I was not hit. I then continued marching north up Fairfax

14

to Beverly Blvd., where there was a large group of young people. I marched with 15

16

them to the Beverly Center and then marched back on Beverly Blvd. towards Fairfax.

17

4. When we got near Beverly and Fairfax the police started to tear gas us. The tear gas

18

made my eyes burn and tear up and the gas got into my lungs, making me cough. The

19 police were also shooting small pellets at us. I was hit in the legs. It hurt when the

20

21

pellets hit me but the police were shooting from a distance and I was wearing jeans,

22

so they did not seriously injure me.

23

5. I then marched north on Fairfax towards Melrose. The police kettled me there at

24

about 7:45 p.m. with about 100 other people. The police handcuffed me behind my

25 back with zip ties. They put the zip ties on too tightly and my wrists were in pain. I
26

27

asked the officers to loosen the zip ties but they ignored me. They put us on two

28

Declaration of Nadia Khan

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 56 of 87 Page ID #:262

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 57 of 87 Page ID #:263
EXHIBIT 13

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 58 of 87 Page ID #:264

1

DECLARATION OF ABIGAIL RODAS

2

I, ABIGAIL RODAS, hereby declare and say as follows:

3 1. I am a named plaintiff in this action. This declaration is based on facts of

4 which I have personal knowledge. If called to testify to these facts, I could and

5 would do so competently.

6 2. I am a 22 year-old Latina student at National Holistic Institute. I have had to

7 interrupt my studies because of injuries described herein.

8 3. On May 30, 2020, I participated in a peaceful demonstration in the Fairfax

9 area of Los Angeles to protest the murder of George Floyd by police officers from

10 the Minneapolis Police Department.

11 4. My friend Isaiah Salgado and I were walking on Beverly Boulevard near La

12 Cienega Boulevard as part of a group that was protesting, when officers from the

13 Los Angeles Police Department began to form a line and push us back. We

14 decided to leave and began walking toward where I had parked my car when

15 suddenly, an officer began shooting rubber bullets at us.

16 5. I was struck in the face by a rubber bullet, and momentarily lost

17 consciousness. I fell to the ground, and when I came to, a girl was helping me by

18 putting gauze in my mouth to stop the bleeding.

19 6. I was in a lot of pain, but the people around me helped me to my feet and we

20 tried to go someplace safe. The police were still firing rubber bullets at us.

21 7. Somebody transported me to Cedar Sinai Hospital in a private car, which

22 was nearby. When I got there, I was unable to talk. I was treated in the emergency

23 room and admitted.

24 8. At the time of the shooting the group was acting peaceful, and we had not

25 done anything of an assaultive nature against the police. I did not hear any

26 dispersal order from the police. Their actions prevented us from walking to my car

27 and leaving.

28

DECLARATION OF ABIGAIL RODAS - 1

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 59 of 87 Page ID #:265

1 9. I suffered a severe fracture to my right mandible, which required surgery.

2 They admitted me to the hospital and conducted the surgery the next day in the

3 afternoon. They put stitches on both the inside and outside of my mouth to close

4 the lacerations, and they had to put a steel plate in my jaw to repair the fractured

5 jawbone. I was discharged from the hospital on Monday afternoon. I have been in

6 convalescence at home since my release. I was unable to talk for about ten (10)

7 days. For one week I was only able to drink liquids, and am still on a soft food

8 diet. I have screws in my gums and rubber bands that help immobilize my jaw and

9 prevent too much movement. I am still undergoing follow-up visits with the

10 doctors. I am waiting to hear if they will be removing some of the screws.

11 10. I want to continue going to the demonstrations that are still happening, but I

12 am afraid of being injured again. I still strongly believe in the motives of the

13 demonstrators to complain, denounce, and call for the end of arbitrary and violent

14 police actions against people of color, and in particular, African-Americans.

15 11. I am also one of the class representatives in this case. I understand that, if

16 the Court grants plaintiffs’ class certification motion, I would represent a large

17 number of people who are part of this lawsuit. I understand that the lawsuit is

18 seeking damages, as well as changes in policy. I understand that I would represent

19 the interests of those persons who were present at Beverly and Fairfax/la Cienega

20 on May 30, 2020, and who were subjected to unnecessary and excessive force and

21 shot with impact projectiles or otherwise injured despite being peaceful protesters

22 that did not present any threat of harm to the police officers or others.

23 12. As a class representative:

24

i. I understand that I and other plaintiffs are claiming that the conduct of the

25

City employees and agents was unlawful and that I am acting on behalf of

26

many people besides myself whose rights were violated as the result of the

27

foregoing law enforcement activity.

28

DECLARATION OF ABIGAIL RODAS - 2

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 60 of 87 Page ID #:266

1

ii. I also understand that I and other plaintiffs are claiming that the conduct of

2

the City employees and agents was unlawful and that I am acting on behalf

3

of many people besides myself whose rights were violated as the result of

4

the foregoing law enforcement activity.

5

iii. I understand that, as a class representative, it is my responsibility to

6

represent the interests of the class as a whole, and not just my personal

7

interests.

8

iv. I understand that a class representative has claims which are typical of the

9

members of the class or sub-class being represented. I understand that

10

“typical” means that my claims against the defendants are like the claims

11

of the other class and/or sub-class members because each of us was injured

12

as a result of a common policy, practice, or law implemented by the

13

defendants.

14

v. I understand that my responsibilities as a class representative continue until

15

the Court decides that this case is no longer a class action or the case ends.

16

vi. I understand that, through my attorneys, I have a duty and responsibility to

17

let class members know about important developments in the case. I

18

understand that my attorneys and the Court will let me know what those

19

events are.

20 vii. I understand that, if and when the Court requires notification to class

21

members about significant events in the case, my attorneys will prepare the

22

notices to class members and send them out. I understand that this includes

23

notices to let class members know their rights and how they can participate

24

in the case.

25 viii. I understand that any resolution of this lawsuit must be accepted by the

26

class as a whole.

27

ix. I understand that as a class representative, I have an ongoing obligation to

28

make reasonable efforts to provide my attorneys with the information they

DECLARATION OF ABIGAIL RODAS - 3

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 61 of 87 Page ID #:267

1

need to prosecute this case. This includes providing any documents I have

2

related to this case, if required; to testify a deposition, hearing or trial, if

3

necessary; to maintain current contact information and any other contact

4

information necessary for my attorneys to be able to reach me on short

5

notice.

6

x. I understand that, as a class representative, I am volunteering to represent

7

many people with similar claims and damages. I believe that it is important

8

for all people whose rights were violated as mine were to benefit from the

9

lawsuit. Based on what I have been told, preceding with this lawsuit as a

10

class action will save time, money, and effort and allow individuals with

11

relatively small monetary claims to vindicate their rights.

12

xi. I am not aware of any conflicts with any other members of the class.

13

14

15

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

16

Executed this 1_9_ day of June, 2020, in the County of Los Angeles, State of

17

California.

18

19

ABIGAIL RODAS

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF ABIGAIL RODAS - 4

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 62 of 87 Page ID #:268
EXHIBIT 14

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 63 of 87 Page ID #:269

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 64 of 87 Page ID #:270

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 65 of 87 Page ID #:271

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 66 of 87 Page ID #:272

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 67 of 87 Page ID #:273

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 68 of 87 Page ID #:274
EXHIBIT 15

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 69 of 87 Page ID #:275

1

DECLARATION OF LINUS SHENTU

2

3 I, LINUS SHENTU, declare:

4

1. I am a named plaintiff in this action. This declaration is based on facts of which I have

5

personal knowledge. If called to testify to these facts, I could and would do so

6

competently.

7

2. I am a long-time member of CANGRESS (a.k.a. LA-CAN), a grassroots organization

8

that organizes with unhoused people in Skid-Row.

9

3. On June 2, 2020, I participated in a peaceful demonstration in Hollywood. The

10

demonstration began near Sunset Boulevard and Vine Street. We marched east on Sunset,

11

then turned south. There was a car caravan moving slowly alongside the protestors on

12

foot.

13

4. As we marched down North Van Ness Avenue, between Melrose Avenue and Santa

14

Monica Boulevard, I saw police blocking side streets to surround the protestors. Then

15

police began to tackle and arrest people. They also dragged people out of their cars.

16

Protestors started running.

17

5. My partner and I looked for my partner’s sister who was in her car. We found her and got

18

into the backseat. We were trying to leave the area and go home, but because police had

19

blocked off side streets, we were unable to leave. We followed other cars to a parking lot

20

of a nearby apartment building at 429 Van Ness Avenue.

21

6. Police came into the parking lot and began pulling people out of their cars to arrest them.

22

The officers ordered me, my partner, and her sister out of the car. One officer opened the

23

rear passenger door, where my partner was seated, and yanked her out by her arm. I

24

voluntarily exited the rear passenger door after her.

25

7. Police put everyone they had pulled out of the cars into zip-tie plastic handcuffs and lined

26

us up along the side of the building. There were approximately 30-40 people arrested

27

there at the apartment building. We were held for about an hour while police officers

28

filled out paperwork.

29

8. After about an hour, buses with Sheriff Department written on them arrived. Police

30

ordered everyone in handcuffs to get on the bus. We were driven to a makeshift

31

processing center in Van Nuys at Roscoe and Woodman. We got off the bus one-by-one,

SHENTU DECLARATION 1

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 70 of 87 Page ID #:276

1

then police searched us and made us sign our citations. The process took about 3 or 4

2

hours, before we were finally released around midnight. My partner’s sister called a

3

friend who was able to pick us up.

4

9. During the entire time we were detained, my hands were handcuffed behind my back. My

5

partner, her sister, and I each experienced numbness, bruising, and soreness from the

6

handcuffs. My partner’s arm was sore from being pulled out of the car.

7

10. Based on my experience, I know that if I engage in lawful protest activity, there is a risk

8

of being arrested again or injured by the aggressive and violent behavior of the Los

9

Angeles Police Department.

10

11. I am also a class representative in this action. I understand that, if the Court grants

11

plaintiffs’ class certification motion, I would represent a large number of people who are

12

part of this lawsuit. I understand that the lawsuit is seeking damages, as well as changes

13

in policy. I understand that I would represent the interests of those persons who were

14

present at Hollywood on June 2, 2020, and who were kettled, detained, and/or arrested

15

despite being peaceful protesters that did not present any threat of harm to the police

16

officers or others.

17

12. As a class representative:

18

i. I understand that I and other plaintiffs are claiming that the conduct of the City

19

employees and agents was unlawful and that I am acting on behalf of many people

20

besides myself whose rights were violated as the result of the foregoing law

21

enforcement activity.

22

ii. I understand that, as a class representative, it is my responsibility to represent the

23

interests of the class as a whole, and not just my personal interests.

24

iii. I understand that a class representative has claims which are typical of the members of

25

the class or sub-class being represented. I understand that “typical” means that my

26

claims against the defendants are like the claims of the other class and/or sub-class

27

members because each of us was injured as a result of a common policy, practice, or

28

law implemented by the defendants.

SHENTU DECLARATION 2

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 71 of 87 Page ID #:277

1

iv. I understand that my responsibilities as a class representative continue until the Court

2

decides that this case is no longer a class action or the case ends.

3

v. I understand that, through my attorneys, I have a duty and responsibility to let class

4

members know about important developments in the case. I understand that my

5

attorneys and the Court will let me know what those events are.

6

vi. I understand that, if and when the Court requires notification to class members about

7

significant events in the case, my attorneys will prepare the notices to class members

8

and send them out. I understand that this includes notices to let class members know

9

their rights and how they can participate in the case.

10

vii. I understand that any resolution of this lawsuit must be accepted by the class as a

11

whole.

12

viii. I understand that as a class representative, I have an ongoing obligation to make

13

reasonable efforts to provide my attorneys with the information they need to prosecute

14

this case. This includes providing any documents I have related to this case, if required;

15

to testify a deposition, hearing or trial, if necessary; to maintain current contact

16

information and any other contact information necessary for my attorneys to be able to

17

reach me on short notice.

18

ix. I understand that, as a class representative, I am volunteering to represent many people

19

with similar claims and damages. I believe that it is important for all people whose

20

rights were violated as mine were on to benefit from the lawsuit. Based on what I have

21

been told, preceding with this lawsuit as a class action will save time, money, and effort

22

and allow individuals with relatively small monetary claims to vindicate their rights.

23

x. I am not aware of any conflicts with any other members of the class.

24

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this

25 19th day of June, 2020.

26

27

28 SHENTU DECLARATION 3

LINUS SHENTU

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 72 of 87 Page ID #:278
EXHIBIT 16

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 73 of 87 Page ID #:279

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 74 of 87 Page ID #:280

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 75 of 87 Page ID #:281
EXHIBIT 17

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 76 of 87 Page ID #:282

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 77 of 87 Page ID #:283

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 78 of 87 Page ID #:284
EXHIBIT 18

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 79 of 87 Page ID #:285

1

DECLARATION OF PETE WHITE

2 I, PETE WHITE, declare:

3

1. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and could and would

4 testify competently to such facts if called as a witness. I am providing this declaration as a

5 representative of the organizational plaintiff CANGRESS, dba Los Angeles Community Action

6 Network ("LA CAN").

7

2. LA CAN is a grassroots non-profit organization that has been active in the Skid Row

8 neighborhood of Los Angeles for almost two decades. More than 800 low-income residents of

9 Skid Row are involved with LA CAN, many of whom are unsheltered each night. The primary

10 purpose of the organization is to organize and empower community residents to work

11 collectively to address systemic poverty and oppression in the community. One issue in recent

12 years involved the police killing of Brother Africa, a homeless man living in a tent on Skid Row.

13 Since its founding in 1999, LA CAN has been the only member-driven organization in Skid Row

14 whose goal is to protect the rights and prevent the further disenfranchisement ofhomeless and

15 poor people in Los Angeles.

16

3. LA CAN's members and associates have been arrested and/or subjected to the use of

17 less-lethal weapons and other tactics aimed at shutting down public spaces from about May 29 to

18 June 3, 2020. Individuals such as Plaintiffs SHENTU, TROTTER, and HINKSTON are

19 associated with the organization as members and/or supporters.

20

4. LA CAN has expended personnel resources in trying to protect at-risk individuals from

21 the City's illegal practices as well as assisting Skid Row residents who were physically injured

22 by police action. In responding to this police action, LA CAN has had to shift resources away

23 from protecting its members from COVID-19 and its focus on ending homelessness.

24

5. I and members of LA CAN often engage in public expressive activity and protest issues

25 of homelessness, police violence, and the City's utter failure to correct these injustices. I am

26 concerned that recent police violence against demonstrators will deter our members from

27 engaging in such protected activity in the future.

28

1
DECLARATION OF PETE WHITE

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 80 of 87 Page ID #:286

1

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and was executed on

2 June 23, 2020, at Los Angeles, California.

3

4

By:

5

6

PETE WHITE

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 DECLARATION OF PETE WHITE

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 81 of 87 Page ID #:287
EXHIBIT 19

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 82 of 87 Page ID #:288

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 83 of 87 Page ID #:289

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 84 of 87 Page ID #:290

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 85 of 87 Page ID #:291
EXHIBIT 20

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 86 of 87 Page ID #:292

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15 Filed 06/24/20 Page 87 of 87 Page ID #:293

 
 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 1 of 145 Page ID #:294

1

Cynthia Anderson Barker SBN 75764 NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD

2

3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010

Barrett S. Litt, SBN 45527

3

t. 213 381-3246 f. 213 381-3246 e. cablaw@hotmail.com

Lindsay Battles, SBN 262862 KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT

4

975 E. Green Street Pasadena, California 91106

5

Paul Hoffman, SBN 71244 Michael Seplow, SBN 150183

t. 626 844-7660 f. 626 844-7670 e. blitt@kmbllaw.com

6 Aidan McGlaze, SBN 277270 John Washington, SBN 315991

e. lbattles@kmbllaw.com

7 SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS

Pedram Esfandiary, SBN 312569

HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP

e. pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com

8 11543 W. Olympic Blvd.

Monique Alarcon, SBN 311650

Los Angeles, California 90064-1508 e. malarcon@baumhedlundlaw.com

9 t. 310 396-0731; f. 310 399-7040

Bijan Esfandiari, SBN 223216

10

e. hoffpaul@aol.com e. mseplow@sshhzlaw.com

e. besfandiari@baumhedlundlaw.com R. Brent Wisner, SBN 276023

11

e. amcglaze@sshhzlaw.com e. jwashington@sshhlaw.com

e. rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com
BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI &

12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs. 13 [Additional Counsel on Next Page]

GOLDMAN, P.C.
10940 Wilshire Blvd., 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 t. 310 207-3233 f. 310 820-7444

14

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION

17

BLACK LIVES MATTER LOS ANGELES, CANGRESS (DBA LA

Case No.: 2:20-cv-05027 CBM-AS

18 19

CAN), STEVEN ROE, NELSON LOPEZ, TINA ČRNKO, JONATHAN MAYORCA, ABIGAIL RODAS, KRYSTLE HARTFIELD, NADIA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE VOLUME II OF II IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION

20 KHAN, CLARA ARANOVICH,

FOR A TEMPORARY

21 22

ALEXANDER STAMM, MAIA KAZIM, ALICIA BARRERATRUJILO, SHANNON LEE MOORE,

RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

DEVON YOUNG, LINUS SHENTU,

23

individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,

24 25 v.

PLAINTIFFS,

26

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal entity, CHIEF MICHEL

27 MOORE, and DOES 1-10 inclusive,

28

DEFENDANTS.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE VOLUME II OF II IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 2 of 145 Page ID #:295

1

Carol A. Sobel, SBN 84483 Katherine Robinson SBN 323470

2

Weston Rowland SBN 327599 LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL

3

725 Arizona Avenue, Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90401

4

t. 310 393-3055 e. carolsobel@aol.com

5

e. klrobinsonlaw@gmail.com e. rowland.weston@gmail.com

6

7 Colleen Flynn, SBN 234281

LAW OFFICE OF COLLEEN FLYNN

8 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910

Los Angeles, CA 90010

9 t. 213 252-9444

10

r. 213 252-0091 e. cflynn@yahoo.com

Jorge Gonzalez, SBN 100799 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2485 Huntington Dr., Ste. 238 SAN MARINO, CA 91108-2622 t. 626 328-3081 e. jgonzalezlawoffice@gmail.com Olu Orange, SBN 213653 Orange Law Offices 3435 Wilshire BLvd., Ste. 2910 LOS ANGELES, CA. 90010-2015 T. 213 736-9900 f. 213 417-8800 e. o.orange@orangelawoffices.com

11 Matthew Strugar, SBN 232951

12

LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW STRUGAR 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910

13

Los Angeles, CA 90039 t. 323 696-2299

14 e. matthewstrugar@gmail.com

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE VOLUME II OF II IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 3 of 145 Page ID #:296

1

Plaintiffs submit the following evidence in support of their Application for

2 Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary injunction.

3

4

INDEX OF EVIDENCE

5 Tab and Exhibit No. Description

6

21.

Declaration of William J. Aceves

7

22.

Declaration of Roger Clark

8

23.

Declaration of Dr. Rohini Haar

9

24.

Declaration of John Washington

10

Ex. C to Washington Decl., Declaration of Daniel

11

Parker

12

Ex. D to Washingotn Decl., Declaration of Dr. Joe

13

Goldenson

14

25.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”), FAQs for Law

15

Enforcement Agencies and Personnel from the Centers for

16

Disease Control and Prevention

17

26.

CDC, Protect Yourself When Using Transportation

18

27.

LAPD, Use of Force-Tactics Directive No. 11, Crowd

19

Management, Intervention, and Control

20

28.

LAPD, Use of Force-Tactics Directive No. 8.2, Baton.

21

29.

CDC, What Every American and Community Can Do Now

22

to Decrease the Spread of the Coronavirus

23

30.

“Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order and Order

24

to Show Cause” from the United States District Court,

25

Northern District of California, Case Name: Anti Police-

26

Terror Project, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al., Case No.

27

3:20-cv-03866-JCS, Docket 33, Filed on June 18, 2020.

28

1

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE VOLUME II OF II IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’

APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 4 of 145 Page ID #:297

1

31.

CDC, Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus

2

Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention

3

Facilities

4

5 DATED: June 24, 2020 6 7 8 9

SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP
LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL
KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT

10

By: /s/ Paul Hoffman

11

Paul Hoffman

12

Michael Seplow

13

Aidan McGlaze John Washington

14

Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE VOLUME II OF II IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’

APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 5 of 145 Page ID #:298
EXHIBIT 21

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 6 of 145 Page ID #:299
EXPERT DECLARATION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT STANDARDS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
REGARDING THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATORS My name is William J. Aceves, and I serve as the Dean Steven R. Smith Professor of Law at California Western School of Law. My professional expertise is
in international law and human rights. I have written extensively in these fields and have studied the international norms regulating the use of force by law enforcement officials, including the use of less-lethal weapons. A condensed biography setting forth my credentials appears in the Appendix to this Declaration.
I have reviewed the First Amended Complaint filed by the Plaintiffs in Black Lives Matter Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. 2:20-cv-05027 (C.D. Cal.
2020). I have examined the allegations regarding the actions of law enforcement officials against individuals engaged in peaceful demonstrations, including the use of excessive force by these officials.
This declaration is divided into two sections. Part I provides a brief overview of international norms regulating the use of force by law enforcement officials, including the use of less-lethal force.1 Part II then examines the allegations in the
1 While the term “non-lethal weapons” is often used to address rubber bullets and police batons, a more appropriate term is “less-lethal weapons” because these weapons can still be lethal. See, e.g., GENEVA ACADEMY OF INT’L HUMANITARIAN LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS, GENEVA GUIDELINES ON LESS-LETHAL WEAPONS AND RELATED EQUIPMENT IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 4 (2018); U.N. OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME & OFFICE OF THE U.N. HIGH COMM’R FOR HUM. RTS., RESOURCE BOOK ON THE USE OF FORCE AND FIREARMS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 66 (2017).
Page 1 of 15

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 7 of 145 Page ID #:300
First Amended Complaint in light of international law. It concludes the Defendants’ actions violated international law. I. THE USE OF FORCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS IS SUBJECT TO
STRICT REGULATION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW. International law has long regulated the use of force by law enforcement officials.2 See, e.g., Eighth U.N. Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.144/28/Rev.1 (Sept. 7, 1990); U.N. General Assembly, Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, U.N. Doc. A/RES/34/169 (Dec. 17, 1979). Because state actors maintain a monopoly on the lawful use of force, international law places strict limits on its use. But there are other considerations. The use of force, even with less-lethal weapons, can implicate the right to bodily integrity. In addition, the use of force against peaceful demonstrators can implicate the freedoms of expression, association, and assembly for participants, monitors, and bystanders. See generally U.N. Hum. Rts. Council, Joint Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful
2 International law consists of both treaties and customary international law. See generally AM. L. INST., RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES § 102 (1987). Treaties create binding legal obligations on States Parties. Customary international law is established through consistent state practice followed out of a sense of legal obligation (opinio juris). Like treaties, customary international law is considered binding on states that have not objected to its development.
Page 2 of 15

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 8 of 145 Page ID #:301
Assembly and of Association and the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary
or Arbitrary Executions on the Proper Management of Assemblies, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/31/66 (Feb. 4, 2016) (“U.N. Special Rapporteur Joint Report”).3
Accordingly, the use of force against peaceful demonstrators should be exceptional.
Id. ¶ 57.
Pursuant to international law, the use of force by law enforcement officials
must comply with the principles of legality, precaution, necessity, and proportionality.4 Id. ¶ 50. The principle of legality requires states to establish “a
domestic legal framework for the use of force, especially potentially lethal force,
that complies with international standards.” Id. ¶ 51. The principle of precaution
requires states to “avoid the use of force or, where force is unavoidable, to minimize
its harmful consequences.” Id. ¶ 52. The principle of necessity limits “the kind and
3 U.N. Special Rapporteurs are experts appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council to report and advise on discrete legal issues. 4 See also U.N. Hum. Rts. Comm., General Comment No. 36: Article 6: Right to Life, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36 (Sept. 3, 2019). The Human Rights Committee has stated that law enforcement officials must comply with all the relevant international standards regulating the use of force. Id. ¶ 13. This includes the use of less-lethal weapons, such as rubber bullets. These weapons “must be employed only subject to strict requirements of necessity and proportionality, in situations in which other less harmful measures have proven to be or clearly are ineffective to address the threat.” Id. ¶ 14. The Committee indicated that law enforcement officials “should not resort to less-lethal weapons in situations of crowd control that can be addressed through less harmful means, especially situations involving the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly.” Id.
Page 3 of 15

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 9 of 145 Page ID #:302
degree of force used to the minimum necessary in the circumstances (the least harmful means available), . . .” Id. ¶ 57. Thus, the use of force should only target individuals using violence and should only be used to avert an imminent threat. Id. Finally, the principle of proportionality “sets a ceiling on the use of force based on the threat posed by the person targeted.” Id. ¶ 58. These principles were reiterated in March 2020 by the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights (“UNHCHR”) in its comprehensive report on the use of less-lethal force.5 OFFICE OF THE U.N. HIGH COMM’R FOR HUM. RTS., UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS GUIDANCE ON LESS-LETHAL WEAPONS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT 5-6 (2020) (“UNHCHR Report”) (stating the use of force must comply with the principles of legality, precaution, necessity, and proportionality).
The use of force against individuals participating in public assemblies raises significant concerns. International law “recognizes an inalienable right to take part in peaceful assemblies.” U.N. Special Rapporteur Joint Report, supra, at ¶ 18. Accordingly, “[t]he fundamental human rights of the participants shall be respected and protected, even if an assembly is considered unlawful by the authorities.” UNHCHR Report, supra, at 20. Moreover, the dispersal of an assembly “carries the risk of violating the rights to freedom of expression and to peaceful assembly as well
5 The UNHCHR is the primary U.N. body responsible for addressing human rights. Page 4 of 15

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 10 of 145 Page ID #:303
as the right to bodily integrity.” U.N. Special Rapporteur Joint Report, supra, at ¶ 61. Thus, the dispersal of an assembly must be a last resort.
Law enforcement officials also have a duty to distinguish between individuals who are behaving violently and peaceful protestors. “Acts of sporadic violence or offences by some should not be attributed to others whose intentions and behaviour remain peaceful in nature.” U.N. Special Rapporteur Joint Report, supra, at ¶ 20. The use of force must be a last resort. Id. ¶ 57; UNHCHR Report, supra, at 21. These principles apply even if officials are using less-lethal force. “If it is decided that lesslethal weapons are an appropriate means of addressing individual acts of violence, due care should be given to the likely proximity of third parties and bystanders.” Id.
When states are alleged to have violated international norms regulating the use of force, they are required to investigate such claims. UNHCHR Report, supra, at 8; U.N. Special Rapporteur Joint Report, supra, at ¶ 90. If violations are found to have occurred, states are obligated to provide an effective remedy. UNHCHR Report, supra, at 8; U.N. Special Rapporteur Joint Report, supra, at ¶ 89. This includes providing reparations for harms suffered as well as holding law enforcement officials accountable. Judicial proceedings are an essential feature of this process. UNHCHR Report, supra, at 8; U.N. Special Rapporteur Joint Report, supra, at ¶¶ 91, 94.
Page 5 of 15

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 11 of 145 Page ID #:304

These legal principles—from the substantive norms regulating the use of force

to the procedural obligation of investigating alleged violations—have been affirmed

in countless international pronouncements, including treaties signed and ratified by

the United States. See, e.g., Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or

Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85; International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171;

International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination,

Dec. 21, 1965, 660 U.N.T.S. 195.

II. THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGES SEVERAL ACTIONS TAKEN BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS THAT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW.

The First Amended Complaint alleges the Defendants used excessive force

against peaceful demonstrators, including firing rubber bullets and striking them

with police batons. Such actions violate international law because they fail to meet

the criteria for the lawful use of force. The Defendants failed to avoid using force

and failed to minimize its harmful consequences. There was no meaningful attempt

to de-escalate tensions. In fact, law enforcement tactics, such as kettling operations,

exacerbated the situation. The use of force was either indiscriminate or directly

targeted individuals who posed no threat. It was unnecessary and thus served no

lawful purpose. That such action was taken against demonstrators exercising their

right to peaceful assembly reinforces the conclusion that the Defendants’ actions

violated international law.

Page 6 of 15

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 12 of 145 Page ID #:305
In fact, the First Amended Complaint alleges actions that have been found to constitute violations of international law by several international bodies, including the U.N. Human Rights Committee, European Court of Human Rights, U.N. Committee against Torture, and U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.
In Sannikov v. Belarus, the U.N. Human Rights Committee considered whether the use of force against a peaceful demonstrator violated international law.6 Sannikov v. Belarus, Comm. No. 2212/2012, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/122/D/2212/2012 (May 14, 2018). While some protestors had allegedly thrown rocks at government buildings, the demonstrator who brought the complaint had not. Id. ¶ 2.6. Police responded by using batons and riot shields to disperse the protest. The demonstrator was struck in the head and leg, and lost consciousness. Id. When he attempted to seek medical assistance, he was beaten by police. During his detention, the demonstrator was subject to further abuse. The Human Rights Committee determined the use of force was excessive and constituted a violation of international law. Id. ¶ 6.2. It also concluded that the state’s efforts to limit the demonstration violated the right to peaceful assembly. Id. ¶ 6.12. According to the Committee, the right to peaceful assembly “is a fundamental human right that is indispensable in a
6 The U.N. Human Rights Committee was established by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty ratified by the United States, to monitor state compliance with the treaty. It is authorized to consider complaints brought by individuals who allege their rights under the treaty were violated by a State Party.
Page 7 of 15

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 13 of 145 Page ID #:306
democratic society.” Id. This right “entails the possibility of organizing and participating in a peaceful assembly, including a spontaneous one, at a public location.” Id. Significantly, the Committee made these findings even though the demonstration had allegedly been unauthorized. See also U.N. Hum. Rts. Comm., Concluding Observations on the Fifth Periodic Report of France, ¶ 15, U.N Doc. CCPR/C/FRA/CO/5 (Aug. 17, 2015) (addressing the disproportionate use of lesslethal weapons during law enforcement operations); U.N. Hum. Rts. Comm., Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of Mozambique, ¶ 22, U.N Doc. CCPR/C/MOZ/CO/1 (Nov. 19, 2013) (addressing the arbitrary arrest and detention of participants in peaceful demonstrations as well as the use of rubber bullets and batons by police).
In Kilici v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights considered a case where police fired rubber bullets to disperse a group of protestors.7 Kilici v. Turkey, App. No. 32738/11, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2018). One of the protestors was injured by a rubber bullet shot by police. The European Court acknowledged that even rubber bullets can cause serious injuries. Id. ¶ 32. The Court determined there was no meaningful oversight and regulation by police regarding the use of rubber bullets.
7 The European Court of Human Rights is authorized to review cases brought against States Parties that have ratified the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Its decisions are legally binding on States Parties.
Page 8 of 15

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 14 of 145 Page ID #:307
Id. ¶¶ 33–35. In addition, the Court noted there was no evidence that the protestor’s actions justified the use of force against him. Id. ¶ 37. Accordingly, the Court found the use of force in this case violated the prohibition against inhuman or degrading treatment. Id. ¶¶ 38–39.
In Yaşa and Others v. Turkey, the applicant had been participating in a political demonstration when several protestors threw rocks at police officers. Yaşa and Others v. Turkey, App. No. 44827/08, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2013). In response, a police officer fired a tear gas cannister into the demonstration to disperse the protestors. Id. ¶ 7. The canister struck the applicant in the face, causing significant injuries. According to the Court, the use of potentially lethal force by law enforcement officials must be carefully regulated and proportionate. Id. ¶ 43. The European Court determined that launching a tear gas cannister directly into a demonstration creates a serious risk of injury. Id. ¶ 42. Therefore, the Court concluded the state’s actions constituted a violation of the prohibition against inhuman or degrading treatment. Id. ¶ 51.
In Tahirova v. Azerbaijan, the police responded to a peaceful protest by conducting a dispersal operation using riot police equipped with helmets, shields, and batons. Tahirova v. Azerbaijan, App. No. 47137/07, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2014). A demonstrator was struck by police using a baton and fell to the ground, where she lay unconscious. Id. ¶ 10. Despite her condition, the police did not provide her with
Page 9 of 15

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 15 of 145 Page ID #:308
medical treatment. She was able to receive treatment only after other civilians
intervened and urged police to allow medical professionals to assist her. Id. ¶ 11.
The European Court found the use of force was unnecessary and excessive. Id. ¶¶
43–44. Indeed, the Court emphasized the demonstrator had not used “violence
against the police” and did not “pose a threat to them,” and so there were no “reasons
justifying the use of force.”8 Id. ¶ 44. Accordingly, the state’s actions constituted
inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of international law. Id. ¶¶ 45–46.
These cases reflect only a small sample of the countless international sources
that address the use of less-lethal force against peaceful demonstrators.9 Moreover,
8 There is also extensive case law on excessive use of force in subduing a potential suspect. In Douet v. France, for example, the European Court considered whether the use of force by police in subduing a suspect was lawful. Douet v. France, App. No. 16705/10, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2013). While the suspect was already detained and handcuffed, police officers struck him with batons. Id. ¶ 35. In addition, a police officer kneeled on the suspect’s back while he was on the ground. Id. The European Court determined the use of force was neither proportionate nor necessary. Id. ¶ 38. Accordingly, the state’s actions constituted a violation of the prohibition against inhuman or degrading treatment. Id. ¶ 39. 9 There are, in fact, numerous documents that address the use of force against public demonstrations. See OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR FOR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION OF THE INTER-AM. COMM’N HUM. RTS., PROTEST AND HUMAN RIGHTS: STANDARDS ON THE RIGHTS INVOLVED IN SOCIAL PROTEST AND THE OBLIGATIONS TO GUIDE THE RESPONSE OF THE STATE 41 (2019) (describing restrictions on use of force against protestors); INTER-AM. COMM’N ON HUM. RTS., AFRICAN AMERICANS, POLICE USE OF FORCE, AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES 76 (2018) (highlighting excessive use of force against protestors); INT’L COMM. OF THE RED CROSS, INTERNATIONAL RULES AND STANDARDS FOR POLICING 37–38 (2015) (addressing use of force against public demonstrations).
Page 10 of 15

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 16 of 145 Page ID #:309
these cases make clear that the failure to comply with the principles of legality, precaution, necessity, and proportionality in the use of such force will give rise to a violation of international law. See also U.N. Comm. Against Torture, Concluding Observations on the Combined Third and Fourth Periodic Reports of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ¶ 12, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/VEN/CO/3-4 (Dec. 12, 2014) (expressing concerns about the unwarranted use of firearms and riot control gear against protestors); U.N. Hum. Rts. Council, Opinions Adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Opinion No. 28/2018, ¶¶ 69–75, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/WGAD/2018/28 (May 30, 2018) (addressing arbitrary arrest and detention of participants in peaceful demonstrations as a violation of international law).
On June 10, 2020, three U.N. Special Rapporteurs issued a joint statement condemning the use of force by law enforcement officials in the United States against peaceful demonstrators.10 See Press Release, United Nations, U.N. Experts Condemn Crackdown on Peaceful Protests and Highlight Calls to Overhaul Policing (June 10, 2020), available at https://perma.cc/JZJ5-N4DD. Specifically, the Special Rapporteurs denounced “the unjustified use by police of batons, tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse peaceful protestors.” Id. They also expressed concern with the
10 The joint statement was issued by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Peaceful Assembly and of Association, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, and Arbitrary Executions.
Page 11 of 15

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 17 of 145 Page ID #:310
detention of protestors. This joint statement echoes prior statements issued by U.N. Special Rapporteurs. See, e.g., U.N. Hum. Rts. Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association on his Follow-Up Mission to the United States of America, ¶ 36, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/C/35/28/Add.2 (June 12, 2017) (expressing concern with the excessive force used against peaceful protestors, including incidents at public assemblies that were organized to protest the killings of African Americans in the United States). III. CONCLUSION.
In sum, international law imposes fundamental obligations on states regarding the use of force against peaceful demonstrators, including the use of less-lethal force. The allegations raised in the First Amended Complaint establish clear violations of international law. Executed on this 24th day of June 2020 in San Diego, California.
By: William J. Aceves William J. Aceves Professor of Law California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, California 92101 (619) 515-1589 wja@cwsl.edu
Page 12 of 15

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 18 of 145 Page ID #:311
APPENDIX: BIOGRAPHY My name is William J. Aceves. I am the Dean Steven R. Smith Professor of Law at California Western School of Law. From 2007 to 2014, I served as the Vice Dean for Academic Affairs. I teach several courses, including Human Rights Law, International Law, Civil Procedure, and Constitutional Law. I was previously a Ford Foundation Fellow in International Law at the UCLA School of Law. I received my J.D. and M.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California. I also received my M.A. in Government from Harvard University and an LL.M in International Law from the UCLA School of Law.
I have written numerous articles on international law and human rights, which have been published by legal journals at Berkeley, Chicago, Columbia, Fordham, Georgetown, Harvard, Hastings, Michigan, Minnesota, New York University, Pennsylvania, Pepperdine, St. John’s, Texas, Vanderbilt, and Virginia. I have also written several essays for the prestigious AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. I am the principal author of the 2002 Amnesty International USA report on torture and impunity. I am also the author of THE ANATOMY OF TORTURE: A DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF FILARTIGA V. PENA-IRALA (2007), co-author of THE LAW OF CONSULAR ACCESS (2010), and co-editor of LESSONS AND LEGACIES OF THE WAR ON TERROR (2013). I have previously written about international norms regulating the use of force by law enforcement officials, including the use of less-
Page 13 of 15

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 19 of 145 Page ID #:312
lethal weapons. See William J. Aceves, When Death Becomes Murder: A Primer on Extrajudicial Killing, 50 COLUM. HUM. RTS. L. REV. 116 (2018); William J. Aceves, Human Rights Law and the Use of Incapacitating Biochemical Weapons, in INCAPACITATING BIOCHEMICAL WEAPONS: PROMISE OR PERIL 261 (Alan M. Pearson et al., 2007).
I have participated in numerous cases involving serious human rights abuses. I have submitted amicus briefs addressing international law and human rights in several U.S. Supreme Court cases, including DeMore v. Kim, Sosa v. AlvarezMachain, Republic of Iraq v. Simon, Sanchez-Llamas v. State of Oregon, Medellin v. Dretke, Republic of the Philippines v. Pimentel, Boumedienne v. Bush, Acree v. Republic of Iraq, Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., Al-Maqaleh v. Hagel, and Jam v. International Finance Corp.
I am a member of the American Law Institute. I currently serve on the National Board of Directors for the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Justice & Accountability. I also serve on the Executive Committee of the American Branch of the International Law Association. I have previously served on the Board of Directors for Amnesty International USA and currently serve as the AIUSA Ombudsperson. I have also served on the Board of Directors for the International Law Students Association. In 2019 and 2016, I served as the co-chair for International Law Weekend, which is organized by the American Branch of the
Page 14 of 15

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 20 of 145 Page ID #:313
International Law Association. In 2007, I served as the co-chair for the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law. I have appeared before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Migrants, and the United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Page 15 of 15

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 21 of 145 Page ID #:314
EXHIBIT 22

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 22 of 145 Page ID #:315

_Cynthia Anderson Barker SBN 75764 1 NATIONAL LA WYERS GUILD

2

3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010

Barrett S. Litt, SBN 45527

3

t. 213 381-3246 f. 213 381-3246 e. cablaw@hotmail.com

Lindsay Battles SBN 262862 KAYE, McLANE,BEDNARSKI & LITT

4

975 E. Green Street Pasadena, California 91106

5

Paul Hoffman, SBN 71244 Michael Seplow SBN 150183

t. 626 844-7660 f. 626 844-7670 e. blitt@kmbllaw.com

6 Aidan McGlaze SBN 277270 John Washington SBN 315991

e. lbattles@kmbllaw.com

7 SCHONBRUN, SEPLOW, HARRrs,

Pedram Esfandiary SBN 312569

HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP

e. pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com

8 11543 W. Olympic Blvd.

Monique Alarcon SBN 311650

Los Angeles, Ca1ifornia 90064-1508 e. malarcon@baumhedlundlaw.com

9 t. 310 396-0731; f. 310 399-7040

Bijan Esfandiari SBN 223216

10

e. hOffpaUI!Ol.COm e. mseplow sshhzlaw.com

e. besfandiari@baumhedlundlaw.com R. Brent Wisner SBN 276023

11

e. amcglaze sshhzlaw.com e. jwashington@sshhlaw.com

e. rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com
BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI &

12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 13 Additional Counsel on Next Page

GOLDMAN,P.C.
10940 Wilshire Blvd., 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 t. 310207-3233 f. 310 820-7444

14

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION

17 BLACK LIVES MATTER LOS ANGELES, CANGRESS (DBA LA

Case No.: 2:20-cv-05027 CBM-AS

18 CAN), STEVEN ROE, NELSON

DECLARATION OF ROGER

LOPEZ, TINA CRNKO, JONATHAN CLARK IN SUPPORT OF

19 MA YORCA, ABIGAIL RODAS,

PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION

KRYSTLE HARTFIELD, NADIA

FORA TEMPORARY

20 KHAN, CLARA ARANOVICH,

RESTRAINING ORDER AND

ALEXANDER STAMM, MAIA 21 KAZIM, ALICIA BARRERA-

PRELIMINARY INJUNCION

22

TRUJILO, SHANNON LEE MOORE, DEVON YOUNG, LINUS SHENTU,

23

individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,

24
25 v.

PLAINTIFFS,

26 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municUEI entity, CHIEF MICHEL
27 MOO , and DOES 1-10 inclusive,

28

DEFENDANTS.

DECLARATION OF ROGER CLARK

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 23 of 145 Page ID #:316

Carol A. Sobel.• SBN 84483 2 Katherine Robinson SBN 323470
Weston Rowland SBN 327599
LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL
3 725 Arizona A venue, Suite 300 4 Santa Monica, CA 90401
t. 310393-3055 5 e. carolsobelraiaol.com
e. klrobinsoniaw@_g_mai1.com 6 e. rowland.westoiiiggmail.com
7
Colleen Flynn, SBN 234281
8 LAW OFFICE OF COLLEEN FLYNN
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910 9 Los Angeles, CA 90010
t. 213 252-9444 10 r. 213 252-0091 11 e. cflynn@yahoo.com

JOl"g_e Gonzalez SBN 100799 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2485 Huntington Dr., Ste. 238 SAN MARINO, CA 91108-2622 t. 626 328-3081 e. j gonzalezlawoffice@gmai1.com Olu Orange SBN 213653 Orange Law Offices 3435 Wilshire BLvd., Ste. 2910 Los ANGELES, CA. 90010-2015 T. 213736-9900 f. 213 417-8800 e. o.orange@orangelawoffices.com

Matthew Strugar, SBN 232951
12 LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW STRUGAR
13 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90039
14 t. 323 696-2299
e. matthewstrugar@gmai1.com
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF ROGER CLARK

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 24 of 145 Page ID #:317

1

DECLARATIONOF ROGERA. CLARK

2

I, Roger A. Clark, declare as follows:

3

1. I am a police practices expert specializing in the procedures used by

4 the police, proper police tactics. I have appeared as a police practices expert in

5 over 1,000 cases throughout the United States, in both federal and state courts.

6

2. I have been retained by counsel for Plaintiffs. I am making this

7 declaration in support of Plaintiffs' Application for a Temporary Restraining Order

8 and for a Preliminary Injunction. The facts and opinions set forth in this

9 Declaration are true and of my own personal knowledge or are based on

10 information typically relied upon by experts in this area. If called as a witness, I

11 could and would testify competently under oath as to the facts and opinions set

12 forth herein.

13

Backgroundand Qualifications

14

3. I am a police practices expert specializing in the procedures used by

15 the police, proper police tactics. I have appeared as a police practices expert in

16 over 1,000 cases throughout the United States, in both federal and state courts.

17

4. My opinions are based in part on my training, professional experience

18 and education. I am a twenty-seven year veteran of the Los Angeles County

19 Sheriffs Department (LASD). I was hired on December 1, 1965, and I retired fro

20 active service on March 31, 1993. My career included six years at the rank of

21 Deputy Sheriff, six years as a Sergeant, and fifteen years as a Lieutenant. I retired

22 holding a California Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Advanced

23 Certificate, and I am a graduate of the POST Command College (class #5, 1988).

24 The POST Command College was a Masters level two-year course of study

25 requiring a thesis, in Police Administration, with the diploma awarded by the

26 California Department of Justice (and not the California University system).

27 POST was established by the Legislature in 1959 to set minimum selection and

28 training standards for California law enforcement.

DEC LARA nON OF ROGER CLARK 1

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 25 of 145 Page ID #:318

1

5. During my career, I was trained as a line officer regarding crowd and

2 riot tactics and used that training when I was deployed as a line officer during the

3 August 1970 riot in East Los Angeles and subsequent smaller disturbances that

4 followed - both as a Deputy and as a Sergeant. As a Sergeant, I was assigned as

5 one of four Sergeants to staff the newly created Los Angeles County Sheriff's

6 (LASD) Emergency Operations Bureau (EOB). This was a four-year assignment

7 from February 1, 1974 to April 1, 1978. The EOB was tasked by state law to

8 develop and train all necessary procedures regarding natural disasters and civil

9 disorders that might occur in Los Angeles County. Accordingly, I wrote and

10 trained on personnel planning for such events and was tasked with training

11 department personnel (including command staff) on procedures to manage such

12 events. This included the development and staffing of the newly established LASD

13 Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and Field Command Post (FCP). I used this

14 expertise during significant events that included my command responsibilities

15 during the Rose Parades, and as a commander of a platoon during the Rodney Kin

16 Riots of April and May of 1992. During the 1984 Olympics held in Los Angeles, I

17 was assigned and served as the Department's Intelligence Officer at the Los

18 Angeles Olympics Emergency Operations.

19

6. During my assignment as the Administrative Lieutenant of the

20 Department's Reserve Forces Bureau, from 1984 to 1987, I supervised the training

21 of cadets at our Reserve Training Academy. They were taught, inter alia, proper

22 apprehension procedures. Among other topics, I lectured the Reserve Academy on

23 the POST syllabus: "The Legal and Moral Use of Force and Firearms."

24

7. During the last five and one half years of my career, I commanded a

25 specialized unit known as the North Regional Surveillance and Apprehension

26 Team (N.O.R.S.A.T.), which was created to investigate, locate, observe and arrest

27 major (career) criminals. I held this position until my retirement from the

28 Department on March 31, 1993.

DE CLARA TION OF ROGER CLARK 2

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 26 of 145 Page ID #:319

1

8. During the first three months of my command ofN.O.R.S.A.T., the

2 unit had three justifiable shooting incidents. From that time, and over the next five

3 years of my command, N.O.R.S.A.T. established a remarkable record of more than

4 two thousand arrests of career criminals without a single shot fired - either by my

5 officers or by the suspects whom we arrested. Many of these suspects were armed

6 and considered to be very dangerous. Some were apprehended during the course of

7 their crimes and were very prone to use firearms to escape apprehension. This

8 record of excellence was accomplished through the use of proper tactics,

9 management and supervision of personnel, training in correct apprehension

10 methods, and adherence to the moral and ethical standards endorsed by California

11 POST and my Department. These methods and principles are also embraced by

12 every state training commission of which I am aware, as well as the national

13 standards established by the u.S. Department of Justice.

14

9. As a result of my position and record as the commanding officer of

15 N.O.R.S.A.T., I was assigned to author Field Operations Directive 89-3, "Tactical

16 Operations Involving Detective Personnel." This order remained in force 20 years

17 (until September 30, 2009), and included the basic standards and considerations

18 with which investigative officers must comply in the event of a tactical deploymen

19 such as the entry into a building for the purpose of an arrest and/or seizure of

20 evidence.

21

10. Additionally, since my retirement, I have provided reports and given

22 testimony regarding a number of alleged civil disturbances, including alleged riots

23 in Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Diego and Davis, California. Some relevant

24 Ninth Circuit cases in which my expert testimony was admitted include Nelson v.

25 City of Davis, 685 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2012) (involving pepperball projectiles at a

26 mass gathering); and Young v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 655 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2011)

27 (involving baton strikes and pepper spray).

28

DECLARATION OF ROGER CLARK 3

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 27 of 145 Page ID #:320

1

Materials Reviewed

2

11. In forming my opinions in this matter, I have based my opinions on

3 the allegations and contents in Plaintiffs' First Amended complaint, and POST and

4 LAPD training and standards documents.

5

LAPD's Use of "Less Lethal" Force Against Protestors

6

12. Police officers nationwide, including the LAPD, are trained that they

7 may not use force, particularly baton and kinetic projectile strikes against

8 protestors unless there was an objectively reasonable basis for the use of force

9 against that particular individual. Indeed, LAPD's own policy states: "There are no

10 exceptions to the Department's Use of Force Policy for crowd control situations.

11 Officers may use only that force which is objectively reasonable." See LAPD Use

12 of Force Tactics Directive No.1 I-June 2011. All persons are not subject to

13 indiscriminate police force by simply being present at the scene, particularly at a

14 scene where First Amendment rights are being exercised. Law enforcement

15 officers are trained that they may only use force against persons pursuant to their

16 lawful authority. However, there have been several reports indicating that LAPD

17 officers deliberately inflicted significant indiscriminate force on the many persons

18 in the crowd, seriously injuring many of them. Such use of indiscriminate force is

19 unlawful and contrary to proper police training and practices.

20

13. An appropriately-trained police officer acting in a reasonable manner

21 would not indiscriminately fire a potentially lethal projectile into a crowd, or

22 toward persons that are not engaged in conduct which could accurately be

23 construed as posing a danger to themselves, the officer or the general public. Nor

24 would an appropriately-trained or reasonable police officer strike such persons

25 with batons. Both run contrary to police officers' trainings and relevant caselaw (as

26 taught to all officers).

27

14. LAPD officers are trained and are generally aware that kinetic

28 projectile and baton strikes are serious and potentially lethal uses of force. LAPD

DECLARA nON OF ROGER CLARK 4

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 28 of 145 Page ID #:321

1 officers' use of force directive instructs them that the use of such weapons is only

2 permissible when an officer "reasonably believes that a suspect or subject is

3 violently resisting arrest or poses an immediate threat of violence or physical

4 harm." See LAPD Use of Force Tactics Directive No. l7-July 2018.

5

15. Even where firing kinetic impact projectiles would be appropriate,

6 officers are trained to only use them by aiming for contact below the knee,

7 avoiding striking body organs such as kidneys and spleen, causing a heart

8 arrythmia by chest strikes or causing potential brain injury with shots to the head

9 and neck, and even then to avoid direct contact with persons by first hitting the

10 ground near their feet.

11

16. Officers are also instructed to avoid using baton strikes that hit the

12 head, neck, throat, spine, kidneys and groin areas to decrease the likelihood of
13 causm. g a sen.ous injury.

14

17. Even before the appropriate usage of impact proj ectiles and baton

15 strikes, which these were not for the several reasons addressed above, Officers

16 would be required to provide adequate warning before deploying such force where

17 it would be at all feasible to do so.

18

18. The deployment of the uses of impact projectiles and baton strikes-

19 even where they are proper - risks escalating situations and enraging crowds.

20 Officers are trained about this. Additionally, Officers are trained under POST

21 Learning Domain # 24, "Handling Disputes/Crowd Control" that "In a crowd

22 management situation, law enforcement presence is a preventive measure and

23 should remain low profile. The presence of uniformed officers who display a

24 command presence is often an adequate deterrent to unlawful activities. It is

25 preferable for the crowd to remain focused on the event itself rather than on officer

26 actions at the event." Officers are also trained that "[a]n otherwise peaceful group

27 can become enraged by inappropriate officer conduct .... " The LAPD's Use of

28 Force - Tactics Directive also holds that even where appropriate, "Crowd dispersal

DECLARATION OF ROGER CLARK 5

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 29 of 145 Page ID #:322

1 strategies should only be used when immediate action is necessary to stop violence

2 and/or property damage and/or sufficient resources are not present to ensure public

3 safety."

4

19. The indiscriminate or targeted uses of impact projectiles or baton

5 strikes against non-violent protesters as depicted in the complaint are clearly

6 unlawful and are contrary to state and nationwide standards and training for police

7 officers. Such tactics are dangerous and counterproductive, and reasonable,

8 properly trained officers should and would have known this.

9

LAPD's Arrests of Protestors

10

20. My understanding is that approximately 92 percent of the arrest class

11 members were arrested for infractions or misdemeanor charges of failure to obey a

12 curfew, failure to disperse, failure to follow a lawful order of a police officer

13 and/or unlawful assembly. California law provides that, absent three narrow

14 specified exceptions, infraction arrestees must be cited and released in the field.

15 (Cal. Pen. Code, § 853.5.) Misdemeanor arrestees must be released with citations,

16 and not held in custody. (Cal. Pen. Code, § 853.6.) After making an arrest, law

17 enforcement may hold a person for a "brief period of detention to take the

18 administrative steps incident to arrest."

19

21. California law requires that persons arrested for committing an

20 infraction or misdemeanor, like the putative class, be released from custody in the

21 field or immediately after booking on signing a written notice to appear, unless one

22 of certain enumerated exceptions applies. (Cal. Pen. Code, § 853.6.) The arresting

23 police officer who decides not to cite and release an individual arrested for a

24 misdemeanor must state the reason on a form provided by the law enforcement

25 agency. (Cal. Pen. Code, § 853.6, subd. (i).) However, instead of issuing citations

26 and releasing the arrestees at the scene or promptly at the police station as per

27 California law, LAPD officers took those protesters who are part of the putative

28 class into custody and held them in buses or other detention facilities for far longer

DECLARA nON OF ROGER CLARK 6

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 30 of 145 Page ID #:323

1 times than they would have been held even if taken to a station and booked before

2 release without bail.

3

22. Because §853.6 requires an individualized determination to hold an

4 individual rather than immediately cite and release, it is highly unlikely that the

5 LAPD would have had a reasonable basis to believe that all of the arrestees should

6 be held and not cited and released immediately.

7

23. The LAPD has the capacity in the field to cite and release protestors,

8 including to run them for wants and warrants, issue a citation, document the

9 contact and search the individuals, as do virtually all police departments in the

10 state of California. Systems to accommodate cite and release are available in

11 virtually every patrol car. This is particularly true - and the failure to do so even

12 more egregious - when the LAPD has advanced warning of a protest or ability to

13 prepare a response.

14

15

LAPD's Prolonged Tight Handcuffing and Detention of Arrestees

16

24. Throughout the country, police officers are trained regarding the

17 methods and means of response in caring for arrestees; and are required to provide

18 for the care of persons in their custody. POST training is as follows: "Peace

19 officers who have custody of arrested persons are lawfully responsible for the care

20 and safekeeping of those individuals." POST repeatedly instructs officers that the

21 are responsible arrested persons' care and custody, for example that "At the time 0

22 the initial arrest, the arresting officer is responsible for the care and custody of the

23 arrested person. The arresting officer mayor may not also be the transporting

24 officer, responsible for transporting the arrested person to a local detention

25 facility." All peace officers have certain responsibilities in a custodial situation,

26 including "Assuring that there is a lawful basis for custody," "maintaining the care,

27 custody, and safety of the arrested person until that person is processed into a local

28 detention facility." "Peace officers who have responsibility for arrested persons

DECLARA nON OF ROGER CLARK 7

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 31 of 145 Page ID #:324

1 are liable for the safekeeping and standard of care of those persons." This extends

2 to a person's handcuffing and conditions of detention.

3

25. Police officers are trained that their duty to maintain the care and

4 safekeeping of arrested persons is ongoing. Indeed, even if officers believed

5 handcuffing was initially appropriate, they were required to reassess after the

6 initial handcuffing of the protestors, and during the extended hours they sat

7 handcuffed.

8

26. The tight and prolonged handcuffing here appears unnecessary -

9 particularly in view of the fact that there was no reason to detain the plaintiffs for

10 this period of time at all. Doing so was indeed illegal, specifically given the

11 extensive amount of time for which persons arrested for at most only non-violent

12 misdemeanors sat painfully handcuffed. Officers have a clear constitutional duty

13 to loosen or remove overly tight handcuffs where they may reasonably do so, abou

14 which officers nationwide are trained. According to the complaint, the Officers

15 here did not do this and required arrestees to unnecessarily sit for hours as they

16 were injured from handcuffing, despite requests that they loosen or remove the

17 tight handcuffs. This appears to be in violation of POST standards and relevant

18 caselaw (as taught to all officers).

19

27. Apart from the prolonged handcuffing, protestors were detained for

20 several hours and held on buses without ventilation and refused the ability to go to

21 the bathroom except on themselves. This violates standard police practices as well

22 as California's minimum standard for local detention facilities, including titles 15

23 and 24, and the requirement that detainees be treated with the dignity and respect

24 to which all human beings are entitled. Moreover, protesters were held in

25 conditions which increased their risk of contracting COVID-19, demonstrating a

26 lack of regard for the safety of the persons in LAPD custody.

27

28. The paradigmatic example in POST learning materials for criminally

28 cruel treatment is where a prisoner who was extremely disruptive is "refused

DECLARATION OF ROGER CLARK 8

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 32 of 145 Page ID #:325

1 access to a toilet for an extended period of time," goes to the bathroom on himself,

2 and is not afforded a shower for several hours. See POST Workbook, Learning

3 Domain 31 at 2-7. As POST states, such officers committed the "crime of cruel

4 and unusual punishment to a person in custody." Id. POST materials also instruct

5 all police officers that they are guilty of criminal inhumane or oppressive treatment 6 for "withholding basic necessities such as ... water" from a person in custody. 7 POST Workbook, Learning Domain 31 at 2-9. The LAPD officers here violated 8 this training.

9

29. The nature of the conditions of Plaintiffs' handcuffmg and

10 confinement also suggests punitive conditions of detention on the part of the 11 LAPD officers. This is contrary to POST training, which emphasizes that "Police

12 officers who have custody are lawfully responsible for the care and safekeeping of

13 those individuals" and misuse of arrest authority "undermines the relationship 14 between law enforcement and the community and undermines our fundamental 15 belief in a democratic system." See POST Workbook, Learning Domain 31 at 1-3.

16

17

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

18 Executed June 22, 2020 at Santee, CA.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF ROGER CLARK 9

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 33 of 145 Page ID #:326
EXHIBIT 23

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 34 of 145 Page ID #:327

1

Cynthia Anderson Barker SBN 75764 NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD

2

3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010

Barrett S. Litt, SBN 45527

3

t. 213 381-3246 f. 213 381-3246 e. cablaw@hotmail.com

Lindsay Battles SBN 262862 KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT

4

975 E. Green Street Pasadena, California 91106

5

Paul Hoffman, SBN 71244 Michael Seplow SBN 150183

t. 626 844-7660 f. 626 844-7670 e. blitt@kmbllaw.com

6 Aidan McGlaze SBN 277270 John Washington SBN 315991

e. lbattles@kmbllaw.com

7 SCHONBRUN, SEPLOW, HARRIS,

Pedram Esfandiary SBN 312569

HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP

e. pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com

8 11543 W. Olympic Blvd.

Monique Alarcon SBN 311650

Los Angeles, California 90064-1508 e. malarcon@baumhedlundlaw.com

9 t. 310 396-0731; f. 310 399-7040

Bijan Esfandiari SBN 223216

e. hoffpaul@aol.com

e. besfandiari@baumhedlundlaw.com

10 e. mseplow@sshhzlaw.com

R. Brent Wisner SBN 276023

11

e. amcglaze@sshhzlaw.com e. jwashington@sshhlaw.com

e. rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com
BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI &

12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 13 Additional Counsel on Next Page

GOLDMAN, P.C.
10940 Wilshire Blvd., 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 t. 310 207-3233 f. 310 820-7444

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION

16 BLACK LIVES MATTER LOS

Case No.: 2:20-cv-05027 CBM-AS

17 ANGELES, CANGRESS (DBA LA

CAN), STEVEN ROE, NELSON

DECLARATION OF DR. ROHINI

18 LOPEZ, TINA ČRNKO, JONATHAN HAAR IN SUPPORT OF

MAYORCA, ABIGAIL RODAS,

PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION

19 KRYSTLE HARTFIELD, NADIA

FOR A TEMPORARY

KHAN, CLARA ARANOVICH,

RESTRAINING ORDER AND

20 ALEXANDER STAMM, MAIA

PRELIMINARY INJUNCION

KAZIM, ALICIA BARRERA-

21 TRUJILO, SHANNON LEE MOORE,

22

DEVON YOUNG, LINUS SHENTU, individually and on behalf of a class of

23 similarly situated persons,

24 v.

PLAINTIFFS,

25 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a

26

municipal entity, CHIEF MICHEL MOORE , and DOES 1-10 inclusive,

27
DEFENDANTS.

28

DECLARATION OF DR. ROHINI HAAR

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 35 of 145 Page ID #:328

Carol A. Sobel, SBN 84483

1 Katherine Robinson SBN 323470

2

Weston Rowland SBN 327599 LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL

3

725 Arizona Avenue, Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90401

4

t. 310 393-3055 e. carolsobel@aol.com

5

e. klrobinsonlaw@gmail.com e. rowland.weston@gmail.com

6

7 Colleen Flynn, SBN 234281 LAW OFFICE OF COLLEEN FLYNN
8 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010
9 t. 213 252-9444 r. 213 252-0091
10 e. cflynn@yahoo.com

Jorge Gonzalez SBN 100799 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2485 Huntington Dr., Ste. 238 SAN MARINO, CA 91108-2622 t. 626 328-3081 e. jgonzalezlawoffice@gmail.com Olu Orange SBN 213653 Orange Law Offices 3435 Wilshire BLvd., Ste. 2910 LOS ANGELES, CA. 90010-2015 T. 213 736-9900 f. 213 417-8800 e. o.orange@orangelawoffices.com

11 Matthew Strugar, SBN 232951

12

LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW STRUGAR 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910

13

Los Angeles, CA 90039 t. 323 696-2299

14 e. matthewstrugar@gmail.com

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF DR. ROHINI HAAR

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 36 of 145 Page ID #:329

1

DECLARATION OF DR. ROHINI HAAR

2

I, Rohini J. Haar, declare as follows:

3

1. I am a licensed physician specializing in Emergency Medicine, and a

4 lecturer and researcher with a focus on the impacts of the uses and abuses of crowd

5 control weaponry.

6

2. I have been retained by counsel for Plaintiffs. I am making this

7 declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Application for a Temporary Restraining Order

8 and for a Preliminary Injunction. The facts and opinions set forth in this

9 Declaration are true and of my own personal knowledge or are based on

10 information typically relied upon by experts in my area. If called as a witness, I

11 could and would testify competently under oath as to the facts and opinions set

12 forth herein.

13

Background and Qualifications

14

3. I am a licensed physician in the state of California, currently working

15 as a Pool Physician for the Department of Emergency Medicine at Kaiser Hospital

16 in Oakland, CA. I am fully trained and board certified in Emergency Medicine. I

17 am also a lecturer in the Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, at the

18 University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health where I teach on health

19 and human rights, global health ethics and conduct research on the impacts of

20 violence and human rights violations on health, both in the USA and abroad. I am

21 medical advisor for Physicians for Human Rights, a national organization that

22 brings the expertise of science and medicine to the protection and promotion of

23 human rights.

24

4. I am a graduate of the University of Chicago, Pritzker School of

25 Medicine in Chicago, Illinois in 2005. I received my clinical training at New York

26 University/Bellevue Medical Center in New York, NY and a degree in public

27 health at Columbia University, Mailman School of Public Health in New York,

28 NY.

1 DECLARATION OF DR. ROHINI HAAR

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 37 of 145 Page ID #:330

1

5. Since 2014, I have focused one facet of my research on the use and

2 abuse of crowd control weapons, such as tear gas, rubber bullets, water cannons

3 and acoustic weapons. I have worked closely with academics at the University of

4 California, Berkeley, the University of California, San Francisco, Physicians for

5 Human Rights (“PHR”), Amnesty International, and legal experts at the

6 International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations (INCLO) which includes

7 the ACLU and 13 other civil rights organizations around the globe, in conducting

8 interviews, quantitative research and policy analysis.

9

6. I was the first author of a landmark report “Lethal in Disguise- the

10 health consequences of crowd control weapons” in 2016 as well as peer-reviewed

11 systematic reviews on the health impacts of kinetic impact projectiles, Death,

12 injury and disability from kinetic impact projectiles in crowd-control settings: a

13 systematic review” in the peer reviewed medical journal BMJ Open and on tear gas

14 “Health impacts of chemical irritants used for crowd control: a systematic review

15 of the injuries and deaths caused by tear gas and pepper spray” in the peer

16 reviewed BMC Public Health journal, both published in 2017. I also co-authored a

17 PHR report on the use of scatter shot crowd control weapons in Kashmir, India

18 titled “Blind to Justice: Excessive Use of Force and Attacks on Health Care in

19 Jammu and Kashmir, India” in 2017. I was the lead researcher and first author on a

20 study on the health impacts of chronic exposure to tear gas in a refugee camps in

21 Palestine, titled “No Safe Space: Health Consequences of Tear Gas Exposure

22 Among Palestine Refugees” in 2018 at the Human Rights Center at UC Berkeley.

23 In 2019, I was the first author and principle investigator on an investigation of

24 excessive use of tear gas, rubber bullets and other weapons in the Sudanese

25 revolution, entitled “Intimidation and Persecution: Sudan’s Attacks on Peaceful

26 Protesters and Physicians and co-author on a second report, titled “Chaos and Fire:

27 An Analysis of Sudan’s June 3, 2019 Khartoum Massacre”. I have also presented

28 on the health impacts of tear gas at national conferences, including the Consortium

2 DECLARATION OF DR. ROHINI HAAR

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 38 of 145 Page ID #:331

1 of Universities on Global Health (CUGH) and the American Public Health

2 Association (APHA).

3

Materials Reviewed

4

7. The opinions I present in this declaration are based on my experience

5 and research in settings of civil unrest and demonstrations across the globe, and on

6 the information in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, from which I understand

7 that the Los Angeles Police Department has used kinetic impact projectiles and

8 other crowd control weapons, including foam baton and rubber bullet projectiles

9 and hand-held baton strikes.

10

Effects of Kinetic Impact Projectiles and Baton Strikes

11

8. Kinetic Impact Projectiles, or “KIPs” refers to a range of projectiles

12 used in crowd control settings that are made from combinations of rubber, plastic,

13 PVC, various metals including lead and steel, wood, hard foam, and wax, which

14 are often generically referred to as “rubber bullets.” These include foam batons

15 and rubber pellets.

16

9. The term “Foam batons” can include projectiles that have a hard

17 sponge nose or tip, placed atop a hard plastic body. There is a risk of serious injury

18 if foam batons are fired at close-range or aimed at sensitive parts of the body –

19 particularly if the projectile has spun in flight, as such projectiles do, and the target

20 is first impacted by the hard plastic casing. Several case studies describe that foam

21 batons, like other KIPs, can ricochet when they hit the ground and bounce, hitting

22 bystanders or peaceful demonstrators in various body parts, including the groin,

23 and sometimes the head.

24

10. “Rubber pellets,” also known as rubber ball rounds, may be fired

25 individually or as several hard rubber or plastic balls deployed simultaneously

26 from one plastic case or cartridge (sometimes known as scatter shot). Rubber

27 pellets entail a risk of serious injury if fired at close-range or aimed at sensitive

28 parts of the body. At longer ranges, they have unpredictable trajectories and

3 DECLARATION OF DR. ROHINI HAAR

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 39 of 145 Page ID #:332

1 become more inaccurate. Small projectiles increase the risk of eye injuries and

2 penetration of the skin. Firing multiple rounds at once, known as scatter shot, is

3 notoriously inaccurate, indiscriminate & arbitrary and may hit peaceful protestors

4 and bystanders. In one study, the use of scatter shot lead to a higher incidence of

5 significant injury, likely because of their indiscriminate nature and inability to

6 target them. There are numerous case reports of significant injuries from all kinds

7 of scatter shot across the globe. Amnesty International, INCLO and PHR all call

8 for, as a very first step, the prohibition of all types of cluster munitions and scatter

9 shot, especially in crowd control.1

10

11. The findings of a recent systematic review of medical literature that I

11 authored in the journal BMJ Open indicates that KIPs cause serious injury,

12 disability, and death. Our study identified 1,925 people with injuries from KIPs; 53

13 of these individuals died from their injuries and 294 suffered permanent

14 disabilities. Of all people with injuries, 70% were considered severe (required

15 professional medical treatment). Disaggregated data shows that scatter shot and

16 metal composite bullets had the highest rates of injuries.

17

12. Potential Health Impacts: KIPs can cause blunt or penetrative trauma.

18 Penetrative injuries are those that pierce the skin or soft tissue. Blunt injuries are

19 those that cause internal damage without breaking the skin barrier. All KIPs can

20 cause these injuries. Weapons that shoot multiple bullets, such as scatter shot

21 rubber pellets, can disperse and are not discriminate, causing injuries to peaceful

22

23

24

25

26

1 PHR and INCLO. “Lethal In Disguise: The Health Consequences Of Crowd-Control

Weapons," 2016, Amnesty International, “Use Of Gorce: Guidelines For Implementation Of The UN Basic

27 Principles On The Use Of Force And Firearms By Law Enforcement Officials”. 2015.

28

4 DECLARATION OF DR. ROHINI HAAR

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 40 of 145 Page ID #:333

1 demonstrators and bystanders. The use of riot control face gear, such as gas masks

2 and face shields, make targeting these weapons even more difficult.

3

A. Eyes: Direct trauma to the eye from KIPs nearly always causes

4

either total blindness in that eye, due to ruptured globe (eyeball). KIPs have

5

also entered the brain through the eye socket and caused extensive and

6

irreversible damage.

7

B. Brain: Blunt trauma to the brain from KIPs can cause

8

concussions and bruising inside the brain (contusions) as well as internal

9

bleeding and skull fractures.

10

C. Head and Neck: The delicate structures of the face and neck are

11

particularly vulnerable to traumatic injury. The bones of the face and skull,

12

the spinal cord, and the blood vessels in the neck are all close to the skin

13

surface. Trauma to that area has caused bleeding, irreversible damage, and

14

death.

15

D. Cardiorespiratory System: When aimed at the chest, KIPs have

16

bruised the lungs or heart, and caused serious and fatal injuries such as

17

bleeding and deflation of the lungs

18

E. Musculoskeletal System: Injuries to the muscles and bones from

19

KIPs have caused contusions and fractures. Deeper injuries have caused

20

permanent damage to the neurovascular structures, leading to tissue death

21

and sometimes necessitating amputations.

22

F. Abdomen: Blunt injuries to the abdomen area from KIPs have

23

caused internal bleeding and damage in the solid organs such as the liver,

24

kidneys, and spleen. Penetrative injuries have also caused bleeding,

25

perforations, and infections.

26

G. Skin and Soft Tissue: KIPs can cause bruising and contusions of

27

the skin and soft tissue, as well as superficial and deep lacerations, some of

28

which may cause muscle or nerve damage as well as bleeding.

5 DECLARATION OF DR. ROHINI HAAR

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 41 of 145 Page ID #:334

1

H. Cumulative Impacts: When KIPs are fired at close range, the

2

risk for more severe injury is increased. At close range, the speed at which

3

KIPs, including foam batons and various types of rubber pellets, travel can

4

be comparable to live ammunition and, can penetrate the body, causing

5

injuries, disabilities and death, especially when they strike the head or face.

6

When launched or fired from afar, these weapons are inaccurate and can

7

strike vulnerable body parts, as well as cause unintended injuries to

8

bystanders and peaceful demonstrators. Therefore, there are significant

9

doubts that these weapons can be used in a manner that is simultaneously

10

safe and effective.

11
13. Data also demonstrates that severe injuries are more likely when
12
KIPs, including foam batons and various types of rubber pellets, are fired at close
13
range; some types of KIPs have the same ability to penetrate the skin as
14
conventional live ammunition and can be just as lethal. When launched or fired
15
from afar, these weapons are inaccurate and strike vulnerable body parts, as well as
16
cause unintended injuries to bystanders. There are significant doubts that these
17
weapons can be used in a manner that is simultaneously safe and effective.
18
14. Other weapons are commonly used in crowd control. Among these
19
weapons, batons are particularly harmful when misused and applied with
20
significant force. They can cause serious blunt force trauma, including fractures,
21
internal bleeding, and potentially permanent disability to various body parts and
22
death from bleeding, skull fractures or other severe injuries.
23

24

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

25 Executed June 22, 2020, at Berkeley, California.

26

27

28

6 DECLARATION OF DR. ROHINI HAAR

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 42 of 145 Page ID #:335

1

Dr. Rohini J Haar

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

7 DECLARATION OF DR. ROHINI HAAR

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 43 of 145 Page ID #:336
EXHIBIT 24

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 44 of 145 Page ID #:337

Cynthia Anderson Barker SBN 75764 1 NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD

2

3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010

Barrett S. Litt, SBN 45527

3

t. 213 381-3246 f. 213 381-3246 e. cablaw@hotmail.com

Lindsay Battles SBN 262862 KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT

4

975 E. Green Street Pasadena, California 91106

5

Paul Hoffman, SBN 71244 Michael Seplow SBN 150183

t. 626 844-7660 f. 626 844-7670 e. blitt@kmbllaw.com

6

Aidan McGlaze SBN 277270 John Washington SBN 315991

e. lbattles@kmbllaw.com

7 SCHONBRUN, SEPLOW, HARRIS,

Pedram Esfandiary SBN 312569

HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP

e. pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com

8 11543 W. Olympic Blvd.

Monique Alarcon SBN 311650

Los Angeles, California 90064-1508 e. malarcon@baumhedlundlaw.com

9 t. 310 396-0731; f. 310 399-7040

Bijan Esfandiari SBN 223216

e. hoffpaul@aol.com

e. besfandiari@baumhedlundlaw.com

10 e. mseplow@sshhzlaw.com

R. Brent Wisner SBN 276023

11

e. amcglaze@sshhzlaw.com e. jwashington@sshhlaw.com

e. rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com
BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI &

12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 13 Additional Counsel on Next Page

GOLDMAN, P.C.
10940 Wilshire Blvd., 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 t. 310 207-3233 f. 310 820-7444

14

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION

17

BLACK LIVES MATTER LOS ANGELES, CANGRESS (DBA LA

Case No.: 2:20-cv-05027 CBM-AS

18 CAN), STEVEN ROE, NELSON

DECLARATION OF JOHN

LOPEZ, TINA ČRNKO, JONATHAN WASHINGTON IN SUPPORT OF

19 MAYORCA, ABIGAIL RODAS,

PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION

KRYSTLE HARTFIELD, NADIA

FOR A TEMPORARY

20 KHAN, CLARA ARANOVICH,

RESTRAINING ORDER AND

ALEXANDER STAMM, MAIA

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

21 KAZIM, ALICIA BARRERA-

22

TRUJILO, SHANNON LEE MOORE, DEVON YOUNG, LINUS SHENTU,

23

individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons,

24
25 v.

PLAINTIFFS,

26

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal entity, CHIEF MICHEL

27 MOORE , and DOES 1-10 inclusive,

28

DEFENDANTS.

DECLARATION OF JOHN WASHINGTON

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 45 of 145 Page ID #:338

1 Carol A. Sobel, SBN 84483

2

Katherine Robinson SBN 323470 Weston Rowland SBN 327599

3

LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL 725 Arizona Avenue, Suite 300

4

Santa Monica, CA 90401 t. 310 393-3055

5

e. carolsobel@aol.com e. klrobinsonlaw@gmail.com

6 e. rowland.weston@gmail.com

7
Colleen Flynn, SBN 234281 8 LAW OFFICE OF COLLEEN FLYNN
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910 9 Los Angeles, CA 90010
t. 213 252-9444 10 r. 213 252-0091 11 e. cflynn@yahoo.com

Jorge Gonzalez SBN 100799 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 2485 Huntington Dr., Ste. 238 SAN MARINO, CA 91108-2622 t. 626 328-3081 e. jgonzalezlawoffice@gmail.com Olu Orange SBN 213653 Orange Law Offices 3435 Wilshire BLvd., Ste. 2910 LOS ANGELES, CA. 90010-2015 T. 213 736-9900 f. 213 417-8800 e. o.orange@orangelawoffices.com

12

Matthew Strugar, SBN 232951 LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW STRUGAR

13

3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90039

14 t. 323 696-2299

e. matthewstrugar@gmail.com

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF JOHN WASHINGTON

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 46 of 145 Page ID #:339

1

DECLARATION OF JOHN C. WASHINGTON

2

I, John C. Washington, declare as follows:

3

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California, and

4 co-counsel in this case.

5

2. This declaration (“Declaration”) is submitted in support of Plaintiffs’

6 Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for a

7 Preliminary Injunction. The facts set forth herein are within my own personal

8 knowledge. If called upon, I would testify competently thereto.

9

3. Attached as Exhibit C to this Declaration is a true and correct copy of

10 the declaration of Daniel Parker, recently filed in Melissa Ahlman, et al. v. Don

11 Barnes, Case No. 8:20-cv-00835-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal. 2020). I am also co-

12 counsel for Plaintiffs in this case. We submitted Dr. Parker’s declaration in

13 support of the Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order

14 last month.

15

4. Attached as Exhibit D to this Declaration is a true and correct copy of

16 the declaration of Dr. Joe Goldenson recently filed in the same case. We submitted

17 this declaration in support of the Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for a Temporary

18 Restraining Order last month.

19

20

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the

21 foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 24th day of June, 2020, at Malibu,

22 California.

23

24

25

John C. Washington

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF JOHN WASHINGTON 1

CaCsaes8e:220:2-c0v--c0v0-0853052-J7G-CBB-SMH-AKS DDocoucmumenetn4t 1-55-1 FiFleilded050/61/12/42/020 PPagaege14o7f 1o1f 14P5agPeaIDge#I:D461 #:340
EXHIBIT C
C-1

CaCsaes8e:220:2-c0v--c0v0-0853052-J7G-CBB-SMH-AKS DDocoucmumenetn4t 1-55-1 FiFleilded050/61/12/42/020 PPagaege24o8f 1o1f 14P5agPeaIDge#I:D462 #:341

CaCsaes8e:220:2-c0v--c0v0-0853052-J7G-CBB-SMH-AKS DDocoucmumenetn4t 1-55-1 FiFleilded050/61/12/42/020 PPagaege34o9f 1o1f 14P5agPeaIDge#I:D463 #:342

CaCsaes8e:220:2-c0v--c0v0-0853052-J7G-CBB-SMH-AKS DDocoucmumenetn4t 1-55-1 FiFleilded050/61/12/42/020 PPagaege45o0f 1o1f 14P5agPeaIDge#I:D464 #:343

CaCsaes8e:220:2-c0v--c0v0-0853052-J7G-CBB-SMH-AKS DDocoucmumenetn4t 1-55-1 FiFleilded050/61/12/42/020 PPagaege55o1f 1o1f 14P5agPeaIDge#I:D465 #:344

CaCsaes8e:220:2-c0v--c0v0-0853052-J7G-CBB-SMH-AKS DDocoucmumenetn4t 1-55-1 FiFleilded050/61/12/42/020 PPagaege65o2f 1o1f 14P5agPeaIDge#I:D466 #:345

CaCsaes8e:220:2-c0v--c0v0-0853052-J7G-CBB-SMH-AKS DDocoucmumenetn4t 1-55-1 FiFleilded050/61/12/42/020 PPagaege75o3f 1o1f 14P5agPeaIDge#I:D467 #:346

CaCsaes8e:220:2-c0v--c0v0-0853052-J7G-CBB-SMH-AKS DDocoucmumenetn4t 1-55-1 FiFleilded050/61/12/42/020 PPagaege85o4f 1o1f 14P5agPeaIDge#I:D468 #:347

CaCsaes8e:220:2-c0v--c0v0-0853052-J7G-CBB-SMH-AKS DDocoucmumenetn4t 1-55-1 FiFleilded050/61/12/42/020 PPagaege95o5f 1o1f 14P5agPeaIDge#I:D469 #:348

Case 28:20-cv-050082375-CJGBBM--SAHSK DDooccuummeennt t1451-1-5 FFileiledd0065/2/141/2/200 PPaaggee5160oof f11415 Page ID #:437409

Case 28:20-cv-050082375-CJGBBM--SAHSK DDooccuummeennt t1451-1-5 FFileiledd0065/2/141/2/200 PPaaggee5171oof f11415 Page ID #:437510

CaCsaes8e:220:2-c0v--c0v0-0853052-J7G-CBB-SMH-AKS DDocoucmumenetn4t 1-56-1 FiFleilded050/61/12/42/020 PPagaege15o8f 3o0f 14P5agPeaIDge#I:D472 #:351
EXHIBIT D
D-1

CaCsaes8e:220:2-c0v--c0v0-0853052-J7G-CBB-SMH-AKS DDocoucmumenetn4t 1-56-1 FiFleilded050/61/12/42/020 PPagaege25o9f 3o0f 14P5agPeaIDge#I:D473 #:352

1

I, Dr. Joe Goldenson, declare as follows under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28

2 U.S.C. § 1746:

3

BACKGROUND

4

1. I am a medical physician with 33 years of experience in correctional

5 health care. For 28 years, I worked for Jail Health Services of the San Francisco

6 Department of Public Health. For 22 of those years, I served as the Director and

7 Medical Director. In that role, I provided direct clinical services, managed public

8 health activities in the San Francisco County jail, including the management of HIV,

9 tuberculosis, Hepatitis C, and other infectious diseases in the facility, planned and

10 coordinated the jail’s response to H1N1, and administered the correctional health

11 enterprise, including its budget, human resources services, and medical, mental health,

12 dental, and pharmacy services.

13

2. I served as a member of the Board of Directors of the National

14 Commission on Correctional Health Care for eight years and was past President of the

15 California chapter of the American Correctional Health Services Association. In 2014,

16 I received the Armond Start Award of Excellence from the Society of Correctional

17 Physicians, which recognizes its recipient as a representative of the highest ideals in

18 correctional medicine.

19

3. For 35 years, I held an academic appointment as an Assistant Clinical

20 Professor at the University of California, San Francisco.

21

4. I have worked extensively as a correctional health medical expert and court

22 monitor. I have served as a medical expert for the United States District Court for the

23 Northern District of California for 25 years. I am currently retained by that Court as a

24 medical expert in Plata v. Newsom, Case No. 3:01-cv-01351 (N.D. Cal.), to evaluate

25 medical care provided to inmate patients in the California Department of Correctional

26 Rehabilitation. I have also served as a medical expert/monitor at Cook County Jail in

27 Chicago and Los Angeles County Jail, at other jails in Washington, Texas, and Florida,

28 and at prisons in Illinois, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

DECLARATION OF DR. JOE

1

D-2

GOLDENSON

CaCsaes8e:220:2-c0v--c0v0-0853052-J7G-CBB-SMH-AKS DDocoucmumenetn4t 1-56-1 FiFleilded050/61/12/42/020 PPagaege36o0f 3o0f 14P5agPeaIDge#I:D474 #:353

1

5. My CV is attached as Exhibit A.

2

6. I am not being compensated for my time reviewing materials and

3 preparing this report.

4

7. As a researcher of prisoner health care and infectious diseases, I have

5 studied the scientific literature about COVID-19, including the literature regarding

6 symptoms, testing, infection rates and transmission. In addition, I have studied and

7 am familiar with the public health guidance regarding prevention and containment of

8 COVID-19, including U.S. Centers For Disease Control (“CDC”)’s Guidance for

9 Population in Jails and the CDC’s Interim Infection Prevention and Control

10 Recommendations for Patients with Suspected or Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019

11 (COVID-19) in Healthcare Settings.

12

8. I have been asked by counsel for persons detained at the Orange County

13 Jail to describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on detained persons and the

14 surrounding community under the current population levels and conditions at the

15 Orange County jail. To address this question, I rely on my background and training,

16 the public health literature and guidance about COVID-19, as well as information

17 about COVID-19 in the Orange County Jail and community. The information about

18 the Orange County Jail includes publicly available information about the Orange

19 County Jail from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department’s webpages, charts of the

20 jail structure and units from the 2016-2018 biennial inspection of California Board of

21 State and Community Corrections (BSCC)1, community infection information from

22 the Orange County Department of Health, and individual declarations from persons

23 detained at the Orange County jail.

24

COVID-19

25

26 1 2016-2018 Biennial Inspection: Orange County’s Type II and Court Holding Facilities,

27 Penal Code Section 6031, State of California Board of State and Community Corrections

28

(Sep. 26. 2018), https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hE41vMsJa3S06bW8PGSTwS3DWpPbzj5/view?usp=sharing.

DECLARATION OF DR. JOE

2

D-3

GOLDENSON

CaCsaes8e:220:2-c0v--c0v0-0853052-J7G-CBB-SMH-AKS DDocoucmumenetn4t 1-56-1 FiFleilded050/61/12/42/020 PPagaege46o1f 3o0f 14P5agPeaIDge#I:D475 #:354

1

9. COVID-19 is a serious disease that has reached pandemic status. As of

2 April 21, 2020, there are at least 3,020,117 confirmed cases of COVID-19 worldwide,

3 including 980,008 cases in the United States.2 At least 209,799 people have died,

4 including 54,881 in the United States.3 As of April 21, 2020 there were 33,897 confirmed

5 cases of COVID in California and 1,227 reported deaths.4 These numbers have been

6 increasing at an alarmingly rapid rate, reflecting the exponential growth of infections.

7 Because these numbers include only laboratory confirmed cases, they likely understate

8 the actual number of cases and deaths. Most medical and public health experts agree that

9 the situation, which is already dire, will continue to worsen over the coming weeks to

10 months.

11

10. COVID-19 is a highly contagious respiratory illness. It is transmitted

12 between persons in close proximity (within about six feet) by airborne droplets

13 released by infected individuals when they cough or sneeze.5 The droplets can survive

14 in the air for up to three hours. It may also be possible for an individual to become

15 infected by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching his

16 or her own mouth, nose, or possibly eyes. Infected droplets can survive on surfaces for

17 variable lengths of time, ranging from up to four hours on copper, to 24 hours on

18 cardboard, to two to three days on plastic or stainless steel.

19

20

21 2 Johns Hopkins University COVID-19 Data Center, https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/(last

22

visited Apr. 26, 2020). 3 Id.

23 4 Los Angeles Times, Tracking coronavirus in California,

24

https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-cases-tracking-outbreak/ (last visited Apr. 21, 2020); see also Johns Hopkins University COVID-19 Data Center,

25

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/(last visited Apr. 21, 2020). 5 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Interim Infection Prevention and Control

26 Recommendations for Patients with Suspected or Confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019

(COVID-19) in Healthcare Settings, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-

27 ncov/hcp/infection-control-

28

recommendations.html?CDC AA refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavi rus%2F2019-ncov%2Finfection-control%2Fcontrol-recommendations.html.

DECLARATION OF DR. JOE

3

D-4

GOLDENSON

CaCsaes8e:220:2-c0v--c0v0-0853052-J7G-CBB-SMH-AKS DDocoucmumenetn4t 1-56-1 FiFleilded050/61/12/42/020 PPagaege56o2f 3o0f 14P5agPeaIDge#I:D476 #:355

1

11. Signs and symptoms of COVID-19 may appear two to 14 days after

2 exposure and may include fever, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing,

3 chills, repeated shaking with chills, muscle pain, headache, sore throat, or new loss of

4 taste or smell.6 In severe cases, infection can result in respiratory failure or death.

5

12. A significant number of infected individuals do not exhibit symptoms,

6 however, and asymptomatic individuals—either before the onset of symptoms or because

7 no symptoms will ever manifest—can nevertheless transmit the disease to others.

8 According to the CDC, up to 25 percent of people infected with COVID-19 will remain

9 asymptomatic.7 Similarly, infected individuals may experience only mild symptoms.

10 These asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic individuals can, and do, transmit the virus,

11 contributing to its rapid spread. Because of the high risk of transmission by

12 asymptomatic individuals, CDC recently recommended everyone wear a mask when they

13 leave their homes.

14

13. There is currently no medical treatment for COVID-19, other than

15 supportive measures. Nor is there a vaccine.8

16

14. Current preventive measures seek to slow the transmission of COVID-19

17 through social distancing (keeping persons separated by at least six feet), frequent

18 handwashing, and respiratory hygiene (e.g., covering mouth and nose when coughing or

19 sneezing), and frequent cleansing of surfaces to prevent infection and the spread of the

20 virus.9

21

COVID-19 IN DETENTION FACILITIES GENERALLY

22

23 6 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Symptoms of Coronavirus,

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html 24 7 Apoorva Mandavilli, Infected but Feeling Fine: The Unwitting Coronavirus Spreaders,

25

N.Y. Times (Mar. 31, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/31/health/coronavirusasymptomatic-transmission.html.

26 8 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Prevent Getting Sick (Apr. 8, 2020),

cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick.

27 9 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, How to Protect Yourself and Others 1–2

28

(Apr. 18, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-gettingsick/prevention-H.pdf.

DECLARATION OF DR. JOE

4

D-5

GOLDENSON

CaCsaes8e:220:2-c0v--c0v0-0853052-J7G-CBB-SMH-AKS DDocoucmumenetn4t 1-56-1 FiFleilded050/61/12/42/020 PPagaege66o3f 3o0f 14P5agPeaIDge#I:D477 #:356

1

15. For multiple reasons, the risk of exposure to and transmission of

2 infectious diseases, as well as the potential harm to those who become infected, is

3 significantly higher in jails than in the community, putting jail inmates and

4 correctional staff at high risk of becoming ill with COVID-19.

5

16. Close living quarters and often overcrowded conditions in jails, prisons,

6 and detention centers facilitate the rapid transmission of infectious diseases,

7 particularly those transmitted by airborne droplets through sneezing or coughing. In

8 these congregate settings, large numbers of people are closely confined and forced to

9 share bunkrooms, bathrooms, cafeterias, and other enclosed spaces. They are

10 physically unable to practice social distancing, which the CDC has identified as a

11 “cornerstone of reducing transmission of respiratory diseases such as COVID-19.”10

12 Within these facilities, space and resource limitations—and the resulting inability of

13 inmates and employees to practice social distancing11—make it extremely difficult to

14 effectively quell the explosive growth of a highly contagious virus. The CDC has

15 recognized that correctional and detention facilities “present unique challenges for

16 control of COVID-19 transmission among incarcerated/detained persons, staff, and

17 visitors.”12

18

17. People in detention facilities often sleep in close quarters, often sharing

19 multiple bunk beds arranged close together in a single room in what is described as

20 “dormitory-style” housing. Common areas are likewise shared, but by even larger

21 groups of people. Toilets, showers, sink, and telephones are also communal, and are

22 not adequately disinfected after each use, which is especially important during the

23 current pandemic when more frequent cleaning and disinfecting are required.13 Even

24

25

10 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities, at 4

26 (Mar. 23, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/guidance-

correctional-detention.pdf

27 11 See id. at 2, 11.

28

12 Id. at 2. 13 See id. at 9.

DECLARATION OF DR. JOE

5

D-6

GOLDENSON

CaCsaes8e:220:2-c0v--c0v0-0853052-J7G-CBB-SMH-AKS DDocoucmumenetn4t 1-56-1 FiFleilded050/61/12/42/020 PPagaege76o4f 3o0f 14P5agPeaIDge#I:D478 #:357

1 in housing units where detainees sleep in individual cells, or share small cells with one

2 or more other people, the common areas and telephones are shared by all of the people

3 in the housing unit; toilets, showers, and sinks can be communal as well. Food

4 preparation and distribution is centralized and communal, often for an entire facility,

5 with little opportunity for regular disinfection as called for by the CDC’s Interim

6 Guidance.14 Without major population reductions and other measures such as regular

7 cleaning of shared spaces it is impossible to socially distance and implement other

8 important CDC Guidance in these housing units.

9

18. Frequent and thorough hand washing is one of the key recommendations to

10 reduce transmission but sufficient soap and/or hand sanitizer is often not available (for

11 inmates and staff) to wash their hands frequently enough to prevent the risk of

12 transmission in contravention of the CDC’s Interim Guidance.15

13

19. Housing units are commonly poorly ventilated, which facilitates the

14 transmission of airborne illnesses, such as COVID-19. The CDC recommends

15 generally after an infection in buildings that building operators open windows to allow

16 fresh air to circulate.16 This recommendation is not possible in jails.

17

20. Current CDC recommendations for reducing the transmission of COVID-

18 19 in jails include screening of all newly arriving arrestees,17 quarantining all newly

19 arriving arrestees for 14 days and performing daily symptom screening and

20 temperature checks while they are in quarantine,18 isolating any detainee with any

21 symptoms consistent with COVID-19 or with fever who is currently housed in the

22 facility,19 and providing masks to all inmates who are “confirmed or suspected

23

24 14 See id. at 9.

25

15 See id. 16 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cleaning and Disinfecting Your Facility 2

26 (Apr. 1, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/disinfecting-

building-facility-H.pdf.

27 17 See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Interim Guidance at 10.

28

18 See id. at 14, 20. 19 See id. at 15.

DECLARATION OF DR. JOE

6

D-7

GOLDENSON

CaCsaes8e:220:2-c0v--c0v0-0853052-J7G-CBB-SMH-AKS DDocoucmumenetn4t 1-56-1 FiFleilded050/61/12/42/020 PPagaege86o5f 3o0f 14P5agPeaIDge#I:D479 #:358

1 COVID-19 cases, or showing symptoms of COVID-19.”20 In addition, the CDC

2 generally recommends providing and wearing masks in congregate settings.21

3 Individuals should not be added to an existing quarantine cohort after the 14-day

4 quarantine clock has started.22

5

21. These are also difficult, if not impossible, to implement in jails due to

6 space constraints, lack of sufficient respiratory isolation rooms, and lack of necessary

7 equipment and other resources.

8

22. Testing kits are widely unavailable, and it can take up to a week or more to

9 obtain test results. And, someone who is tested shortly after he or she was infected may

10 test negative. Non-test based verbal screens—i.e., asking a person for a subjective report

11 of symptoms—cannot adequately screen for new, asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic

12 infections. COVID-19 has a typical incubation period of 2 to 14 days, commonly five

13 days, and transmission often occurs before presentation of symptoms. According to the

14 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, up to 25 percent of people infected with

15 COVID-19 will remain asymptomatic.23 Similarly, infected individuals may experience

16 only mild symptoms. These newly infected, asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic

17 individuals can, and do, transmit the virus, contributing to its rapid spread. As a result,

18 such inadequate screening presents a critical problem. The possibility of asymptomatic

19 transmission means that monitoring staff and incarcerated people for symptoms and fever

20 is inadequate to identify all who may be infected and to prevent transmission. Because of

21 the problems with screening procedures, the risk of false negative tests, the unavailability

22 of test kits and the delays in obtaining test results, one necessary means to prevent the

23

24 20 Id. at 25.

25

21 See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Recommendations for Cloth Face Covers, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-

26 cover.html. 22 See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Interim Guidance at 19.

27 23 Apoorva Mandavilli, Infected but Feeling Fine: The Unwitting Coronavirus Spreaders,

28

N.Y. Times (Mar. 31, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/31/health/coronavirusasymptomatic-transmission.html

DECLARATION OF DR. JOE

7

D-8

GOLDENSON

CaCsaes8e:220:2-c0v--c0v0-0853052-J7G-CBB-SMH-AKS DDocoucmumenetn4t 1-56-1 FiFleilded050/61/12/42/020 PPagaege96o6f 3o0f 14P5agPeaIDge#I:D480 #:359

1 introduction of COVID into the jails by someone who is arrested is to quarantine all

2 arrestees for 14 days and monitor them daily for symptoms and fever before they are

3 deemed safe to introduce into the general population of the jail.

4

23. In detention facilities, groups of persons are often moved from space to

5 space, for example, from a dormitory to a cafeteria. Persons often from multiple

6 different housing units, congregate and come in close contact while standing in lines

7 for medication, commissary, fresh laundry, telephones, or court appearances. These

8 group movements, which may cluster large numbers of people together in small

9 spaces, increase the risk of transmission between incarcerated persons and throughout

10 the facility. It is common for detainees in a given housing unit to routinely be

11 subjected to such group movements multiple times each day. Additionally, detention

12 facilities often rely on detainees to perform work that supports the operation of the

13 facility, such as food service, laundry, and cleaning. To perform these work

14 assignments, they typically travel from their housing units to other parts of the facility.

15

24. Correction officers and other detention facility staff routinely have direct

16 physical contact with detainees, especially when handcuffing or removing handcuffs

17 from detainees who are entering or exiting the facility. Staff members also move

18 around within the facility, which creates opportunities for transmission both among

19 staff in different parts of the facility and transmission to and from detainees in

20 different parts of the facility.

21

25. Correctional facilities largely lack the robust medical care infrastructure

22 that would be necessary to deal with a COVID-19 outbreak. If a significant number of

23 people become sick with COVID-19 the jails’ health care facilities will be unable to

24 respond appropriately to those people and those who need medical care for other

25 reasons. And, when an incarcerated patient’s needs are too acute for a correctional

26 facility to provide adequate treatment, the patient must be transported to and treated at

27 a community hospital. Once COVID-19 spreads throughout the jail, the burden of

28

DECLARATION OF DR. JOE

8

D-9

GOLDENSON

Case 28:20-cv-050082375-CJGBBM--SAHSK DDooccuummeennt t1451-1-6 FFileiledd0065/2/141/2/200 PPaaggee6170oof f13405 Page ID #:438610

1 caring for many of these sick individuals will shift to local community medical

2 facilities.

3

26. When an outbreak strikes a correctional facility, correction and medical staff

4 will become ill. They will not show up to work. These vacancies can result in facilities

5 becoming dangerously understaffed, which compromises medical care. Healthcare staff

6 who provide treatment are unavailable. Correctional staff also play a vital role in

7 delivering medical services, by escorting prisoners, responding to and alerting medical of

8 medical emergencies, and providing security to health care staff while they provide

9 services. Their absence also compromises treatment.

10

27. If infected, jail inmates are at greater risk for harm from COVID-19 than

11 those in the general community. This is due to a number of factors including the fact

12 that people in jails have high rates of chronic illnesses, such as diabetes, heart disease,

13 chronic lung disease, and immunosuppressive illnesses such as HIV disease that

14 increase the risk from COVID-19, often have had poor or absent prior health care, and

15 often have made unhealthy life-style choices, including alcohol and drug use. For

16 these reasons, it is well accepted within the medical community that jail inmates are

17 physiologically 10 years older than their chronological age. The CDC has identified

18 people with the following medical conditions as being particularly vulnerable to

19 severe illness from COVID-19:

20

• Diabetes mellitus

21

• Lung disease including asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary

22

disease (chronic bronchitis or emphysema) or other chronic conditions

23

associated with impaired lung function or that require home oxygen

24

• Heart disease

25

• Blood disorders (e.g., sickle cell disease or on blood thinners)

26

• Chronic kidney disease

27

• Chronic liver disease

28

DECLARATION OF DR. JOE

9

GOLDENSON

D-10

Case 28:20-cv-050082375-CJGBBM--SAHSK DDooccuummeennt t1451-1-6 FFileiledd0065/2/141/2/200 PPaaggee6181oof f13405 Page ID #:438621

1

• Compromised immune system (immunosuppression) (including

2

seeing a doctor for cancer and treatment such as chemotherapy or

3

radiation, received an organ or bone marrow transplant, taking high

4

doses of corticosteroids or other immunosuppressant medications,

5

HIV or AIDS)

6

• Current or recent pregnancy in the last two weeks

7

• Endocrine disorders

8

• Metabolic disorders

9

• Neurological and neurologic and neurodevelopment conditions

10

[including disorders of the brain, spinal cord, peripheral nerve, and

11

muscle such as cerebral palsy, epilepsy (seizure disorders), stroke,

12

intellectual disability, moderate to severe developmental delay,

13

muscular dystrophy, or spinal cord injury ]24

14

• Severe obesity25

15 The CDC also deems people 65 or older to be particularly vulnerable to COVID.26

16 However, in my professional opinion the proper figure for jail inmates is 55 years old

17 because, as I explained above, they are physiologically 10 years older than their

18 chronological age.

19

28. Because of the conditions typically found in jails, jails often have

20 particularly serious incidence of communicable disease. For example, during the H1N1-

21

22 24 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Implementation of Mitigation Strategies

23 for Communities with Local COVID-19 Transmission (Mar. 12, 2020),

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/community-mitigation24 strategy.pdf.

25

25 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Groups at Higher Risk for Severe Illness (Apr. 17, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-

26 precautions/groups-at-higher-risk.html 26 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, What You Can Do if You are at Higher

27 Risk of Severe Illness from COVID-19 (Apr. 3, 2020),

28

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/COVID19-What-You-Can-DoHigh-Risk.pdf.

DECLARATION OF DR. JOE

10

GOLDENSON

D-11

Case 28:20-cv-050082375-CJGBBM--SAHSK DDooccuummeennt t1451-1-6 FFileiledd0065/2/141/2/200 PPaaggee6192oof f13405 Page ID #:438632

1 strain flu outbreak in 2009 (known as the “swine flu”), jails and prisons experienced a

2 disproportionately high number of cases.27 Until recently the Cook County Jail in

3 Chicago was believed to be the largest-known source of U.S. COVID virus infections.28

4 As of April 13, more than 500 people had been infected at the facility, and the numbers

5 continue to climb.29 Just recently it was reported that 78% of the approximately 2,500

6 prisoners in a prison in Ohio tested positive.30 The State of Ohio tested its prisoners en

7 masse for COVID-19 so this number includes large numbers of inmates who were

8 asymptomatic and would otherwise not have been tested. This underscores the risk of the

9 spread of COVID-19 by asymptomatic individuals. In addition, 109 staff had tested

10 positive for COVID-19.31

11

29. For these reasons, the pandemic has prompted prisoner releases around

12 the world. France has freed 5,000 inmates, and in the United States, 3,500 state

13 prisoners have been granted early release in California. Thousands of prisoners in

14 Britain will be granted early release within weeks in an effort to contain the spread of

15 the virus in cells and facilities where social distancing rules are impossible to

16

17

18 27 David M. Reutter, Swine Flu Widespread in Prisons and Jails, but Deaths are Few,

19 Prison Legal News (Feb. 15, 2010),

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2010/feb/15/swine-flu-widespread-in-prisons-

20 and-jails-but-deathsare-

21

few/. 28 Timothy Williams and Danielle Ivory, Chicago’s Jail is Top U.S. Hot Spot as Cirus

22 Spreads Behind Bars, N.Y. Times (Apr. 8, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/us/coronavirus-cook-county-jail-chicago.html.

23 29 Cheryl Corley, The COVID-19 Struggle In Chicago's Cook County Jail, NPR (Apr.

13, 2020) https://www.npr.org/2020/04/13/833440047/the-covid-19-struggle-in24 chicagos-cook-county-jail.)

25

30 Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction, COVID-19 Inmate Testing (last updated Apr. 20, 2020), https://drc.ohio.gov/Portals/0/DRC%20COVID-

26 19%20Information%2004-20-2020%20%201304.pdf, 31 Bill Chappell and Paige Pfleger, 73% Of Inmates At An Ohio Prison Test Positive For

27 Coronavirus, NPR (Apr. 20, 2020), https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-

28

updates/2020/04/20/838943211/73-of-inmates-at-an-ohio-prison-test-positive-forcoronavirus

DECLARATION OF DR. JOE

11

GOLDENSON

D-12

Case 28:20-cv-050082375-CJGBBM--SAHSK DDooccuummeennt t1451-1-6 FFileiledd0065/2/141/2/200 PPaaggee7103oof f13405 Page ID #:438643

1 maintain.32 Many cities and counties across the US, including San Francisco, Chicago,

2 Cleveland and New York, are also releasing prisoners to reduce the risk of COVID-

3 19.

4

30. During an infectious disease outbreak, a containment strategy requires

5 people who have known or suspected illness be isolated and that caregivers have access

6 to personal protective equipment to protect themselves and to prevent the further

7 transmission of the disease. During an outbreak, jails and prisons are under-resourced in

8 being able to provide medically appropriate housing for persons with known or suspected

9 infectious illness, and are often underequipped to provide sufficient personal protective

10 equipment, increasing the risk of a widespread outbreak.

11

31. Isolation is a complex and major concern in correctional facilities. In

12 some prisons and jails, the only cells with solid doors for quarantine will be

13 disciplinary or administrative segregation cells, which usually house people placed in

14 solitary confinement. Moving people suspected of contracting COVID-19 – or those at

15 high risk of suffering serious illness once infected – to segregation units may help

16 quell the potentially devastating spread of illness. However, isolation of people who

17 are ill using solitary confinement is not a completely effective way to prevent

18 transmission of the virus because, except in specialized negative pressure rooms

19 (rarely in medical units if available at all), air continues to flow outward from

20 isolation cells to the rest of the facility. Segregation cells bring their own physical and

21 mental health risks. They are most commonly used to punish people and may cause

22 substantial psychological trauma and distress. Those with serious mental illness are at

23 heightened risk when placed in isolation. Therefore, placing high-risk or laboratory-

24 confirmed patients with COVID-19 in cells usually used for solitary confinement will

25

26 32 Press Release, U.K. Ministry of Justice, Measures announced to protect NHS from

27 coronavirus risk in prisons (Apr. 4, 2020),

28

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/measures-announced-to-protect-nhs-fromcoronavirus-risk-in-prisons.

DECLARATION OF DR. JOE

12

GOLDENSON

D-13

Case 28:20-cv-050082375-CJGBBM--SAHSK DDooccuummeennt t1451-1-6 FFileiledd0065/2/141/2/200 PPaaggee714oof f13405 Page ID #:438654

1 likely deter others from reporting symptoms or seeking medical attention, thus quickly

2 hastening the spread of the disease as symptomatic prisoners will not report

3 themselves to staff and will remain in congregate settings. Additionally, these cells

4 often lack intercoms or other means of communicating with a correctional officer or

5 medical provider when patients are in need of help, resulting in decreased medical

6 attention and increased risk of death. This may further increase patients’ concerns that

7 they will suffer, not get the care they need in a timely manner, and die in such rooms.

8 For these reasons, it is unrealistic to believe that an effective prevention, mitigation,

9 and treatment response to COVID-19 in correctional facilities can rely upon

10 conditions that incarcerated people are likely to experience as punitive. When such

11 housing cells must be used for short-term quarantine and isolation patients should

12 have full access to telephone or tablet communication with family and friends on the

13 outside and access to personal property, personal hygiene supplies and access to

14 canteen.33

15

32. In sum, current CDC recommendations for social distancing, frequent hand

16 washing, frequent cleansing of surfaces, symptom screening, temperature checks and

17 isolation to prevent infection and the spread of the virus are extremely difficult, if not

18 impossible, to implement in county jails. As a result, the risk of COVID transmission is

19 far greater than in non-custodial institutions.

20

CONDITIONS IN JAILS POSE SIGNIFICANT RISK OF TRANSMISSION

21

OF COVID-19 IN THE COMMUNITY OUTSIDE THE JAILS

22

33. The conditions in jails pose very significant risk of transmission of

23 communicable diseases like COVID-19 not only to inmates, employees and

24 volunteers in the jails, but also to the community as a whole. It has long been known

25 that jails, prisons, and detention centers can be hotbeds of disease transmission, and

26

27 33 Brie Williams, MD, et al., Correctional Facilities in the Shadow of COVID-19: Unique

28

Challenges and Proposed Solutions, Health Affairs Blog (Mar. 25, 2020), https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200324.784502/full.

DECLARATION OF DR. JOE

13

GOLDENSON

D-14

Case 28:20-cv-050082375-CJGBBM--SAHSK DDooccuummeennt t1451-1-6 FFileiledd0065/2/141/2/200 PPaaggee7125oof f13405 Page ID #:438665

1 that due to the frequent ingress and egress of employees at these facilities, an outbreak

2 within a jail, prison, or detention center can quickly spread to surrounding

3 communities. While jails are often thought of as closed environments, this is not the

4 case. A large number of custody, medical, and other support staff and contractors who

5 have direct contact with detainees enter and leave the facility throughout the day.

6 New arrestees arrive daily and detainees are released every day. Since there is no

7 effective way to screen for newly infected or asymptomatic individuals, they can

8 unknowingly transmit COVID-19 to the jail population. Detainees are often

9 transferred to other facilities, and to and from Court. They are routinely transferred in

10 crowded and enclosed vehicles like buses where social distancing is not possible.

11

34. When there is an outbreak in a jail, staff can become infected and bring

12 the virus home to their families and community. For example, the tuberculosis

13 epidemic that broke out in New York City in the early 1990s began in jails and was

14 spread to the community by jail employees who became infected and then returned

15 home.

16

35. It is difficult to overstate the devastation that a COVID-19 outbreak could

17 inflict on the county jail and its surrounding communities. At Rikers Island in New York,

18 between the mornings of Wednesday, April 1 and Thursday, April 2, the number of

19 COVID-19 positive incarcerated individuals and staff members grew by 47 and 57

20 people, respectively, upping the jail’s total numbers of confirmed cases to 231 among the

21 incarcerated population and 223 among staff.34 The first known case of COVID-19 at

22 Rikers was confirmed on Wednesday, March 18,35 illustrating just how quickly this

23 disease can and will overwhelm detention facilities.

24

25 34 Julia Craven, Coronavirus Cases Are Spreading Rapidly on Rikers Island, Slate (Apr.

26 2, 2020), https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/rikers-coronavirus-cases-

increase.html.

27 35 As Testing Expands, Confirmed Cases of Coronavirus in N.Y.C. Near 2,000, N.Y.

28

Times (updated Mar. 19, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/18/nyregion/coronavirus-new-york-update.html.

DECLARATION OF DR. JOE

14

GOLDENSON

D-15

Case 28:20-cv-050082375-CJGBBM--SAHSK DDooccuummeennt t1451-1-6 FFileiledd0065/2/141/2/200 PPaaggee7136oof f13405 Page ID #:438676

1

INFORMATION ABOUT ORANGE COUNTY JAIL

2

36. The available testing information about the Orange County Jail is

3 concerning about the likelihood of a large and explosive outbreak at the Jail. News

4 media first reported a positive test on March 24, 2020. The person who tested positive

5 had been detained at the jail since June 17, 2018, indicating that the person had

6 contracted the virus from spread within the jail.36 The Orange County Sheriff

7 Department (OCSD) began publicly reporting testing numbers and results for its

8 limited testing of suspected COVID-19 cases. On March 26, the Jail had placed 141

9 persons in quarantine, and had conducted 15 tests with 3 confirmed COVID-19

10 cases.37 By April 17, the jail had tested only 45 people detained in the jail, and 17 had

11 tested positive with 4 tests pending results.38 By April 24, 2020, the Jail had tested

12 147 persons, with 82 confirmed positive cases and 9 tests pending results and by April

13 27, 2020 the number of confirmed cases had jumped to 93 cases, with 47 tests pending

14 results.39

15

37. Although the Orange County Sheriff’s Department has not reported the

16 testing results for staff, news reports describe Orange County correctional staff testing

17 positive.40 Given the speed with which the virus is being transmitted, without

18

19 36 ABC-7.Com Staff, Orange County Sees First COVID-19 Death as Cases Climb to 152,

20

Jail Inmate Tests Positive, ABC-7 (Mar. 25, 2020) https://abc7.com/coronavirus-covid19-death-orange-county-is-deadly/6047640/.

21 37 News Release, Sheriff-Cornoner Don Barnes, Early release of sentenced inmates from Orange County Jail (Mar. 27, 2020),

22 https://www.ocsd.org/civicax/inc/blobfetch.aspx?BlobID=115002.

38 Orange County Sheriff’s Department, OCSD Custody COVID-19 Stats as of April 17, 23 2020 (Apr. 17, 2020),

24

https://www.ocsd.org/documents/sheriff/OCSDCustodyStatsasofApril172020.pdf 39 Orange County Sheriff’s Department, COVID-19 in OC Jails (updated Apr. 27, 2020),

25 https://www.ocsd.org/documents/sheriff/COVIDStats4.27.20.pdf. 40 Tony Saavedra, Full quarantine imposed at Orange County central jail after 4 more

26 inmates contract coronavirus, The Orange County Register (Apr. 7, 2020),

27

https://www.ocregister.com/2020/04/07/full-quarantine-imposed-at-orange-countycentral-jail-after-4-more-inmates-contract-coronavirus/; see also City News Service,

28 (continued…)

DECLARATION OF DR. JOE

15

GOLDENSON

D-16

Case 28:20-cv-050082375-CJGBBM--SAHSK DDooccuummeennt t1451-1-6 FFileiledd0065/2/141/2/200 PPaaggee7147oof f13405 Page ID #:438687

1 significant reductions in the jail population and other steps to prevent the transmission

2 of the disease, it should be expected that the outbreak in the jail will lead to further

3 rapid transmission within the communities around the Orange County Jail facilities.

4

38. To minimize the risk of COVID-19 in the Orange County Jail the

5 following minimum conditions are required: incarcerated persons must be able to

6 main distance of six feet or more from each other at all times, including in communal

7 areas; there are no barrack-style dormitories and sharing of cells is minimized; there

8 are adequate numbers of medical isolation cells for any inmate with confirmed or

9 suspected infection, as well as quarantine cells for close contacts of symptomatic

10 cases and new arrivals;41 hygiene products and clean PPE are available in adequate

11 quantities without charge; all objects touched by multiple individuals in common

12 areas are cleaned and disinfected several times per day and preferably between each

13 use; and proper screening and isolation/quarantine procedures are consistently

14 implemented for anyone attempting to enter the jail – both staff or inmates.

15

39. From the information available, the Orange County Jail has not been able

16 to achieve these benchmarks. Persons detained report that many are sleeping in

17 barrack style dormitories, and that there is a lack of social distancing during

18 recreation, while waiting in lines for medicine distribution, food, and the telephone,

19 and when traveling around the jail for court appearances or medical visits. They also

20 report that large numbers of symptomatic persons, including persons who have dry

21 coughs or who have lost senses of smell, have not been isolated or tested. They

22 further report lack of sufficient access to cleaning supplies, disinfectants, hand soap,

23

24

25

Coronavirus Cases Rise to 1,277 in Orange County (Apr.12, 2020), https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/coronavirus/coronavirus-cases-rise-to-1277-in-

26 orange-county/2344836/. 41 The CDC notes that cohorting multiple close contacts of a COVID case should only be

27 done if there are no other available options. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

28

Interim Guidance at 19–20. But, in my opinion, it is a dangerous practice because it can lead to preventable infections within the cohort.

DECLARATION OF DR. JOE

16

GOLDENSON

D-17

Case 28:20-cv-050082375-CJGBBM--SAHSK DDooccuummeennt t1451-1-6 FFileiledd0065/2/141/2/200 PPaaggee7158oof f13405 Page ID #:438698

1 and clean PPE. These practices are putting people in the jail at a serious and

2 unacceptable risk of infection.

3

40. According to the CDC guidelines, facilities should make every possible

4 effort to place suspected and confirmed COVID-19 cases under medical isolation

5 individually. Each isolated individual should be assigned their own housing space and

6 bathroom where possible.42

7

41. The BSCC has begun collecting and reporting data about population levels

8 and news arrests in California jails to track COVID-19 related impacts on the jails.43 In

9 the Orange County Jail, most recent data showed the population on 4/12 was at

10 approximately 3,336, with 347 weekly new arrests:

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

42. Although it is positive movement that the jail population has decreased

24 from 4587, the time of the first confirmed case, to 3,336 in the middle of April, far

25 more reduction will be needed to achieve the necessary social distancing.

26

27 42 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Interim Guidance at 15.

28

43 BSCC, Supplemental JPS Reporting Dashboard (April 27, 2020), https://app.smartsheet.com/b/publish?EQBCT=82b29a92ea9a4a0ea7aa480f1287e137

DECLARATION OF DR. JOE

17

GOLDENSON

D-18

Case 28:20-cv-050082375-CJGBBM--SAHSK DDooccuummeennt t1451-1-6 FFileiledd0065/2/141/2/200 PPaaggee7169oof f13405 Page ID #:439609

1

43. The Orange County Jail has not reported the number of close contacts of the

2 existing confirmed and suspected cases. However, these bedspace needs are likely to be

3 substantial. CDC has recently expanded its list of possible COVID-19 symptoms. This

4 will undoubtably lead to an increase in the number of suspect cases needing isolation and

5 quarantine.

6

44. It is unlikely that there are a sufficient number of single cells for isolation

7 and quarantine given the likely large numbers of confirmed and suspect cases in the

8 jail, especially given the recent expansion of possible symptoms of COVID-19 noted

9 by the CDC. Moreover, other jail functions may reduce the number of available

10 single cells. For example, security staff may demand that these same beds be used for

11 security purposes, such as administrative segregation, disciplinary segregation, and

12 protective custody. Additionally, COVID-19 isolation is not the only medical need for

13 medical isolation beds. In addition to being needed for COVID-19, medical isolation

14 beds must also be made available as needed to isolate patients who have conditions

15 other than COVID-19 that require medical isolation.

16

45. In the absence of adequate isolation and quarantine bedspace, the Jail will

17 be forced to use cohort quarantines that expose potentially healthy people to serious

18 infection risks. Declarations from people incarcerated in the jail suggest this is already

19 happening. Some of the detained persons who work across the jail were housed in the

20 Men’s Jail in the “worker dorm,” C mod of CMJ. Carlos Godinez Dec. Some of the

21 men in that dorm worked in the kitchen or the laundry facilities. One of persons from

22 the dorm tested positive for COVID-19 and the OCSD divided the unit, transferred

23 half of the unit to a new unit, the A-Unit, instructed them not to continue working, and

24 put the new unit on quarantine. On April 22, 2020, the OCSD tested the entire bottom

25 tier of the A-mod. It appears from the high testing results that some of those

26 individuals tested positive for COVID.

27

46. Such cohorting of individuals who were exposed to a confirmed case

28 places uninfected individuals at risk. As noted in the CDC guidelines, “Facilities

DECLARATION OF DR. JOE

18

GOLDENSON

D-19

Case 28:20-cv-050082375-CJGBBM--SAHSK DDooccuummeennt t1451-1-6 FFileiledd0065/2/141/2/200 PPaaggee7270oof f13405 Page ID #:439710

1 should make every possible effort to quarantine close contacts of COVID-19 cases

2 individually. Cohorting multiple quarantined close contacts of a COVID-19 case

3 could transmit COVID-19 from those who are infected to those who are uninfected.”44

4

47. From the detainee’s reports, it also appears that the space limitations are

5 creating additional pressure on the available bed space, increasing movement and

6 mixing of people in the jail, and thus increasing their exposure risks. For example,

7 one prisoner, Don Wanger, described being housed alone in a 2-person cell, within a

8 13-cell module, until last week. He reported that on April 22, OCSD double-bunked

9 the entire module, including adding cellmates to his cell as well as others.

10

48. The OCSD’s continued detention of hundreds of medically vulnerable

11 persons is a particular cause for alarm. On April 6, the OCSD reported releasing over

12 300 people who had ten days or fewer left on their sentence, including 108 persons

13 who “were designated by the Health Care Agency as medically at-risk.”45 I am aware

14 of reports from advocates that the Health Care Agency has compiled a list of over 500

15 persons in the Orange County Jail who are medically vulnerable and remain in

16 custody. These individuals are at a heighted risk for serious illness and death. Given

17 the high likelihood of contagion and spread in the jail, the safety of these individuals

18 is a pressing emergency that needs to be addressed on an urgent basis.

19

49. Hand hygiene – washing one’s hands several times a day – is a critical

20 component of stopping the spread of the virus. According to the declarations I reviewed,

21 OCSD is not reliably and consistently supplying prisoners with free soap and other hand

22 hygiene necessities. Many jail detainees report receiving a small hotel-size hand soap for

23 a week, that is insufficient for more than two days of hand washing. Few detainees have

24 access to paper towels or hand dryers. These practices do not comply with basic CDC

25

26 44 See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Interim Guidance at 19. 45 Tony Saavedra, In move to combat coronavirus spread, California judicial bosses

27 order zero bail for low-level crimes, The Orange County Register (Apr. 6, 2020),

28

https://www.ocregister.com/2020/04/06/in-move-to-combat-coronavirus-spreadcalifornia-judicial-bosses-order-zero-bail-for-low-level-crime.

DECLARATION OF DR. JOE

19

GOLDENSON

D-20

Case 28:20-cv-050082375-CJGBBM--SAHSK DDooccuummeennt t1451-1-6 FFileiledd0065/2/141/2/200 PPaaggee7281oof f13405 Page ID #:439721

1 guidelines. Nor is the OSCD supplying sufficient disinfectant to ensure that high touch

2 surfaces are cleaned in common area, like phones and communal tables within dayrooms.

3

CONCLUSION

4

50. For the reasons above, it is my professional opinion that persons

5 currently detained in the Orange County Jail are at significantly greater risk of

6 contracting COVID-19 than if they were permitted to shelter in place in their home

7 communities. For those infected, many are at increased risk of suffering severe

8 complications and outcomes. In particular, many medically vulnerable persons are

9 likely to develop COVID-19 if they remain in jail and to become either extremely ill

10 or die as result.

11

51. It is also my professional opinion that conditions in the Orange County

12 Jail also threaten the health and safety of every individual within those jails—detained

13 persons and staff alike—and in their surrounding communities.

14

52. It is also my professional opinion that a necessary component of bringing

15 jails into compliance with the recommendations of the CDC to minimize the risk of

16 COVID -19 transmission within the jails and to the larger community is to

17 substantially reduce the population of jail facilities.

18

53. The current reductions from the Orange County Jail are insufficient to

19 enable the recommendations of the CDC guidelines, particularly with respect to social

20 distancing, to be met. To minimize the risk of COVID-19 the population must be

21 reduced so that it is possible among other things: for incarcerated persons to be able

22 to main distance of six feet or more from each other at all times, including in

23 communal areas; there are no barrack-style dormitories and sharing of cells is

24 minimized; there are adequate numbers of isolation cells for any inmate who is

25 symptomatic; proper screening and isolation procedures can be put into place for

26 anyone attempting to enter the jail – both staff or inmates. Measures such as more

27 regular disinfection and cleaning, wider availability of soap etc. are insufficient to

28 address the dangers that COVID-19 poses in jail without a significant reduction of the

DECLARATION OF DR. JOE

20

GOLDENSON

D-21

Case 28:20-cv-050082375-CJGBBM--SAHSK DDooccuummeennt t1451-1-6 FFileiledd0065/2/141/2/200 PPaaggee7292oof f13405 Page ID #:439732

1 jail population to allow for genuine social distancing among inmates, correctional staff

2 and other jail staff.

3

54. In particular, those who are medically vulnerable (see ¶ 27) should be

4 moved out of the jails to the absolute maximum extent possible. In addition,

5 population should be significantly lowered to reduce the density in the jails to allow

6 for adequate social distancing, minimize the strain on the jail’s medical care system,

7 and ensure adequate space is available for necessary quarantining and isolation.

8

55. Significantly reducing the Orange County Jail population will allow the

9 facilities to significantly reduce the risk of infection for both incarcerated people and

10 correctional officers, which in turn protects the communities where corrections staff live.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF DR. JOE

21

GOLDENSON

D-22

Case 28:20-cv-050082375-CJGBBM--SAHSK DDooccuummeennt t1451-1-6 FFileiledd0065/2/141/2/200 PPaaggee8203oof f13405 Page ID #:439743

1

2

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California and the

3 United States that the foregoing 23 page declaration is true and correct. Executed on

4 April 28, 2020 in Alameda County, California.

5

6

7

8 DATED: April 28, 2020 9 10

By: ____________________ Dr. Joe Goldenson

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF DR. JOE

22

GOLDENSON

D-23

Case 28:20-cv-050082375-CJGBBM--SAHSK DDooccuummeennt t1451-1-6 FFileiledd0065/2/141/2/200 PPaaggee8214oof f13405 Page ID #:439754
EXHIBIT A
Dr. Goldenson CV
D-24

Case 28:20-cv-050082375-CJGBBM--SAHSK DDooccuummeennt t1451-1-6 FFileiledd0065/2/141/2/200 PPaaggee825oof f13405 Page ID #:439765

1

CURRICULUM VITAE

2

JOE GOLDENSON, MD

3

1406 CYPRESS STREET BERKELEY, CA 94703

4

(510) 557-1086

jgolde ns on@g mail.com

5

6 EDUCATION

7 Post Graduate Training

8 February 1992

University of California, San Francisco, CPAT/APEX

9 1979-1980

Mini-Residency in HIV Care Robert Wood Johnson Fellowship in Family Practice

10 1976-1979

University of California, San Francisco Residency in Family Practice

11
Medical School
12 1973-1975

Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, New York

13 1971-1973

M.D. Degree University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

14

15 Undergraduate Education

16 1967-1971

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor B.A. in Psychology

17
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
18

19

Practice Experience 1993-2015

Director/Medical Director

20 21 1991-1993 22 23 1990-1991 24
1987-1990
25 26 1980-1987

Jail Health Services San Francisco Department of Public Health Medical Director Jail Health Services
San Francisco Department of Public Health Chief of Medical Services, Hall of Justice Jail Health Services San Francisco Department of Public Health
Staff Physician Jail Health Services San Francisco Department of Public Health Sabbatical

27 1975-1976

Staff Physician United Farm Workers Health Center, Salinas, CA

28

D-25

Case 28:20-cv-050082375-CJGBBM--SAHSK DDooccuummeennt t1451-1-6 FFileiledd0065/2/141/2/200 PPaaggee8236oof f13405 Page ID #:439776

1 Consulting 2 6/16-8/19
3 4/02-Present
4 5 6/14-9/14 6 6/10-12/13
7 6/08-6/12
8 5/08-9/09 9 1/08
10
9/07-1/10
11 12 8/06-8/12
13 6/05 14
11/02-4/03
15 16 4/02-8/06
17 1/02-3/02 18
19 8/01-4/02
20 7/01-4/02 21
1/96-1/14
22
5/95-6/08
23
24 3/98-12/98 25
2/98
26
6/94
27
28

Consultant to Los Angeles Department of Health Services re: provision of health care services in the LA County Jail Federal Court Medical Expert, Plata v. Newsome, Class Action Lawsuit re: prisoner medical care in California State Prison System Medical expert for the Illinois Department of Corrections and the ACLU of Illinois Federal Court appointed Medical Monitor, U.S.A. v. Cook County, et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, No. 10 C 2946, re: medical care in the Cook County Jail Member, Plata v. Schwarzenegger Advisory Board to the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson, U.S. District Court Judge Medical Expert for ACLU re Maricopa County Jail, Phoenix, AZ Member of the National Commission on Correctional Health Care’s Technical Assistance Review Team for the Miami Dade Department of Corrections Federal Court appointed Medical Expert, Herrera v. Pierce County, et al., re: medical care at the Pierce County Jail, Tacoma, WA State Court Appointed Medical Expert, Farrell v. Allen, Superior Court of California Consent Decree re medical care in the California Department of Juvenile Justice Member of Technical Assistance Review Team for the Dallas County Jail Medical Expert for ACLU re Jefferson County Jail, Port Townsend, Washington Federal Court Medical Expert, Austin, et. al vs Wilkinson, et al, Class Action Law Suit re: Prisoner medical care at the Ohio State Penitentiary Supermax Facility Consultant to the Francis J. Curry, National Tuberculosis Center re: Tuberculosis Control Plan for the Jail Setting: A Template (Jail Template), Medical Expert for ACLU re Wisconsin Supermax Correctional Facility, Boscobel, WI Medical Expert for Ohio Attorney General’s Office re Ohio State Prison, Youngstown, OH Member and Surveyor, California Medical Association Corrections and Detentions Health Care Committee Medical Expert for the Office of the Special Master, Madrid vs Alameida, Federal Class Action Law Suit re: Prisoner medical care at the Pelican Bay State Prison Supermax Facility Member, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Jail Health Services Task Force Medical Expert, Department of Justice Investigation of Clark County Detention Center, Las Vegas, Nevada Surveyor, National Commission on Correctional Health Care, INS Detention Center, El Centro, CA
D-26

Case 28:20-cv-050082375-CJGBBM--SAHSK DDooccuummeennt t1451-1-6 FFileiledd0065/2/141/2/200 PPaaggee8247oof f13405 Page ID #:439787

Work Relate d Committe es

1 1/14 to present

Member, Editorial Advisory Board, Correctional Health Care Report

2 10/11 to 5/19

Member, Board of Directors of the National Commission on Correctional Health Care

3 5/07-10/12

Liaison to the CDC Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis (ACET) from the National Commission on Correctional

4

Health Care

12/04-3/06
5

Member of the CDC Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis (ACET) Ad Hoc Working Group on the Prevention and

6

Control of Tuberculosis in Correctional and Detention Facilities: Recommendations from CDC (MMWR 2006; 55(No. RR-9))

7 6/03-8/03

Member of the Advisory Panel for the Francis J. Curry National Tuberculosis Center and National Commission on Correctional Health

8

Care, 2003: Corrections Tuberculosis Training and Education

9 3/02-1/03

Resource Guide Member of the Advisory Committee to Develop the Tuberculosis

10

Control Plan for the Jail Setting: A Template (Jail Template), Francis J. Curry, National Tuberculosis Center

11 6/01-1/15 12 3/01

Director’s Cabinet San Francisco Department of Public Health Consultant to Centers for Disease Control on the Prevention and

13

Control of Infections with Hepatitis Viruses in Correctional Settings (MMWR 2003; 52(No. RR-1))

14 9/97-6/02

Member, Executive Committee of Medical Practice Group, San Francisco Department of Public Health

15 3/97-3/02

American Correctional Health Services Association Liaison with

16 3/96-6/12

American Public Health Association Chairperson, Bay Area Corrections Committee (on tuberculosis)

17 2/00-12/00

Medical Providers’ Subcommittee of the Office-based Opiate Treatment Program, San Francisco Department of public Health

18 12/98-12/00

Associate Chairperson, Corrections Sub-Committee, California Tuberculosis Elimination Advisory Committee

19 7/94-7/96

Advisory Committee for the Control And Elimination of Tuberculosis,

20 6/93-6/95

San Francisco Department of Public Health Managed Care Clinical Implementation Committee, San Francisco

21 2/92-2/96

Department of Public Health Tuberculosis Control Task Force, San Francisco Department of Public

22
3/90-7/97

Health San Francisco General Hospital Blood Borne Pathogen Committee

23 1/93-7/93

Medical Staff Bylaws Committee, San Francisco Department of

Public Health
24

25 ACADEMIC APPOINTMENT

26 1980-2015

Assistant Clinical Professor University of California, San Francisco

27

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
28

D-27

Case 28:20-cv-050082375-CJGBBM--SAHSK DDooccuummeennt t1451-1-6 FFileiledd0065/2/141/2/200 PPaaggee8258oof f13405 Page ID #:439798

Society of Correctional Physicians, Member of President’s Council, Past-Treasurer and Secretary
1 American Correctional Health Services Association, Past-President of California Chapter
American Public Health Association, Jails and Prison’s Subcommittee
2 Academy of Correctional Health Professionals

3 PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATIONS

4 Caring for the Inmate Health Population: A Public Health Imperative, Correctional Health Care
Leadership Institutes, July 2015

5 Correctional Medicine and Community Health, Society of Correctional Physicians Annual

6

Meeting, October, 2014 Identifying Pulmonary TB in Jails: A Roundtable Discussion, National Commission on

7

Correctional Health Care Annual Conference, October 31, 2006 A Community Health Approach to Correctional Health Care, Society of Correctional Physicians,

8 October 29, 2006
Prisoners the Unwanted and Underserved Population, Why Public Health Should Be in Jail, San
9 Francisco General Hospital Medical Center, Medical Grand Rounds, 10/12/04

10

TB in Jail: A Contact Investigation Course, Legal and Administrative Respo nsibilities, Francis J. Curry National Tuberculosis Center, 10/7/04

11 Public Health and Correctional Medicine, American Public Health Association Annual

12

Conference, 11/19/2003 Hepatitis in Corrections, CA/NV Chapter, American Correctional Health Services Association

13 Annual Meeting, 1/17/02

Correctional Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital Medical Center, Medical Grand Rounds,
14 12/16/02

15 SuperMax Prisons, American Public Health Association Annual Conference, 11/8/01
Chronic Care Programs in Corrections, CA/NV Chapter, American Correctional Health
16 Services Association Annual Meeting, 9/19/02

17 Tuberculosis in Corrections - Continuity of Care, California Tuberculosis Controllers
Association Spring Conference, 5/12/98

18 HIV Care Incarcerated in Incarcerated Populations, UCSF Clinical Care of the AIDS Patient

19 Conference, 12/5/97
Tuberculosis in Correctional Facilities, Pennsylvania AIDS Education and Training Center,

20 3/25/93

21

Tuberculosis Control in Jails, AIDS and Prison Conference, 10/15/93 The Interface of Public Health and Correctional Health Care, American Public Health

22 Association Annual Meeting, 10/26/93

23

HIV Education for Correctional Health Care Workers, American Public Health Association Annual Meeting, 10/26/93

24
PUBLICATIONS
25 Structure and Administration of a Jail Medical Program. Correctional Health Care:
Practice, Administration, and Law. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute. 2017.
26 Structure and Administration of a Jail Medical Program – Part II. Correctional Health 27 Care Report. Volume 16, No. 2, January-February 2015.
Structure and Administration of a Jail Medical Program – Part I. Correctional Health Care
28

D-28

Case 28:20-cv-050082375-CJGBBM--SAHSK DDooccuummeennt t1451-1-6 FFileiledd0065/2/141/2/200 PPaaggee8269oof f13405 Page ID #:530709

Report. Volume 16, No. 1, November-December 2014.
1 Pain Behind Bars: The Epidemiology of Pain in Older Jail Inmates in a County Jail.
2 Journal of Palliative Medicine. 09/2014; DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2014.0160
Older jail inmates and community acute care use. Am J Public Health. 2014 Sep;
3 104(9):1728-33.

4

Correctional Health Care Must be Recognized as an Integral Part of the Public Health Sector, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, February Supplement 2009, Vol. 36, No. 2, p.S3–

5 S4

Use of sentinel surveillance and geographic information systems to monitor trends in HIV
6 prevalence, incidence, and related risk behavior among women undergoing syphilis

7 screening in a jail setting. Journal of Urban Health 10/2008; 86(1):79-92.
Discharge Planning and Continuity of Health Care: Findings From the San Francisco

8 County Jail, American Journal of Public Health, 98:2182–2184, 2008

9

Public Health Behind Bars, Deputy Editor, Springer, 2007 Diabetes Care in the San Francisco County Jail, American Journal of Public Health,

10 96:1571-73, 2006

11

Clinical Practice in Correctional Medicine, 2nd Edition, Associate Editor, Mosby, 2006. Tuberculosis in the Correctional Facility, Mark Lobato, MD and Joe Goldenson, MD,

12 Clinical Practice in Correctional Medicine, 2nd Edition, Mosby, 2006.

13

Incidence of TB in inmates with latent TB infection: 5-year follow-up. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 11/2005; 29(4):295-301.

14 Cancer Screening Among Jail Inmates: Frequency, Knowledge, and Willingness
Am J Public Health. 2005 October; 95(10): 1781–1787
15 Improving tuberculosis therapy completion after jail: translation of research to practice.
16 Health Education Research. 05/2005; 20(2):163-74.
Incidence of TB in Inmates with Latent TB Infection, 5 -Year Follow-up, American Journal
17 of Preventive Medicine, 29(4), 2005

18

Prevention and Control of Infections with Hepatitis Viruses in Correctional Settings, Morbidity and Mortality Reports, (External Consultant to Centers for Disease Control),Vol.

19 52/No. RR-1 January 24, 2003

Randomized Controlled Trial of Interventions to Improve Follow-up for Latent
20 Tuberculosis Infection After Release from Jail, Archives of Internal Medicine, 162:1044-

21 1050, 2002
Jail Inmates and HIV care: provision of antiretroviral therapy and Pneumocystis carinii

22 pneumonia prophylaxis, International Journal of STD & AIDS; 12: 380-385, 2001

23

Tuberculosis Prevalence in an urban jail: 1994 and 1998, International Journal of Tuberculosis Lung Disease, 5(5):400-404, 2001

24 Screening for Tuberculosis in Jail and Clinic Follow-up after Release, American Journal of
Public Health, 88(2):223-226, 1998
25 A Clinical Trial of a Financial Incentive to Go to the Tuberculosis Clinic for Isoniazid after 26 Release from Jail, International Journal of Tuberculosis Lung Disease, 2(6):506-512,1998

27

28

D-29

Case 28:20-cv-050082375-CJGBBM--SAHSK DDooccuummeennt t1451-1-6 FFileiledd0065/2/141/2/200 PPaaggee8370oof f13405 Page ID #:530810

AWARDS
1 Armond Start Award of Excellence, Society of Correctional Physicians, 2014

Award of Honor, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, 2014
2 Award of Honor, San Francisco Health Commission, 2014

3

Certificate of Appreciation, San Francisco Public Defender’s Office, 2014 Certificate for Excellence in Teaching, California Department of Health Services, 2002

4 Employee Recognition Award, San Francisco Health Commission, July 2000
Public Managerial Excellence Award, Certificate of Merit, San Francisco, 1997
5

6

LICENSURE AND CERTIFICATION Medical Board of California, Certificate #A32488

7

Fellow, Society of Correctional Physicians Board Certified in Family Practice, 1979-1986 (Currently Board Eligible)

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

D-30

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 88 of 145 Page ID #:381
EXHIBIT 25

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 89 of 145 Page ID #:382
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
FAQs for Law Enforcement Agencies and Personnel
Updated April 27, 2020
What does CDC recommend for law enforcement personnel who have been in close contact (less than 6 feet) with a person with suspected or con rmed COVID-19?
If law enforcement personnel have direct personal contact with an individual with suspected or con rmed COVID-19, they should immediately use alcohol-based hand sanitizers with at least 60% alcohol, or wash hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds. They should also avoid touching their eyes, nose, and mouth. Any uniform items (or other surfaces) that were potentially exposed should be disinfected or cleaned as soon as feasible. For example, the duty belt or other non-porous items can be disinfected using products that are EPA-approved for use against the virus  . Porous items, like the uniform, should be replaced as soon as possible and then laundered according to manufacturers’ recommendations. This is especially important if any body uids were expelled during the encounter (bloodborne pathogen protocols should also be followed if applicable). Gloves should be worn when touching potentially contaminated items or applying disinfectants and it is important to perform hand hygiene upon removing gloves or other PPE.
Law enforcement personnel who have an exposure should be evaluated by their occupational health program and may be able to nish their work shift before starting home isolation.
If personnel and resources are available, it is most protective for law enforcement personnel to stay at home until 14 days after exposure to an individual with suspected or con rmed COVID-19 if the exposure was prolonged (10 minutes or more) or if the exposure was of concern (e.g., the individual coughed into the face of the law enforcement o cer). This would best protect the health of the exposed worker, their co-workers, and the general public.
However, if personnel and resources are not available, law enforcement personnel (considered critical infrastructure workers) may be permitted to work after exposure to ensure continuity of operations. To continue working, the exposed worker should remain symptom-free, and the employer should put into place the following prevention strategies for the exposed worker:
Screen the worker for symptoms of COVID-19 (fever, cough, or shortness of breath) before each work shift Regularly monitor the worker for symptoms, under the supervision of an occupational health program Ensure the worker practices social distancing (remaining at least 6 feet away from others) Ensure the worker wears a facemask (or cloth face covering if facemasks are unavailable) to protect others
If an exposed worker develops symptoms of COVID-19 (fever, cough, or shortness of breath) and is still working, the employer should:
Send the worker home immediately and encourage them to follow CDC guidance for What to Do If You Are Sick. Clean and disinfect surfaces in their workspace. Follow CDC guidance to determine when the worker can return to work.
For more information, see CDC’s updated guidance for Implementing Safety Practices for Critical Infrastructure Workers Who May Have Had Exposure to a Person with Suspected or Con rmed COVID-19.
Are rst responders being prioritized for those who will be tested for COVID-19?
At this time, rst responders with symptoms are listed as high priority for getting tested for COVID-19 as part of CDC’s Criteria to Guide Evaluation and Laboratory Testing for COVID-19.
Should law enforcement agencies screen personnel for signs and symptoms of COVID-19?
Law enforcement agencies should encourage all personnel to self-monitor for symptoms before they come to work. Workers who have symptoms (fever, cough, or shortness of breath) should notify their supervisor and stay home. They can also enter their symptoms into the CDC Self-Checker to determine whether they need to seek medical care. Law enforcement agencies should ensure

that sick leave policies are Caesxeib2le:2a0n-cdv-c0o5n02si7s-tCeBnMt w-AiSth pDuobculicmheneta1lt5h-1guFidilaendc0e6,/2a4n/d20thaPtaegme 9p0looyfe1e4s5arPeaagwe aIDre of and understand #:383
How can law enforcement agencies get personal protective equipment (PPE) when they are in short supply?
CDC is aware of shortages of PPE nationwide. Law enforcement leaders should contact their local  and state public health departments and emergency preparedness partners to discuss options. CDC has developed strategies for optimizing the supply of PPE, including N95 respirators, gowns, eye protection, and facemasks.
Are there additional precautions law enforcement personnel should take during death investigations?
Upon entering a structure (home or place of business) where someone has died and COVID-19 is a suspected cause or contributing factor, law enforcement personnel should anticipate that others in that building could also be infected. If the cause of death is unknown, it would be most protective to assume that COVID-19 contributed. Law enforcement personnel should limit the number of personnel needed to enter the building, if feasible. If the building has not been cleared, law enforcement personnel should wear the following PPE:
A single pair of disposable examination gloves Disposable isolation gown or single use coveralls Fit-tested NIOSH approved N95 respirator or higher level of protection (or a facemask if respirators are unavailable) Eye protection (goggles or a disposable face shield).
Further, law enforcement personnel should try to maintain social distancing (at least 6 feet distance) with others at all times, especially while in the structure.
If the building has been cleared, then it may not be necessary to wear respiratory and eye protection, unless there are other hazards present that dictate their use according to an onsite hazard/risk assessment.
Law enforcement personnel should be careful not to touch potentially contaminated surfaces and then touch their eyes, nose, or mouth. However, this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads.
Law enforcement should avoid direct contact with someone who has died of suspected or con rmed COVID-19:
Every jurisdiction is di erent, but law enforcement personnel, in general, should not move or transport a body. Consult with the medical examiner/coroner’s o ce to determine the appropriate next steps and protective measures for that jurisdiction. The medical examiner/coroner’s o ce can decide who will transport the decedent.
When the investigation is over, law enforcement personnel should take the following steps:
Safely remove gloves and other PPE and properly dispose of them according to existing policies and procedures. Law enforcement personnel should be trained on the proper donning and do ng of PPE  . Wash hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds or, if soap and water are not readily available, use a hand sanitizer that contains at least 60% alcohol. If other reusable items (e.g., such as duty belt or gear) come into contact with individuals with suspected or con rmed COVID-19, disinfect those items according to the manufacturers’ instructions. For disinfection, most EPA-registered household disinfectants should be e ective. A list of products that are EPA-approved for use against the virus that causes COVID-19 is available here  .
If law enforcement takes a person into custody who exhibits symptoms of COVID-19, where should they take the person for intake processing (such as jail, hospital, or some other facility)?
All persons taken into custody should be given a facemask or cloth face covering to wear as part of universal source control. A facemask or cloth face covering may help protect others nearby if these people are infected with the virus that causes COVID-19.
If a person taken into custody exhibits signs and symptoms of COVID-19 (cough, fever, or shortness of breath), the person should be assessed for transport to a healthcare facility for further evaluation and management. Medical evaluation during intake processing may be necessary, especially if COVID-19 is suspected. If, at any point, it is determined that the person taken into custody needs medical care, transportation should be coordinated with EMS providers and the receiving healthcare facility.
If a person taken into custody does not show any symptoms of COVID-19, he or she should still be isolated as much as feasible during intake processing.

CDC has additional guidanCceasfoer2c:2o0r-rcevc-0ti5o0n2a7l-aCnBdMd-AeStenDtioocnumfaecniltit1i5e-s1thFaitlemd a0y6/b24e/2u0sefPual.ge 91 of 145 Page ID #:384
Should law enforcement personnel and other rst responders take additional precautions when coming home, even if they have no symptoms of COVID-19, to avoid potentially exposing household members?
CDC recommends that law enforcement personnel practice everyday measures to protect their household members from becoming ill. These measures include:
hand hygiene covering coughs and sneezes disinfecting frequently touched surfaces daily
Many law enforcement personnel routinely change out of their uniforms at the station and wear street clothes and shoes home. Laundry services for uniforms may be provided by law enforcement agencies. Continuing this practice may help minimize the potential of transmitting the virus that causes COVID-19 and other potential take-home exposures. Law enforcement personnel should perform hand hygiene after changing out of uniforms.
They also should have a plan for household members who are at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.
Is there any speci c guidance for protecting police canines from COVID-19 exposure?
We are still learning about the virus, but it appears that it can spread from people to animals in some situations. Therefore, CDC recommends that people sick with COVID-19 restrict contact with animals until more information is known about the virus.
If a police canine that has been exposed to a person or setting with COVID-19 develops a new illness, contact your veterinary clinic and let them know that a working dog with a COVID-19 exposure has developed a new illness. Your veterinarian can evaluate your pet and determine the next steps for your pet’s treatment and care. For more information, please see CDC’s If You Have Animals guidance. Do not use products not approved for use on animals to try to clean a police canine’s fur or paws.
Page last reviewed: April 27, 2020

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 92 of 145 Page ID #:385
EXHIBIT 26

6/23/2020

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS DoPcruotmecet Ynotur1se5lf-W1henFUilseindg T0ra6n/s2po4rt/a2ti0on | CPDaCge 93 of 145 Page ID #:386

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Protect Yourself When Using Transportation
Public transit, rideshares and taxis, micro-mobility devices, and personal vehicles
As schools, businesses, and community organizations begin providing services, consider ways that you can protect yourself and slow the spread of COVID-19 when using transportation. When you consider the following options, think about what is feasible, practical, and acceptable to you and meets your needs. Also see CDC’s tips for how to stay safe while running errands.
 For all types of transportation

When using any type of transportation, follow these general principles:

Practice hand hygiene and respiratory etiquette.

Before you leave, wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds or use hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol.
Once you reach your destination, wash your hands again with soap and water for at least 20 seconds or use hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol as soon as possible upon arrival.
Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth with unwashed hands.
Cover your coughs and sneezes with a tissue or use the inside of your elbow. Throw used tissues in the trash and wash your hands immediately with soap and water for at least 20 seconds or use hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol.

Practice social distancing.

During travel, try to keep at least 6 feet (2 meters) from people who are not in your household — for example, when you are waiting at a bus station or selecting seats on a train.

Wear cloth face coverings.

Wear a cloth face covering when physical distancing is di cult. Note: Cloth face coverings should not be placed on: Babies and children younger than 2 years old
Anyone who has trouble breathing or is unconscious
Anyone who is incapacitated or otherwise unable to remove the cloth face covering without assistance
Cloth face coverings are meant to protect other people in case the wearer is unknowingly infected but does not have symptoms.

Stay home when appropriate.

People who are sick or have recently had a close contact (closer than 6 feet for at least 15 minutes) to a person with COVID-19 should not use public transportation and should stay home except to seek medical care.

Have adequate supplies.

Before traveling, pack sanitizing wipes and hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol (in case you are unable to wash your hands at your destination). Bring your cloth face covering to wear at times when physical distancing is di cult—

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/using-transportation.html

1/4

6/23/2020

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS DoPcruotmecet Ynotur1se5lf-W1henFUilseindg T0ra6n/s2po4rt/a2ti0on | CPDaCge 94 of 145 Page ID #:387

for example, while riding on a train or bus, waiting at a rest stop, or riding in a car with people outside your household.

Protect people at risk for severe illness from COVID-19.

Individuals who are at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19, such as older adults, people with disabilities, and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions, should limit their travel.
If you need special accommodations or assistance while traveling (for example, help with a wheelchair lift or with carrying bags), if possible, take a transportation “buddy” with you (preferably from your household) to help you during travel.

 Public transit
Follow the general principles listed above, plus the following. . . . .
Stay up-to-date.
Check with local transit authorities for the latest information on changes to services and procedures, especially if you might need additional assistance.
Avoid touching surfaces.
Limit touching frequently touched surfaces such as kiosks, digital interfaces such as touchscreens and ngerprint scanners, ticket machines, turnstiles, handrails, restroom surfaces, elevator buttons, and benches as much as possible.
If you must touch these surfaces, as soon as you can, wash your hands for 20 seconds with soap and water or rub your hands with sanitizer containing 60% alcohol. Use touchless payment and no-touch trash cans and doors when available. Exchange cash or credit cards by placing them in a receipt tray or on the counter rather than by hand, if possible.
Practice social distancing.
When possible, consider traveling during non-peak hours when there are likely to be fewer people. Follow social distancing guidelines by staying at least 6 feet (2 meters) from people who are not from your household. For example:
Avoid gathering in groups, and stay out of crowded spaces when possible, especially at transit stations and stops. Consider skipping a row of seats between yourself and other riders if possible. Enter and exit buses through rear entry doors if possible. Look for social distancing instructions or physical guides o ered by transit authorities (for example, oor decals or signs indicating where to stand or sit to remain at least 6 feet apart from others).
Practice hand hygiene.
After you leave the transit station or stop, use hand sanitizer containing at least 60% alcohol. When you arrive at your destination, wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds.

 Rideshare, taxi, limo for-hire vehicle passengers

Follow the general principles listed above, plus the following. . .

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/using-transportation.html

2/4

6/23/2020

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS DoPcruotmecet Ynotur1se5lf-W1henFUilseindg T0ra6n/s2po4rt/a2ti0on | CPDaCge 95 of 145 Page ID #:388

Avoid touching surfaces.

Avoid contact with surfaces frequently touched by passengers or drivers, such as the door frame and handles, windows, and other vehicle parts. In circumstances where such contact is unavoidable, use a hand sanitizer containing at least 60% alcohol as soon as possible afterwards.
Avoid accepting o ers of free water bottles and avoid touching magazines or other items that may be provided for free to passengers.
Use touchless payment when available.

Practice social distancing.

Limit the number of passengers in the vehicle to only those necessary. Avoid pooled rides or rides where multiple passengers are picked up who are not in the same household. Sit in the back seat in larger vehicles such as vans and buses so you can remain at least six feet away from the driver.

Improve ventilation.

Ask the driver to improve the ventilation in the vehicle if possible — for example, by opening the windows or setting the air ventilation/air conditioning on non-recirculation mode.

Practice hand hygiene.

After leaving the vehicle, use hand sanitizer containing at least 60% alcohol. When you arrive at your destination, wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds.

 Shared bikes, scooters, skateboards, and other micromobility devices
Follow the general principles listed above, plus the following. . . Clean and disinfect surfaces.
Clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces on the device (e.g., handlebars, gears, braking handles, locks etc.) or shared equipment before you use it. Use disinfecting wipes, if available. Avoid touching surfaces. Use touchless payment when available and if applicable. Practice hand hygiene. After completing your trip, wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds or use a hand sanitizer containing at least 60% alcohol.

 Personal vehicles

Follow the general principles listed above, plus the following. . . Clean and disinfect surfaces.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/using-transportation.html

3/4

6/23/2020

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS DoPcruotmecet Ynotur1se5lf-W1henFUilseindg T0ra6n/s2po4rt/a2ti0on | CPDaCge 96 of 145 Page ID #:389

Clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces regularly (for example, the steering wheel, gear shift, door frame/handles, windows, radio/temperature dials, and seatbelt buckles).

When using parking meters and pay stations, consider using alcohol wipes to disinfect surfaces or use hand sanitizer containing at least 60% alcohol after use. Wash hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds as soon as it is possible.

Practice social distancing.

Consider limiting the number of passengers in the vehicle to only those necessary (for example, choose one or two family members who are not at higher risk for severe illness to run the essential errands).

Improve ventilation.

Improve the ventilation in the vehicle if possible (for example, open the windows or set the air ventilation/air conditioning on non-recirculation mode).

 People with transportation-related jobs
If transportation is part of your job, see these additional resources on how to protect yourself from COVID-19 at work. Information for bus transit operators, rail transit operators, transit maintenance workers, and transit station workers Information for food and grocery pick-up and delivery drivers Information for mail and parcel delivery drivers Information for rideshare, taxi, limo and other passenger drivers-for-hire Information for long-haul truck drivers
Page last reviewed: May 26, 2020

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/using-transportation.html

4/4

 
 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 97 of 145 Page ID #:390
EXHIBIT 27

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 98 of 145 Page ID LL OO SS AA NN GG E#E:3LL9E1E SS PP OO LL II CC EE DD EE PP AA RR TT MM EE NN TT
USE OF FORCE-TACTICS
DIRECTIVE

Directive No. 11

June 2011

CROWD MANAGEMENT, INTERVENTION, AND CONTROL

PURPOSE
In a society where free speech and assembly is guaranteed by the Federal and State Constitutions, it is the mission of police officers to protect the constitutional rights of all members of the public. These constitutional rights apply to individuals participating in lawful activities such as public speeches, marches, demonstrations, picketing, rallies and celebratory events.
This Directive was developed to provide guidelines to assist officers and supervisors in identifying lawful versus unlawful assemblies. Additionally, it will provide insight into how the response and actions of law enforcement may affect the demeanor and response of a crowd. The thoughtful application of crowd management and intervention strategies will generally assist in efforts to facilitate legal First Amendment activity while at the same time removing those individuals whose illegal behavior jeopardize the purpose and safety of protected activity. The Department’s Use of Force Policy relating to crowd control techniques is also reviewed in this Directive.

PROTOCOL
In determining whether First Amendment activities are lawful, police officers must not consider their personal views of either the political affiliation or the message of those persons exercising their right to assemble and engage in expressive activities. The responsibility of police officers is to objectively determine at what juncture a demonstration or assembly leaves the realm of legal protest and becomes an abridgement of the rights of others.
It is important for supervisors and officers to understand the definition of an unlawful assembly to determine the appropriate police response. Penal Code Section 407 defines an unlawful assembly as: “Whenever two or more persons assemble together to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act in a violent, boisterous or tumultuous manner, such assembly is an unlawful assembly.” “Boisterous or tumultuous manner” has been interpreted by the courts to mean conduct which poses a clear and present danger of imminent violence.

PTE 12/9/19

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 99 of 145 Page ID

Use of Force-Tactics Directive

#:392

Crowd Management, Intervention, and Control

Page 2

Penal Code Section 407 identifies two different circumstances when an assembly may be declared unlawful:
The first circumstance is when people assemble to participate in an unlawful act. The unlawful act must be an act made criminal by law, or by the commission of an overt act that leads to a violation of the law. In the absence of any unlawful conduct, an assembly may be declared unlawful only if there is reasonable cause to believe, based on articulable facts, that the assembly’s purpose is unlawful. If people are assembled to commit an unlawful act, then they are an unlawful assembly (e.g. unlawfully blocking entrances to public buildings, highways, sidewalks or schools, or engaging in other unlawful or riotous activity).
The second circumstance is when people assemble to do a lawful act in a “violent, boisterous or tumultuous manner.” In order to be considered violent, boisterous or tumultuous, the manner in which the people are acting must be violent, or pose a clear and present danger of imminent violence. For example, a demonstration that disturbs the peaceful enjoyment of property through noisy singing and chanting is not an unlawful assembly unless it also poses a clear and present danger of imminent violence. It is important to note that one must differentiate between First Amendment activity and other activity. A loud party would not have to be violent, boisterous or tumultuous to be considered unlawful.

PROCEDURES

Any public assembly of individuals or groups, lawful or unlawful, may require support and/or intervention by law enforcement. Depending upon the situation, the response of law enforcement can range from observation and crowd management strategies, to crowd intervention and control strategies. The police response to each assembly or protest is different and will require law enforcement’s flexibility, creativity, discipline and patience.

Crowd Management

First Amendment activity such as a march,

demonstration, protest, rally or celebratory event is most often successfully facilitated by

Crowd Management Primary Objectives

initially using the least amount of visible law

• Establish contact with crowd

enforcement presence necessary. An ongoing assessment of crowd behavior is critical in

• Obtain voluntary compliance • Minimize enforcement action

order for supervisors and officers to

appropriately respond to the actions of a crowd or protest group. Experience has

shown that the appearance of an organized, disciplined contingent of police officers will

often cause a disorderly group to abandon their disruptive activities. However, if used

inappropriately, the mere presence of officers and/or horses in riot gear may be

perceived as aggressive and is sufficient to change the behavior of the crowd. This can

cause the focus of the protest to shift from the group’s original cause to the presence

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 100 of 145 Page ID

Use of Force-Tactics Directive

#:393

Crowd Management, Intervention, and Control

Page 3

and actions of officers. Therefore, supervisors should consider this potential impact on crowd behavior and be thoughtful about the strategic deployment of police officers and horses in riot gear.
Instead of thinking about the best form of police action to control the crowd, it is important for supervisors to focus on how to act in order to encourage the crowd to manage itself. One way of achieving this is to place a major emphasis on urging crowd members to express their views in a lawful manner, even under conditions where one is aware of the presence of small isolated groups with illegal goals and even at points where these small isolated groups start to act in illegal and violent ways.

Intervention

Police officers and supervisors must understand the importance of differentiating between violent members of the crowd and peaceful protestors. When possible, officers should interact with crowd members in an effort to communicate law enforcement support of lawful First Amendment activity and rights of free speech and expression.

Unlawful behavior by individuals, or unlawful

Crowd Intervention Primary Objectives

conduct observed in an isolated incident, should not automatically form the basis for

• Isolate unlawful behavior

declaring an otherwise lawful assembly to be

• Arrest law violators

unlawful. When it appears practical, officers

• Protect First Amendment activity • Facilitate lawful protests

should attempt to give warning to the leaders or spokesperson of the activity, the other

participants, and/or the individuals about any

observed unlawful or potentially unlawful conduct. When appropriate, officers should

instruct them on what they must do to comply with the laws, so as to allow an

opportunity to correct the conduct in question. Every effort should be made to protect

and facilitate the actions of lawful demonstrators while using intervention strategies to

stop illegal activity and remove law violators. However, when group behavior appears

to be unlawful, aggressive, or otherwise uncontrollable, it is reasonable for the assembly

to be declared unlawful.

Crowd Control and Dispersal

In the event a group or portion of a group

becomes involved in violent or riotous behavior, the mission of the Department is to

Crowd Control Primary Objectives

protect lives and property, and restore

• Protect life

conditions to normal as rapidly and efficiently as possible. The rapid deployment of forces to contain and arrest those responsible for violent, riotous, or unlawful behavior and the

• Restore and maintain order • Arrest violators • Protect vital facilities • Protect property

dispersal of unlawful groups will help

accomplish the Department’s crowd control primary objectives.

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 101 of 145 Page ID

Use of Force-Tactics Directive

#:394

Crowd Management, Intervention, and Control

Page 4

When circumstances require crowd dispersal, the dispersal should generally not occur until control forces are in place to assist in managing the dispersed crowd, as unlawful conduct is extremely dynamic and mobile. Crowd dispersal strategies should only be used when immediate action is necessary to stop violence and/or property damage and/or sufficient resources are not present to ensure public safety.

Dispersal Orders

The intent of a dispersal order is to

Methods to Deliver and Document Dispersal Orders

permanently disperse a crowd, not to merely relocate the problem to another

location. Supervisors should make a

• Amplified sound • Multiple languages when appropriate • Confirm audibility from various locations • Display signage indicating unlawful
assembly and dispersal when possible • Document with video/audio recording

reasonable assessment to determine if the members of a crowd are attempting to comply with the dispersal order, or relocate the unlawful behavior. It should be made clear that the crowd is expected to immediately leave the

area, and include a warning that force

may be used which could result in serious injury. The dispersal order must be given in a

manner reasonably believed to be heard and understood by the intended audience.

Based upon the circumstances, multiple announcements from various locations may be

required. Dispersal orders should be delivered in English and in other languages that

are appropriate for the audience. Regardless of the delivery method, the name of the

individual giving the dispersal order and the date and time each order was given should

be documented. Dispersal orders should not be given until control forces are in position

to support crowd movement.

THE MEDIA
It is the Department’s goal to provide the media as much access as legitimately possible to assist them in their duties. However, when an event is declared unlawful, all persons present, including members of the media, may be ordered to disperse. With the exception of spontaneously occurring events, whenever the Department develops an Incident Action Plan for an event that involves a public assembly, the Department will, when practicable, designate an area outside of the anticipated impacted area, but within viewing distance and audible range of the event, for members of the media to assemble.

USE OF FORCE
During crowd control situations, police officers may be required to physically engage individuals who exhibit conduct ranging from uncooperative to violent behavior. In these situations, officers may have to utilize force to move crowd members who do not respond to verbal directions, control violent individuals, or to effect an arrest. When the

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 102 of 145 Page ID

Use of Force-Tactics Directive

#:395

Crowd Management, Intervention, and Control

Page 5

use of force is appropriate in a crowd control situation, only that force reasonable to make an arrest or disperse a crowd should be used.
There are no exceptions to the Department’s Use of Force Policy for crowd control situations. Officers may use only that force which is objectively reasonable. Verbalization should be used throughout the operation in an attempt to gain compliance. In determining the appropriate amount of force, officers shall evaluate each situation in light of the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including, but not limited to the seriousness of the crime(s), the level of threat or resistance presented by the individual(s) and the danger to the community.
Baton
The baton may be used to push individuals who do not respond to verbal commands and encroach upon officers on a skirmish line or who intentionally delay departure while officers attempt to disperse the crowd, whether or not a lawful dispersal order has been issued. When an individual’s behavior is threatening or violent in nature, the baton can be used as an impact device.
Chemical Agents
The use of any Department approved chemical agent during a crowd control incident requires the approval of a commander or above. Chemical agents include CS gas, CN gas, OC, and all tear gas canisters. Before using any chemical agent, tactical consideration should be given to wind direction, safety equipment for officers, and the potential non-effectiveness of the chemical agent.
Additionally, OC chemical agent may be used to control an uncooperative suspect in an isolated incident when the officer reasonably believes and can articulate that the use of OC was reasonable. This would require a Use of Force Report.
Less-Lethal Munitions
Less-lethal munitions may be deployed as either target specific or non-target specific (dispersal) munitions. Less-lethal munitions can be deployed by Metropolitan Division or specially trained personnel. Both groups may deploy 37mm non-target specific dispersal rounds and the Super-Sock round form a beanbag shotgun as a target specific munitions. Only Metropolitan Division personnel may deploy the 40mm sponge round, and may do so only as target specific munitions.
Reporting a Non-Categorical Use of Force in Crowd Control Situations
In a crowd control situation, a Use of Force Report is not required when officer(s) become involved in an incident where force is used to push, move, or strike individuals who exhibit unlawful or hostile behavior and who do not respond to verbal directions by the police. This applies only to officers working in organized squad and platoon sized units directly involved in a crowd control mission. Additionally, should force be utilized

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 103 of 145 Page ID #:396

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 104 of 145 Page ID
#:397
Crowd Management, Intervention, and Control Example Dispersal Orders

DISPERSAL ORDER
“I am (rank and officer’s name), a police officer for the City of Los Angeles. I hereby declare this to be an unlawful assembly and, in the name of the people of the State of California, command all those assembled at (give specific location for example, the area bounded by Main Street on the east, Spring Street on the west, City Hall steps on the north, and the south sidewalk of 1st Street on the south) to immediately disperse, which means to break up this assembly. If you do not do so, you may be arrested or subject to other police action. Other police action may include the use of less lethal munitions, which could cause significant risk of serious injury to those who remain. Section 409 of the Penal Code prohibits remaining present at an unlawful assembly. If you remain in the area which was just described, regardless of your purpose in remaining, you will be in violation of Section 409. The following routes of dispersal are available (give the most convenient route(s) of dispersal). You have ____ minutes (give a reasonable amount of time– take into consideration the number of participants, location of the event, and number of exit routes) to disperse.”

DISPERSAL ORDER (Spanish)
"Soy (officer's name and rank) oficial de policía de la Ciudad de Los Angeles. Por la presente declaro que esta reunión es ilegal y en nombre del pueblo del Estado de California ordeno que todas las personas reunidas en (give specific location, for example, the area bounded by Main Street on the east, Spring Street on the west, City Hall steps on the north, and the south sidewalk of 1st Street on the south) se dispersen inmediatamente. De lo contrario serán arrestadas o estarán sujetos a otras acciones policíacas. Otras acciones policiacas pueden incluir el uso de minciones de menos lethal, el cual puede causar riesgo significacion de heridas serias a los que permanecen. La Sección 409 del Código Penal prohibe permanecer en una reunión ilegal. Si usted/ustedes permanecen en las áreas mencionadas, sin importar el propósito de su permanencia, usted/ustedes estarán violando la sección 409 del Codigo Penal de California. Las rutas que se pueden usar para disperarse son las siguientes: (give the most convenient route(s) of dispersal). Uds tienen ___ minutos (give a reasonable amount of time– take into consideration the number or participants, location of the event and number of exit routes) para dispersarse."

UOF-TAC DIR NO. 11, 2011

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 105 of 145 Page ID
Crowd Management,#In:3t9er8vention, and Control
Concepts and Strategies

Lawful Assembly

Isolated Unlawful Behavior

Unlawful Assembly

Riot

Free Speech and assembly are protected First Amendment activity. The following are examples:
• Speeches • Marches • Demonstrations • Rallies • Picketing • Public assemblies • Protests • Celebratory events

Isolated unlawful activity by individuals or small groups within a crowd should not automatically form the basis for declaring an assembly unlawful.
• Isolated destruction of property • Isolated acts of violence • Isolated rock or bottle throwers • Individual sit down demonstrators

407 PC Two or more persons assemble • To do an unlawful act or • To do a lawful act in a boisterous or tumultuous manner
Assemblies may be dispersed when they are: Violent, or pose a clear and present danger of violence, or the group is breaking some other law in the process. If a crime is occurring action may be taken to stop it prior to a Dispersal Order being given.
• Civil Disobedience • Sit down demonstration

404 PC Riot, (a) Any use of force or violence, disturbing the public peace, or any threat to use force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution, by two or more persons acting together, and without authority of law, is a riot.
• Group violent behavior • Group acts of property damage

Police Action

Use Crowd Management strategies: Use Crowd Intervention strategies: Use Crowd Control strategies:

Use Crowd Control strategies:

• Meet with event organizers and stakeholders
• Determine the history and risk of the group
• Create a planning team • Check permit limitations • Develop commanders intent • Develop Incident Action Plan and
objectives • Identify and assign resources:
Video unit, fixed posts, MFF, Bicycle Units, Air Support, TSE, Shadow Teams, Mounted Unit • Monitor and assess crowd behavior • Separate opposing factions • Maintain video log • Provide direction and expectations at roll call • Engender facilitation not confrontation • Ensure the appropriate uniform for the event • Interact with organizers and gain cooperation

• Use organizers and monitors to gain voluntary compliance
• Isolate, arrest and remove law violators as quickly as possible
• Video action of officers and law violators
• Use amplified sound (sound trucks or CIUVs) to communicate intent or to gain compliance
• Use low profile tactics when possible. Don’t become the focus of the demonstration.
• Use Passive Arrest Teams, Tangle Teams, Shadow Teams, Cross Bows, Arrest Circles
• When it is not possible to make an immediate arrest, identify and track suspects using cameras, observation posts, an air unit or shadow teams
• Continue to assess; escalate and deescalate as behavior changes
• Don’t increase crowd tension or change crowd focus to law enforcement by unnecessary aggressive appearance or behavior

• Obtain voluntary compliance • Video action of officers and law violators • Act quickly • Request resources (MFF) • Put control forces in place • Identify dispersal routes • Put a traffic plan in place • Move media to protected area. Use
amplified sound (sound trucks or CIUVs) to communicate intent to declare an unlawful assembly • Disperse unlawful crowd • Track and contain groups involved in illegal behavior using cameras, observation posts, Shadow Teams or Air Unit • Arrest individuals who fail to disperse or who are involved in illegal activity • Use Arrest Links to move arrestees • With appropriate approval, deploy the appropriate less lethal munitions to defend officers or to disperse the crowd • Ensure only reasonable force • Report use of force and munitions • Restore traffic flow

• Video action of officers and law violators • Immediately stop the behavior • Request resources (MFF) • Put control forces in place • Stop the illegal activity • Put a traffic plan in place • Track and contain groups involved in illegal
behavior using cameras, observation posts, Shadow Teams or Air Unit. • Arrest law violators • Use Arrest Links to move arrestees • With appropriate approval, deploy the appropriate less lethal munitions to defend officers or to stop violent behavior or property damage • Ensure only reasonable force • Report use of force and munitions • Restore and maintain order • Restore traffic flow • Discourage groups from forming • Protect lives, property, and vital facilities • Establish and patrol divisions • Remain present • Reassess the situation • Return to normalcy • Act quickly

UOF-TAC DIR NO. 11, 2011

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBCMr-oAwSd MDaoncaTugemermemnestna1t#,n5:Id-n31t9De9erFvfieinlenitdtiioo0nn6s,/a2n4d/2C0onPtraogle 106 of 145 Page ID
Active Resistance: To intentionally and unlawfully oppose the lawful order of a peace officer in a physical manner.
Arrest Links: A method of linking multiple arrestees together for control purposes.
Arrest Protocol: The formal process of placing subjects under arrest, taking into custody, and associating the arresting peace officer(s) with the specific individual arrested.
Arrest Teams: Personnel assigned to arrest duties during civil disobedience/civil disorder operations.
Booking Teams: Personnel assigned to custodial and processing duties during civil disobedience/civil disorder operations.
Civil Disobedience: An unlawful event involving a planned or spontaneous demonstration by a group of people.
Civil Disorder: An unlawful event involving significant disruption of the public order.
Collective Behavior: The unlawful behavior of a group of persons involved in situations where normal cultural structure and controls are not observed, such as unruly crowds, civil disobedience, and riots.
Command: The authority a person lawfully exercises over subordinates by virtue of his/her rank and assignment or position.
Compliance Techniques: Reasonable, lawful use of force methods intended to encourage suspect cooperation.
Control Devices: Devices intended to assist peace officers in gaining control of subjects who refuse to submit to lawful authority (e.g., batons, TASER, restraints, chemical agents, etc.).
Cordoning: Surrounding or enclosing a particular problem area; also referred to as perimeter control.
Critical Facilities: Any location essential to the well-being and safety of the community requiring law enforcement protection during a critical incident.
Crowd: A number of persons collected into a close body.
Crowd Control: Law enforcement response to a pre-planned or spontaneous event, activity or occurrence where there is a potential for unlawful activity or the threat of violence.
Crowd Dynamics: Factors which influence crowd behavior.
Crowd Intervention: Strategies and tactics employed by law enforcement during lawful assemblies to address unlawful activity, civil disorder, and to arrest violators.
Crowd Management: Strategies and tactics employed by law enforcement to manage lawful assemblies in an effort to prevent the escalation of events into an unlawful assembly or riot.
Decontamination: Procedures taken to reduce the effects of any non-lethal chemical agent.
Discipline: Pattern of behavior consistent with demonstrating self-control, teamwork, moderation, and restraint.
Dispersal Order: Lawful orders communicated by law enforcement personnel commanding individuals assembled unlawfully to disperse.
Flashpoint: Specific location(s) which can be anticipated to attract criminal elements and become the origin or focal point of civil disorder.
Force Options: Reasonable force applications utilized by law enforcement to effect arrest, overcome resistance, and prevent escape.

UOF-TAC DIR NO. 11, 2011

1 of 3

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBCMr-oAwSd MDaoncaTugemermemnestna1t#,n5:Id-n41t0De0erFvfieinlenitdtiioo0nn6s,/a2n4d/2C0onPtraogle 107 of 145 Page ID
Formations: Coordinated unit tactics utilized by law enforcement to control crowds, stop unlawful activity, and disperse and/or arrest violators.
Incident Command System (ICS): The statewide model for field level management of emergencies mandated by the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). ICS is specifically designed to allow its users to adopt an integrated organizational structure equal to the complexity of demands of single and multiple incidents without being hindered by jurisdictional boundaries.
Less-Lethal Impact Munitions: Projectiles launched or otherwise deployed for purposes of overcoming resistance, preventing escape, effecting arrest, reducing serious injury and are without significant likelihood of causing death.
Management: The process of planning, organizing, coordinating, directing, budgeting, and controlling resources.
Mobile Arrest and Booking Teams: Mobile teams designated to assist field personnel with mass arrest and booking.
Mobile Field Force: An organized, mobile law enforcement tactical force equipped and trained to respond to unusual occurrences. The Mobile Field Force configuration is currently the statewide standard known as “Mutual Aid Response Mobile Field Force.”
Mobile Tactics: specialized techniques that give Mobile Field Force (MFF) personnel the ability to respond rapidly and complete high-risk missions beyond the capabilities of other personnel. The vehicles may also be utilized for crowd control and containment.
Mob: A disorderly group of people engaged in unlawful activity.
Mounted Tactics: Tactics while mounted on horses.
Non-Compliant Behavior: Behavior which does not yield to a lawful order.
Non-Lethal Chemical Agents: Devices utilized by law enforcement agencies which may include CS, CN or OC.
Non-Target Specific Less-Lethal Impact Munitions: Less-lethal munitions fired at a crowd for the purpose of crowd control and/or dispersal (37mm, 20F Multiple Foam Rubber Projectiles).
Pain Compliance: The stimulation of nerves or the manipulation of joints to elicit a sense of unease or distress in a subject, causing that subject to comply. Examples include control holds, impact weapons, non-lethal chemical agents, TASER, etc.
Passive Arrest Teams (PAT): Organized teams of peace officers assigned to take “passive arrestees” into custody.
Passive Resistance: A commonly used term referring to non-violent opposition to the lawful directions of law enforcement during arrest situations.
Photographic Teams: Law enforcement photographers assigned to document designated activity involving civil disobedience.
Platoon: A tactical component consisting of two or more supervised squads.
Policy: Statements of principles and values which guide the performance of a specific Department activity. Policy establishes limits of action and reflects a statement of guiding principles that should be followed in order to achieve an agency’s objective.
Procedure: A method of performing an operation, or a manner of proceeding on a course of action, within limits of policy.
Public Disruption: The interruption or disturbance of public order.

UOF-TAC DIR NO. 11, 2011

2 of 3

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBCMr-oAwSd MDaoncaTugemermemnestna1t#,n5:Id-n41t0De1erFvfieinlenitdtiioo0nn6s,/a2n4d/2C0onPtraogle 108 of 145 Page ID
Shadow Team: A squad sized plain clothes unit made up of two, five-officer elements, each having a supervisor that is responsible for working within crowds to identify individuals involved in illegal behavior, and when possible monitor their behavior, and/or arrest and remove them from the crowd as quietly as possible.
Uniformed Shadow Support Team: A squad of 10 uniformed officers and two supervisors that are responsible for coordinating with, and supporting Shadow Teams.
Stakeholder: Entities having a legal, professional, economic or community interest/responsibility in the event.
Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS): A system required by the California Government Code for managing response to multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional emergencies in California. SEMS consists of five organizational levels that are activated as necessary: Field Response, Local Government, Operational Area, Region and State.
Target Specific Less-Lethal Impact Munitions: Less-lethal munitions fired at a specific/identifiable target for purpose of selectively and temporarily incapacitating an individual or to cause the individual(s) to stop aggressive/combative actions: 12-gage Super-Sock Projectiles; 40mm Exact Impact Sponge Munitions (Metro) • Aggressive/Combative actions: Unlawful behavior (must include actions/movements) • “Objectively” confrontational
• Physical attacks on persons/public safety • A fighting disposition, i.e., clenched fist; threats of violence coupled with “reasonable” ability to carry out
threat • Behavior (more than “stoic or uncooperative”) • Destruction of property
Unlawful Assembly: Penal Code Section 407 defines an “unlawful assembly” as: “Whenever two or more persons assemble together to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act in a violent, boisterous or tumultuous manner, such assembly is an unlawful assembly.” “Boisterous or tumultuous manner” has been interpreted by the courts to mean conduct which poses a clear and present danger of imminent violence.

UOF-TAC DIR NO. 11, 2011

3 of 3

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 109 of 145 Page ID #:402
EXHIBIT 28

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 110 of 145 Page ID #:403
LL OO SS AA NN GG EE LL EE SS PP OO LL II CC EE DD EE PP AA RR TT MM EE NN TT
USE OF FORCE-TACTICS

DIRECTIVE

Directive No. 8.2

August 2018

BATON
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Directive is to familiarize officers with the use, nomenclature, and operation procedures of the Baton.

PROTOCOL
Whenever practicable, officers shall exercise de-escalation techniques to resolve potential use of force incidents and seek voluntary compliance from suspects/subjects. The courts have held that Less-Lethal force options are “capable of inflicting significant pain and may cause serious injury.” Therefore, consistent with the Department’s Use of Force Policy, Less-Lethal force options are only permissible when:
An officer reasonably believes that a suspect or subject is violently resisting arrest or poses an immediate threat of violence or physical harm.
Less-Lethal force options shall not be used for a suspect or subject who is passively resisting or merely failing to comply with commands. Verbal threats of violence or mere non-compliance do not alone justify the use of Less-Lethal force.
An officer may use the Baton as a reasonable force option to control a suspect when the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others.
Officers shall also consider:
• The severity of the crime versus the governmental interest in the seizure; and, • Whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest.
The following do not alone justify the use of the Baton:
• Verbal threats of violence • Mere non-compliance

PROCEDURES

If verbalization appears to be ineffective and/or an officer has a reasonable belief that

the situation may escalate to a physical confrontation, the baton may be drawn as a

show of force. Such action may de-escalate the situation.

PTE 12/9/19

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 111 of 145 Page ID #:404
Use of Force-Tactics Directive No. 8.2 Baton Page 2
However, the mere failure of verbalization to effect control of a suspect does not automatically warrant the use of a baton. As the suspect's actions vary, officers must constantly evaluate the situation and use objectively reasonable force.
If officers encounter a self-mutilating or suicidal individual, the use of the baton may be a reasonable force option (based on the tactical scenario) to stop his or her actions. This will allow the individual to receive the needed emergency medical treatment.
Crowd Control
During crowd control situations, police officers may be required to physically engage individuals who exhibit conduct ranging from uncooperative to violent behavior. In these situations, it may be reasonable for officers to utilize physical force to move crowd members who do not respond to verbal directions, control violent individuals, or effect an arrest.
There are no exceptions to the Department’s Use of Force Policy for crowd control situations. Officers may use only that force which is objectively reasonable. Verbalization should be used throughout the operation in an attempt to gain compliance. In determining the appropriate force, officers shall evaluate each situation in light of the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including but not limited to the seriousness of the crime(s), the level of threat or resistance presented by the individual(s), and the danger to the community.
The baton may be used as a pushing tool to move individuals who do not respond to verbal commands or encroach upon officers on a skirmish line or who intentionally delay departure while officers attempt to disperse the crowd, whether or not a lawful dispersal order has been issued. When a crowd or an individual’s behavior is threatening or violent in nature, the baton can be used as an impact device.
In determining the amount of force which is objectively reasonable, officers should also consider factors known to them that appear to be contributing to the crowd's conduct and actions. For example, if individuals are encroaching on a skirmish line, and officers reasonably believe that such conduct is the result of individuals in the rear of the crowd pushing forward, as opposed to intentional action by the persons at the front of the crowd, officers should factor such belief into their decision regarding the appropriate response and use of force.
Use of Force Warning
An officer shall, when feasible, give a verbal warning prior to using the Baton to control an individual. The warning is not required when an officer is attacked and must respond to the suspect’s actions. Additionally, if a tactical plan requires the element of surprise to stabilize the situation, a warning is not required. Examples of this would be a hostage situation or a subject threatening suicide. However, officers are reminded that the surprise/tactical element must still be needed at the actual time the Baton is used.

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 112 of 145 Page ID #:405
Use of Force-Tactics Directive No. 8.2 Baton Page 3
The verbal warning should include a command and a warning of potential consequences of the use of force. The command should be similar to “drop the weapon” or “stop what you are doing” followed by a warning similar to “or we may use the Baton, and that may cause you injury.”
The use or non-use of the warning shall be documented. The Non-Categorical Use of Force Report, Form 01.67.05, Use of Force Summary heading shall include:
• The name of the officer giving the warning; and • An explanation and appropriate justification for not using the warning.
Statements that the “element of surprise was needed” or “for officer safety” reasons will not justify non-use of the warning. The explanation for non-use must:
• Clearly articulate why the element of surprise was needed; • Explain in detail any officer safety considerations; and, • List all pertinent reasons that justify why the warning was not provided.
The use of the warning, or the reasons for non-use of the warning will be factors considered in the determination whether the use of force was objectively reasonable.
Reporting the Use of a Baton
The use of a baton is a reportable use of force when the baton strikes the suspect. Supervisors shall photograph all visible and complained of injuries, even when evidence is not present.
In a crowd control situation, a use of force report is not required when officers become involved in an incident where reasonable force is used against individuals who exhibit unlawful or hostile behavior and who do not respond to verbal directions by the police. The baton may be used to push individuals who do not respond to verbal commands and encroach upon officers on a skirmish line or who intentionally delay departure while officers attempt to disperse the crowd, whether or not a lawful dispersal order has been issued. When an individual’s behavior is threatening or violent in nature, the baton can be used as an impact device.
This procedure will apply only to officers working in organized squad and platoon sized units directly involved in a crowd control mission. Additionally, should force be utilized under these circumstances, officers shall notify their immediate supervisor of the use of force once the tactical situation has been resolved. The supervisor shall report the actions in a format as directed by the incident commander.
Note: When an officer(s) becomes involved in an isolated incident with an individual during a crowd control situation, which goes beyond the mission of the skirmish line, a use of force report is required.

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 113 of 145 Page ID #:406
Use of Force-Tactics Directive No. 8.2 Baton Page 4

Target Areas

When used as an impact device, baton contact should be directed to the areas of the body that will temporarily incapacitate the combatant and avoid contact to the body parts that could be potentially lethal. The primary baton striking or target areas are the bony areas of the body. The secondary striking or target areas are the chest and midsection.

While the fluid nature of a violent confrontation may

cause some difficulty with regard to effectively striking

Primary Target Areas

the recommended areas, officers should still make an effort to avoid striking the head, neck, throat, spine, kidneys, and groin areas to decrease the likelihood of causing serious injury.

• Arms • Hands • Wrists • Elbows

Medical Treatment

• Legs • Knees

• Shins

Any suspect struck with a baton during a reportable use

of force shall be transported to a Department approved facility for medical treatment

prior to booking. If a medical emergency exists, officers shall request a rescue

ambulance to respond to the location.

DEFINITIONS
Collapsible Baton: An expandable impact and control device consisting of three sections.
Expandable Side Handle Baton: An expandable impact and control device with a Yawara handle.
Side Handle Baton: An impact and control device with a Yawara handle.
Straight Baton: An impact and control device used by Metropolitan Division in crowd control situations.

Important Reminder
Deviation from these basic concepts sometimes occurs due to the fluid and rapidly evolving nature of law enforcement encounters and the environment in which they occur. Deviations may range from minor, typically procedural or technical, to substantial deviations from Department tactical training. Any deviations are to be explained by the involved officer(s), and justification for substantial deviation from Department tactical training shall be articulated and must meet the objectively reasonable standard of the Department’s Use of Force Policy.

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 114 of 145 Page ID #:407

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 115 of 145 Page ID #:408
EXHIBIT 29

Keeping the workplace safe Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 116 of 145 Page ID #:409
Encourage your employees to…
PracticePrginot oRedsohuyrcgeiseWneeb Page: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/communication/print-resources.html
 Stop handshaking – use other noncontact methods of greeting  Clean hands at the door and schedule regular hand washing reminders by email  Create habits and reminders to avoid touching their faces and cover coughs and sneezes  Disinfect surfaces like doorknobs, tables, desks, and handrails regularly  Increase ventilation by opening windows or adjusting air conditioning
Be careful with meetings and travel
 Use videoconferencing for meetings when possible  When not possible, hold meetings in open, well-ventilated spaces  Consider adjusting or postponing large meetings or gatherings  Assess the risks of business travel
Handle food carefully
 Limit food sharing  Strengthen health screening for cafeteria staff and their close contacts  Ensure cafeteria staff and their close contacts practice strict hygiene
Stay home if…
 They are feeling sick  They have a sick family member in their home
What every American and community can do now to decrease the spread of the coronavirus

Keeping the school safe Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 117 of 145 Page ID #:410
Encourage your faculty, staff, and students to…
Practice good hygiene
 Stop handshaking – use other noncontact methods of greeting  Clean hands at the door and at regular intervals  Create habits and reminders to avoid touching their faces and cover coughs and sneezes  Disinfect surfaces like doorknobs, tables, desks, and handrails regularly  Increase ventilation by opening windows or adjusting air conditioning
Consider rearranging large activities and gatherings
 Consider adjusting or postponing gatherings that mix between classes and grades  Adjust after-school arrangements to avoid mixing between classes and grades  When possible, hold classes outdoors or in open, well-ventilated spaces
Handle food carefully
 Limit food sharing  Strengthen health screening for cafeteria staff and their close contacts  Ensure cafeteria staff and their close contacts practice strict hygiene
Stay home if…
 They are feeling sick  They have a sick family member in their home
What every American and community can do now to decrease the spread of the coronavirus

Keeping the home safe Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 118 of 145 Page ID #:411
Encourage your family members to…
All households
 Clean hands at the door and at regular intervals  Create habits and reminders to avoid touching their face and cover coughs and sneezes  Disinfect surfaces like doorknobs, tables, and handrails regularly  Increase ventilation by opening windows or adjusting air conditioning
Households with vulnerable seniors or those with significant underlying conditions
Significant underlying conditions include heart, lung, kidney disease; diabetes; and conditions that suppress the immune system  Have the healthy people in the household conduct themselves as if they were a significant risk to the
person with underlying conditions. For example, wash hands frequently before interacting with the person, such as by feeding or caring for the person  If possible, provide a protected space for vulnerable household members  Ensure all utensils and surfaces are cleaned regularly
Households with sick family members
 Give sick members their own room if possible, and keep the door closed  Have only one family member care for them  Consider providing additional protections or more intensive care for household members over 65
years old or with underlying conditions
What every American and community can do now to decrease the spread of the coronavirus

Keeping commercial establishments safe Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 119 of 145 Page ID #:412
Encourage your employees and customers to…
Practice good hygiene
 Stop handshaking – use other noncontact methods of greeting  Clean hands at the door, and schedule regular hand washing reminders by email  Promote tap and pay to limit handling of cash  Disinfect surfaces like doorknobs, tables, desks, and handrails regularly  Increase ventilation by opening windows or adjusting air conditioning
Avoid crowding
 Use booking and scheduling to stagger customer flow  Use online transactions where possible  Consider limiting attendance at larger gatherings
For transportation businesses, taxis, and ride shares
 Keep windows open when possible  Increase ventilation  Regularly disinfect surfaces
What every American and community can do now to decrease the spread of the coronavirus

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 120 of 145 Page ID #:413
EXHIBIT 30

Case 2:20-Ccva-s0e5032:270--CcBv-M03-A8S66-DJCocSumDeonctu1m5-e1nt 3F3iledF0ile6d/2046/2/108/2P0agePa1g2e1 1ofo1f435 Page ID #:414

1 WALTER RILEY, SBN 95919 LAW OFFICE OF WALTER RILEY
2 1407 Webster Street, Suite 206

3

Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 451-1422

4 Facsimile: (510) 451-0406 Email: walterriley@rrrandw.com
5

6

DAN SIEGEL, SBN 56400 ANNE BUTTERFIELD WEILLS, SBN 139845

7 JANE BRUNNER, SBN 135422 SONYA Z. MEHTA, SBN 294411
8 EMILYROSE JOHNS, SBN 294319

9

ANDREW CHAN KIM, SBN 315331 SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA

10 475 14th Street, Suite 500 Oakland, California 94612
11 Telephone: (510) 839-1200

12

Facsimile: (510) 444-6698 Email: danmsiegel@gmail.com;

13 abweills@gmail.com; janebrunner@hotmail.com;

14 sonyamehta@siegelyee.com;

15

emilyrose@siegelyee.com; chankim@siegelyee.com

JAMES DOUGLAS BURCH, SBN 293645 National Lawyers Guild 558 Capp Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 285-5067 x.104 Email: james_burch@nlgsf.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs ANTI POLICE-TERROR PROJECT, COMMUNITY READY CORPS, AKIL RILEY, IAN McDONNELL, NICO NADA, AZIZE NGO, and JENNIFER LI

16

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19 ANTI POLICE-TERROR PROJECT,

) Case No. 3:20-cv-03866-JCS

20

COMMUNITY READY CORPS, AKIL RILEY, IAN McDONNELL, NICO NADA,

) ) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

21 AZIZE NGO, and JENNIFER LI, on behalf ) TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

of themselves and similarly situated

) AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

22 individuals,

)

23

Plaintiffs,

) )

24 vs.

)

)

25 CITY OF OAKLAND, OPD Police Chief

)

SUSAN E. MANHEIMER, OPD Sergeant 26 PATRICK GONZALES, OPD Officer

) )

27

MAXWELL D’ORSO and OPD Officer CASEY FOUGHT,

) )

28 Defendants.

) )

APTP v. City of Oakland, No. 3:20-cv-03866-JCS Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause - 1

Case 2:20-Ccva-s0e5032:270--CcBv-M03-A8S66-DJCocSumDeonctu1m5-e1nt 3F3iledF0ile6d/2046/2/108/2P0agePa1g2e2 2ofo1f435 Page ID #:415

1

This matter came before the Court’s on June 18, 2020, at 1 p.m., on Plaintiffs’

2 Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause.

3

Based upon the agreement of the parties and good cause appearing,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pending further hearing and the Court’s Order, that

5 defendants City of Oakland, Police Chief Susan Manheimer, et al., and all persons acting on

6 their behalf and under their supervision are forbidden from:

7

1. Using tear gas or any other chemical weapons against persons taking part in a

8

protest or demonstration.

9

2. Firing rubber bullets or similar projectiles at persons taking part in a protest or

10

demonstration.

11

3. Firing flash bang grenades at persons taking part in a protest or demonstration.

12

4. The prohibitions of paragraphs 1 and 3 do not apply where, upon the decision of

13

the OPD Operations Commander or Incident Commander, it is determined that

14

the use of tear gas or any other chemical weapon or flash bang grenades is

15

reasonably necessary to protect the lives of people, protect people from serious

16

bodily injury, or to prevent the imminent destruction of property, tear gas or other

17

chemical weapons or flash bang grenades at Oakland City Hall, the OPD

18

Administration Building, or the OPD Eastmont Mall Substation to protect persons

19

or protect that property from destruction. Flash bang grenades may not be fired

20

directly at persons but must be fired only in a safe direction. To the fullest extent

21

possible, such use of tear gas or other chemical weapons and flash bang grenades

22

is allowed only after an audible warning of their use has been issued and after

23

sufficient time to comply has been granted.

24

5. In all actions in which the Oakland Police Department calls in police personnel

25

from other jurisdictions under mutual aid agreements, to the fullest extent

26

possible OPD personnel shall endeavor to assume front line positions between

27

mutual aid officers and demonstrators.

28

APTP v. City of Oakland, No. 3:20-cv-03866-JCS Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause - 2

Case 2:20-Ccva-s0e5032:270--CcBv-M03-A8S66-DJCocSumDeonctu1m5-e1nt 3F3iledF0ile6d/2046/2/108/2P0agePa1g2e3 3ofo1f435 Page ID #:416

1

This Order shall remain in effect until further Order of the Court. This matter shall be

2 heard by the Court on July 2, 2020, on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

3

4

SO STIPULATED.

5

6

SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA

WALTER RILEY

7

JAMES DOUGLAS BURCH

8

By: Dan Siegel_____________

9

Dan Siegel

10

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11

12

CITY OF OAKLAND

13

By: David A. Pereda_________

14

David A. Pereda

15

Attorneys for Defendants

16 IT IS SO ORDERED.
17

18 Dated: June 18, 2020
19
20

_____________________________ Hon. Joseph C. Spero UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

APTP v. City of Oakland, No. 3:20-cv-03866-JCS Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause - 3

 
 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 15-1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 124 of 145 Page ID #:417
EXHIBIT 31

6/24/2020

Case 2:20-cv-G0u5id0an2c7e-oCn BMaMna-gAemSent DofoCcoruonmaveirnustD1is5e-a1se 20F1i9le(CdOV0I6D-/1294) i/n2C0orrePctiaongael an1d2D5etoenftio1n4F5acilitPieas |gCeDCID #:418

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities
Printer friendly version 
PowerPoint Presentation: Managing COVID-19 in Correctional and Detention Facilities  [25 pages, 1 MB]
This interim guidance is based on what is currently known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as of the date of posting, March 23, 2020.
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will update this guidance as needed and as additional information becomes available. Please check the CDC website periodically for updated interim guidance.
This document provides interim guidance speci c for correctional facilities and detention centers during the outbreak of COVID-19, to ensure continuation of essential public services and protection of the health and safety of incarcerated and detained persons, sta , and visitors. Recommendations may need to be revised as more information becomes available.

Who is the intended audience for this guidance?
This document is intended to provide guiding principles for healthcare and non-healthcare administrators of correctional and detention facilities (including but not limited to federal and state prisons, local jails, and detention centers), law enforcement agencies that have custodial authority for detained populations (i.e., US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and US Marshals Service), and their respective health departments, to assist in preparing for potential introduction, spread, and mitigation of COVID-19 in their facilities. In general, the document uses terminology referring to correctional environments but can also be applied to civil and pre-trial detention settings.
This guidance will not necessarily address every possible custodial setting and may not use legal terminology speci c to individual agencies’ authorities or processes. The guidance may need to be adapted based on individual facilities’ physical space, sta ng, population, operations, and other resources and conditions. Facilities should contact CDC or their state, local, territorial, and/or tribal public health department if they need assistance in applying these principles or addressing topics that are not speci cally covered in this guidance.

Why is this guidance being issued?
Correctional and detention facilities can include custody, housing, education, recreation, healthcare, food service, and workplace components in a single physical setting. The integration of these components presents unique challenges for control of COVID-19 transmission among incarcerated/detained persons, sta , and visitors. Consistent application of speci c preparation, prevention, and management measures can help reduce the risk of transmission and severe disease from COVID-19.
Incarcerated/detained persons live, work, eat, study, and recreate within congregate environments, heightening the potential for COVID-19 to spread once introduced. In most cases, incarcerated/detained persons are not permitted to leave the facility. There are many opportunities for COVID-19 to be introduced into a correctional or detention facility, including daily sta ingress and egress; transfer of incarcerated/detained persons between facilities and systems, to court appearances, and to outside medical visits; and visits from family, legal representatives, and other community members. Some settings,

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html#ImplementSocialDistancing

1/21

6/24/2020

Case 2:20-cv-G0u5id0an2c7e-oCn BMaMna-gAemSent DofoCcoruonmaveirnustD1is5e-a1se 20F1i9le(CdOV0I6D-/1294) i/n2C0orrePctiaongael an1d2D6etoenftio1n4F5acilitPieas |gCeDCID #:419

particularly jails and detention centers, have high turnover, admitting new entrants daily who may have been exposed to COVID-19 in the surrounding community or other regions.

Persons incarcerated/detained in a particular facility often come from a variety of locations, increasing the potential to introduce COVID-19 from di erent geographic areas.

Options for medical isolation of COVID-19 cases are limited and vary depending on the type and size of facility, as well as the current level of available capacity, which is partly based on medical isolation needs for other conditions.
Adequate levels of custody and healthcare sta ng must be maintained to ensure safe operation of the facility, and options to practice social distancing through work alternatives such as working from home or reduced/alternate schedules are limited for many sta roles.

Correctional and detention facilities can be complex, multi-employer settings that include government and private employers. Each is organizationally distinct and responsible for its own operational, personnel, and occupational health protocols and may be prohibited from issuing guidance or providing services to other employers or their sta within the same setting. Similarly, correctional and detention facilities may house individuals from multiple law enforcement agencies or jurisdictions subject to di erent policies and procedures.

Incarcerated/detained persons and sta may have medical conditions that increase their risk of severe disease from COVID-19.

Because limited outside information is available to many incarcerated/detained persons, unease and misinformation regarding the potential for COVID-19 spread may be high, potentially creating security and morale challenges.

The ability of incarcerated/detained persons to exercise disease prevention measures (e.g., frequent handwashing) may be limited and is determined by the supplies provided in the facility and by security considerations. Many facilities restrict access to soap and paper towels and prohibit alcohol-based hand sanitizer and many disinfectants.
Incarcerated persons may hesitate to report symptoms of COVID-19 or seek medical care due to co-pay requirements and fear of isolation.

CDC has issued separate COVID-19 guidance addressing healthcare infection control and clinical care of COVID-19 cases as well as close contacts of cases in community-based settings. Where relevant, community-focused guidance documents are referenced in this document and should be monitored regularly for updates, but they may require adaptation for correctional and detention settings.

This guidance document provides additional recommended best practices speci cally for correctional and detention facilities. At this time, di erent facility types (e.g., prison vs. jail) and sizes are not di erentiated. Administrators and agencies should adapt these guiding principles to the speci c needs of their facility.

What topics does this guidance include?
The guidance below includes detailed recommendations on the following topics related to COVID-19 in correctional and detention settings:
Operational and communications preparations for COVID-19 Enhanced cleaning/disinfecting and hygiene practices Social distancing strategies to increase space between individuals in the facility How to limit transmission from visitors Infection control, including recommended personal protective equipment (PPE) and potential alternatives during PPE shortages Verbal screening and temperature check protocols for incoming incarcerated/detained individuals, sta , and visitors Medical isolation of con rmed and suspected cases and quarantine of contacts, including considerations for cohorting when individual spaces are limited Healthcare evaluation for suspected cases, including testing for COVID-19 Clinical care for con rmed and suspected cases Considerations for persons at higher risk of severe disease from COVID-19

De nitions of Commonly Used Terms

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html#ImplementSocialDistancing

2/21

6/24/2020

Case 2:20-cv-G0u5id0an2c7e-oCn BMaMna-gAemSent DofoCcoruonmaveirnustD1is5e-a1se 20F1i9le(CdOV0I6D-/1294) i/n2C0orrePctiaongael an1d2D7etoenftio1n4F5acilitPieas |gCeDCID #:420

Close contact of a COVID-19 case – In the context of COVID-19, an individual is considered a close contact if they a) have been within approximately 6 feet of a COVID-19 case for a prolonged period of time or b) have had direct contact with infectious secretions from a COVID-19 case (e.g., have been coughed on). Close contact can occur while caring for, living with, visiting, or sharing a common space with a COVID-19 case. Data to inform the de nition of close contact are limited. Considerations when assessing close contact include the duration of exposure (e.g., longer exposure time likely increases exposure risk) and the clinical symptoms of the person with COVID-19 (e.g., coughing likely increases exposure risk, as does exposure to a severely ill patient).

Cohorting – Cohorting refers to the practice of isolating multiple laboratory-con rmed COVID-19 cases together as a group, or quarantining close contacts of a particular case together as a group. Ideally, cases should be isolated individually, and close contacts should be quarantined individually. However, some correctional facilities and detention centers do not have enough individual cells to do so and must consider cohorting as an alternative. See Quarantine and Medical Isolation sections below for speci c details about ways to implement cohorting to minimize the risk of disease spread and adverse health outcomes.

Community transmission of COVID-19 – Community transmission of COVID-19 occurs when individuals acquire the disease through contact with someone in their local community, rather than through travel to an a ected location. Once community transmission is identi ed in a particular area, correctional facilities and detention centers are more likely to start seeing cases inside their walls. Facilities should consult with local public health departments if assistance is needed in determining how to de ne “local community” in the context of COVID-19 spread. However, because all states have reported cases, all facilities should be vigilant for introduction into their populations.

Con rmed vs. Suspected COVID-19 case – A con rmed case has received a positive result from a COVID-19 laboratory test, with or without symptoms. A suspected case shows symptoms of COVID-19 but either has not been tested or is awaiting test results. If test results are positive, a suspected case becomes a con rmed case.

Incarcerated/detained persons – For the purpose of this document, “incarcerated/detained persons” refers to persons held in a prison, jail, detention center, or other custodial setting where these guidelines are generally applicable. The term includes those who have been sentenced (i.e., in prisons) as well as those held for pre-trial (i.e., jails) or civil purposes (i.e, detention centers). Although this guidance does not speci cally reference individuals in every type of custodial setting (e.g., juvenile facilities, community con nement facilities), facility administrators can adapt this guidance to apply to their speci c circumstances as needed.

Medical Isolation – Medical isolation refers to con ning a con rmed or suspected COVID-19 case (ideally to a single cell with solid walls and a solid door that closes), to prevent contact with others and to reduce the risk of transmission. Medical isolation ends when the individual meets pre-established clinical and/or testing criteria for release from isolation, in consultation with clinical providers and public health o cials (detailed in guidance below). In this context, isolation does NOT refer to punitive isolation for behavioral infractions within the custodial setting. Sta are encouraged to use the term “medical isolation” to avoid confusion.

Quarantine – Quarantine refers to the practice of con ning individuals who have had close contact with a COVID-19 case to determine whether they develop symptoms of the disease. Quarantine for COVID-19 should last for a period of 14 days. Ideally, each quarantined individual would be quarantined in a single cell with solid walls and a solid door that closes. If symptoms develop during the 14-day period, the individual should be placed under medical isolation and evaluated for COVID-19. If symptoms do not develop, movement restrictions can be lifted, and the individual can return to their previous residency status within the facility.

Social Distancing – Social distancing is the practice of increasing the space between individuals and decreasing the frequency of contact to reduce the risk of spreading a disease (ideally to maintain at least 6 feet between all individuals, even those who are asymptomatic). Social distancing strategies can be applied on an individual level (e.g., avoiding physical contact), a group level (e.g., canceling group activities where individuals will be in close contact), and an operational level (e.g., rearranging chairs in the dining hall to increase distance between them). Although social distancing is challenging to practice in correctional and detention environments, it is a cornerstone of reducing transmission of respiratory diseases such as COVID19. Additional information about social distancing, including information on its use to reduce the spread of other viral illnesses, is available in this CDC publication  .

Sta – In this document, “sta ” refers to all public sector employees as well as those working for a private contractor within a correctional facility (e.g., private healthcare or food service). Except where noted, “sta ” does not distinguish between healthcare, custody, and other types of sta including private facility operators.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html#ImplementSocialDistancing

3/21

6/24/2020

Case 2:20-cv-G0u5id0an2c7e-oCn BMaMna-gAemSent DofoCcoruonmaveirnustD1is5e-a1se 20F1i9le(CdOV0I6D-/1294) i/n2C0orrePctiaongael an1d2D8etoenftio1n4F5acilitPieas |gCeDCID #:421

Symptoms – Symptoms of COVID-19 include fever, cough, and shortness of breath. Like other respiratory infections, COVID-19 can vary in severity from mild to severe. When severe, pneumonia, respiratory failure, and death are possible. COVID-19 is a novel disease, therefore the full range of signs and symptoms, the clinical course of the disease, and the individuals and populations most at risk for disease and complications are not yet fully understood. Monitor the CDC website for updates on these topics.

Facilities with Limited Onsite Healthcare Services
Although many large facilities such as prisons and some jails usually employ onsite healthcare sta and have the capacity to evaluate incarcerated/detained persons for potential illness within a dedicated healthcare space, many smaller facilities do not. Some of these facilities have access to on-call healthcare sta or providers who visit the facility every few days. Others have neither onsite healthcare capacity nor onsite medical isolation/quarantine space and must transfer ill patients to other correctional or detention facilities or local hospitals for evaluation and care.
The majority of the guidance below is designed to be applied to any correctional or detention facility, either as written or with modi cations based on a facility’s individual structure and resources. However, topics related to healthcare evaluation and clinical care of con rmed and suspected COVID-19 cases and their close contacts may not apply directly to facilities with limited or no onsite healthcare services. It will be especially important for these types of facilities to coordinate closely with their state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health department when they encounter con rmed or suspected cases among incarcerated/detained persons or sta , in order to ensure e ective medical isolation and quarantine, necessary medical evaluation and care, and medical transfer if needed. The guidance makes note of strategies tailored to facilities without onsite healthcare where possible.
Note that all sta in any sized facility, regardless of the presence of onsite healthcare services, should observe guidance on recommended PPE in order to ensure their own safety when interacting with con rmed and suspected COVID-19 cases. Facilities should make contingency plans for the likely event of PPE shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic.
COVID-19 Guidance for Correctional Facilities
Guidance for correctional and detention facilities is organized into 3 sections: Operational Preparedness, Prevention, and Management of COVID-19. Recommendations across these sections can be applied simultaneously based on the progress of the outbreak in a particular facility and the surrounding community.
Operational Preparedness. This guidance is intended to help facilities prepare for potential COVID-19 transmission in the facility. Strategies focus on operational and communications planning and personnel practices. Prevention. This guidance is intended to help facilities prevent spread of COVID-19 from outside the facility to inside. Strategies focus on reinforcing hygiene practices, intensifying cleaning and disinfection of the facility, screening (new intakes, visitors, and sta ), continued communication with incarcerated/detained persons and sta , and social distancing measures (increasing distance between individuals). Management. This guidance is intended to help facilities clinically manage con rmed and suspected COVID-19 cases inside the facility and prevent further transmission. Strategies include medical isolation and care of incarcerated/detained persons with symptoms (including considerations for cohorting), quarantine of cases’ close contacts, restricting movement in and out of the facility, infection control practices for individuals interacting with cases and quarantined contacts or contaminated items, intensi ed social distancing, and cleaning and disinfecting areas visited by cases.

Operational Preparedness
Administrators can plan and prepare for COVID-19 by ensuring that all persons in the facility know the symptoms of COVID19 and how to respond if they develop symptoms. Other essential actions include developing contingency plans for reduced workforces due to absences, coordinating with public health and correctional partners, and communicating clearly with sta and incarcerated/detained persons about these preparations and how they may temporarily alter daily life.

Communication & Coordination
Develop information-sharing systems with partners.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html#ImplementSocialDistancing

4/21

6/24/2020

Case 2:20-cv-G0u5id0an2c7e-oCn BMaMna-gAemSent DofoCcoruonmaveirnustD1is5e-a1se 20F1i9le(CdOV0I6D-/1294) i/n2C0orrePctiaongael an1d2D9etoenftio1n4F5acilitPieas |gCeDCID #:422

Identify points of contact in relevant state, local, tribal, and/or territorial public health departments before cases develop. Actively engage with the health department to understand in advance which entity has jurisdiction to implement public health control measures for COVID-19 in a particular correctional or detention facility.

Create and test communications plans to disseminate critical information to incarcerated/detained persons, sta , contractors, vendors, and visitors as the pandemic progresses.

Communicate with other correctional facilities in the same geographic area to share information including disease surveillance and absenteeism patterns among sta .
Where possible, put plans in place with other jurisdictions to prevent con rmed and suspected COVID-19 cases and their close contacts from being transferred between jurisdictions and facilities unless necessary for medical evaluation, medical isolation/quarantine, clinical care, extenuating security concerns, or to prevent overcrowding.

Stay informed about updates to CDC guidance via the CDC COVID-19 website as more information becomes known.

Review existing pandemic u, all-hazards, and disaster plans, and revise for COVID-19. Ensure that physical locations (dedicated housing areas and bathrooms) have been identi ed to isolate con rmed COVID-19 cases and individuals displaying COVID-19 symptoms, and to quarantine known close contacts of cases. (Medical isolation and quarantine locations should be separate). The plan should include contingencies for multiple locations if numerous cases and/or contacts are identi ed and require medical isolation or quarantine simultaneously. See Medical Isolation and Quarantine sections below for details regarding individual medical isolation and quarantine locations (preferred) vs. cohorting.

Facilities without onsite healthcare capacity should make a plan for how they will ensure that suspected COVID-19 cases will be isolated, evaluated, tested (if indicated), and provided necessary medical care.

Make a list of possible social distancing strategies that could be implemented as needed at di erent stages of transmission intensity.
Designate o cials who will be authorized to make decisions about escalating or de-escalating response e orts as the epidemiologic context changes.

Coordinate with local law enforcement and court o cials. Identify lawful alternatives to in-person court appearances, such as virtual court, as a social distancing measure to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission.
Explore strategies to prevent over-crowding of correctional and detention facilities during a community outbreak.
Post signage throughout the facility communicating the following: For all: symptoms of COVID-19 and hand hygiene instructions
For incarcerated/detained persons: report symptoms to sta
For sta : stay at home when sick; if symptoms develop while on duty, leave the facility as soon as possible and follow CDC-recommended steps for persons who are ill with COVID-19 symptoms including self-isolating at home, contacting their healthcare provider as soon as possible to determine whether they need to be evaluated and tested, and contacting their supervisor.
Ensure that signage is understandable for non-English speaking persons and those with low literacy, and make necessary accommodations for those with cognitive or intellectual disabilities and those who are deaf, blind, or lowvision.

Personnel Practices
Review the sick leave policies of each employer that operates in the facility. Review policies to ensure that they actively encourage sta to stay home when sick. If these policies do not encourage sta to stay home when sick, discuss with the contract company. Determine which o cials will have the authority to send symptomatic sta home.
Identify sta whose duties would allow them to work from home. Where possible, allowing sta to work from home can be an e ective social distancing strategy to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission.
Discuss work from home options with these sta and determine whether they have the supplies and technological equipment required to do so. Put systems in place to implement work from home programs (e.g., time tracking, etc.).

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html#ImplementSocialDistancing

5/21

6/24/2020

Case 2:20-cv-G0u5id0an2c7e-oCn BMaMna-gAemSent DofoCcoruonmaveirnustD1is5e-a1se 20F1i9le(CdOV0I6D-/1294) i/n2C0orrePctiaongael an1d3D0etoenftio1n4F5acilitPieas |gCeDCID #:423

Plan for sta absences. Sta should stay home when they are sick, or they may need to stay home to care for a sick household member or care for children in the event of school and childcare dismissals.
Allow sta to work from home when possible, within the scope of their duties.

Identify critical job functions and plan for alternative coverage by cross-training sta where possible.

Determine minimum levels of sta in all categories required for the facility to function safely. If possible, develop a plan to secure additional sta if absenteeism due to COVID-19 threatens to bring sta ng to minimum levels.
Consider increasing keep on person (KOP) medication orders to cover 30 days in case of healthcare sta shortages.

Consider o ering revised duties to sta who are at higher risk of severe illness with COVID-19. Persons at higher risk may include older adults and persons of any age with serious underlying medical conditions including lung disease, heart disease, and diabetes. See CDC’s website for a complete list, and check regularly for updates as more data become available to inform this issue.
Facility administrators should consult with their occupational health providers to determine whether it would be allowable to reassign duties for speci c sta members to reduce their likelihood of exposure to COVID-19.
O er the seasonal in uenza vaccine to all incarcerated/detained persons (existing population and new intakes) and sta throughout the in uenza season. Symptoms of COVID-19 are similar to those of in uenza. Preventing in uenza cases in a facility can speed the detection of COVID-19 cases and reduce pressure on healthcare resources.

Reference the Occupational Safety and Health Administration website  for recommendations regarding worker health.

Review CDC’s guidance for businesses and employers to identify any additional strategies the facility can use within its role as an employer.

Operations & Supplies
Ensure that su cient stocks of hygiene supplies, cleaning supplies, PPE, and medical supplies (consistent with the healthcare capabilities of the facility) are on hand and available, and have a plan in place to restock as needed if COVID19 transmission occurs within the facility.
Standard medical supplies for daily clinic needs Tissues Liquid soap when possible. If bar soap must be used, ensure that it does not irritate the skin and thereby discourage frequent hand washing. Hand drying supplies Alcohol-based hand sanitizer containing at least 60% alcohol (where permissible based on security restrictions) Cleaning supplies, including EPA-registered disinfectants e ective against the virus that causes COVID-19  Recommended PPE (facemasks, N95 respirators, eye protection, disposable medical gloves, and disposable gowns/one-piece coveralls). See PPE section and Table 1 for more detailed information, including recommendations for extending the life of all PPE categories in the event of shortages, and when face masks are acceptable alternatives to N95s. Visit CDC’s website for a calculator to help determine rate of PPE usage. Sterile viral transport media and sterile swabs to collect respiratory specimens if COVID-19 testing is indicated
Make contingency plans for the probable event of PPE shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for nonhealthcare workers.
See CDC guidance optimizing PPE supplies.
Consider relaxing restrictions on allowing alcohol-based hand sanitizer in the secure setting where security concerns allow. If soap and water are not available, CDC recommends cleaning hands with an alcohol-based hand sanitizer that contains at least 60% alcohol. Consider allowing sta to carry individual-sized bottles for their personal hand hygiene while on duty. Provide a no-cost supply of soap to incarcerated/detained persons, su cient to allow frequent hand washing. (See Hygiene section below for additional detail regarding recommended frequency and protocol for hand washing.)
Provide liquid soap where possible. If bar soap must be used, ensure that it does not irritate the skin and thereby discourage frequent hand washing.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html#ImplementSocialDistancing

6/21

6/24/2020

Case 2:20-cv-G0u5id0an2c7e-oCn BMaMna-gAemSent DofoCcoruonmaveirnustD1is5e-a1se 20F1i9le(CdOV0I6D-/1294) i/n2C0orrePctiaongael an1d3D1etoenftio1n4F5acilitPieas |gCeDCID #:424

If not already in place, employers operating within the facility should establish a respiratory protection program as appropriate, to ensure that sta and incarcerated/detained persons are t tested for any respiratory protection they will need within the scope of their responsibilities.
Ensure that sta and incarcerated/detained persons are trained to correctly don, do , and dispose of PPE that they will need to use within the scope of their responsibilities. See Table 1 for recommended PPE for incarcerated/detained persons and sta with varying levels of contact with COVID-19 cases or their close contacts.

Prevention
Cases of COVID-19 have been documented in all 50 US states. Correctional and detention facilities can prevent introduction of COVID-19 from the community and reduce transmission if it is already inside by reinforcing good hygiene practices among incarcerated/detained persons, sta , and visitors (including increasing access to soap and paper towels), intensifying cleaning/disinfection practices, and implementing social distancing strategies.
Because many individuals infected with COVID-19 do not display symptoms, the virus could be present in facilities before cases are identi ed. Both good hygiene practices and social distancing are critical in preventing further transmission.

Operations
Stay in communication with partners about your facility’s current situation. State, local, territorial, and/or tribal health departments Other correctional facilities
Communicate with the public about any changes to facility operations, including visitation programs. Restrict transfers of incarcerated/detained persons to and from other jurisdictions and facilities unless necessary for medical evaluation, medical isolation/quarantine, clinical care, extenuating security concerns, or to prevent overcrowding.
Strongly consider postponing non-urgent outside medical visits. If a transfer is absolutely necessary, perform verbal screening and a temperature check as outlined in the Screening section below, before the individual leaves the facility. If an individual does not clear the screening process, delay the transfer and follow the protocol for a suspected COVID-19 case – including putting a face mask on the individual, immediately placing them under medical isolation, and evaluating them for possible COVID-19 testing. If the transfer must still occur, ensure that the receiving facility has capacity to properly isolate the individual upon arrival. Ensure that sta transporting the individual wear recommended PPE (see Table 1) and that the transport vehicle is cleaned thoroughly after transport.
Implement lawful alternatives to in-person court appearances where permissible. Where relevant, consider suspending co-pays for incarcerated/detained persons seeking medical evaluation for respiratory symptoms. Limit the number of operational entrances and exits to the facility.

Cleaning and Disinfecting Practices

Even if COVID-19 cases have not yet been identi ed inside the facility or in the surrounding community, begin implementing intensi ed cleaning and disinfecting procedures according to the recommendations below. These measures may prevent spread of COVID-19 if introduced.

Adhere to CDC recommendations for cleaning and disinfection during the COVID-19 response. Monitor these recommendations for updates.
Several times per day, clean and disinfect surfaces and objects that are frequently touched, especially in common areas. Such surfaces may include objects/surfaces not ordinarily cleaned daily (e.g., doorknobs, light switches, sink handles, countertops, toilets, toilet handles, recreation equipment, kiosks, and telephones).

Sta should clean shared equipment several times per day and on a conclusion of use basis (e.g., radios, service weapons, keys, handcu s).

Use household cleaners and EPA-registered disinfectants e ective against the virus that causes COVID-19  as appropriate for the surface, following label instructions. This may require lifting restrictions on undiluted disinfectants.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html#ImplementSocialDistancing

7/21

6/24/2020

Case 2:20-cv-G0u5id0an2c7e-oCn BMaMna-gAemSent DofoCcoruonmaveirnustD1is5e-a1se 20F1i9le(CdOV0I6D-/1294) i/n2C0orrePctiaongael an1d3D2etoenftio1n4F5acilitPieas |gCeDCID #:425

Labels contain instructions for safe and e ective use of the cleaning product, including precautions that should be taken when applying the product, such as wearing gloves and making sure there is good ventilation during use.
Consider increasing the number of sta and/or incarcerated/detained persons trained and responsible for cleaning common areas to ensure continual cleaning of these areas throughout the day.
Ensure adequate supplies to support intensi ed cleaning and disinfection practices, and have a plan in place to restock rapidly if needed.

Hygiene
Reinforce healthy hygiene practices, and provide and continually restock hygiene supplies throughout the facility, including in bathrooms, food preparation and dining areas, intake areas, visitor entries and exits, visitation rooms and waiting rooms, common areas, medical, and sta -restricted areas (e.g., break rooms).
Encourage all persons in the facility to take the following actions to protect themselves and others from COVID-19. Post signage throughout the facility, and communicate this information verbally on a regular basis. Sample signage and other communications materials are available on the CDC website. Ensure that materials can be understood by non-English speakers and those with low literacy, and make necessary accommodations for those with cognitive or intellectual disabilities and those who are deaf, blind, or low-vision.
Practice good cough etiquette: Cover your mouth and nose with your elbow (or ideally with a tissue) rather than with your hand when you cough or sneeze, and throw all tissues in the trash immediately after use.
Practice good hand hygiene: Regularly wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds, especially after coughing, sneezing, or blowing your nose; after using the bathroom; before eating or preparing food; before taking medication; and after touching garbage.
Avoid touching your eyes, nose, or mouth without cleaning your hands rst.
Avoid sharing eating utensils, dishes, and cups. Avoid non-essential physical contact.
Provide incarcerated/detained persons and sta no-cost access to: Soap – Provide liquid soap where possible. If bar soap must be used, ensure that it does not irritate the skin, as this would discourage frequent hand washing.
Running water, and hand drying machines or disposable paper towels for hand washing Tissues and no-touch trash receptacles for disposal
Provide alcohol-based hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol where permissible based on security restrictions. Consider allowing sta to carry individual-sized bottles to maintain hand hygiene.
Communicate that sharing drugs and drug preparation equipment can spread COVID-19 due to potential contamination of shared items and close contact between individuals.

Prevention Practices for Incarcerated/Detained Persons

Perform pre-intake screening and temperature checks for all new entrants. Screening should take place in the sallyport, before beginning the intake process, in order to identify and immediately place individuals with symptoms under medical isolation. See Screening section below for the wording of screening questions and a recommended procedure to safely perform a temperature check. Sta performing temperature checks should wear recommended PPE (see PPE section below).
If an individual has symptoms of COVID-19 (fever, cough, shortness of breath): Require the individual to wear a face mask.
Ensure that sta who have direct contact with the symptomatic individual wear recommended PPE.
Place the individual under medical isolation (ideally in a room near the screening location, rather than transporting the ill individual through the facility), and refer to healthcare sta for further evaluation. (See Infection Control and Clinical Care sections below.)
Facilities without onsite healthcare sta should contact their state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health department to coordinate e ective medical isolation and necessary medical care.
If an individual is a close contact of a known COVID-19 case (but has no COVID-19 symptoms): Quarantine the individual and monitor for symptoms two times per day for 14 days. (See Quarantine section below.)

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html#ImplementSocialDistancing

8/21

6/24/2020

Case 2:20-cv-G0u5id0an2c7e-oCn BMaMna-gAemSent DofoCcoruonmaveirnustD1is5e-a1se 20F1i9le(CdOV0I6D-/1294) i/n2C0orrePctiaongael an1d3D3etoenftio1n4F5acilitPieas |gCeDCID #:426

Facilities without onsite healthcare sta should contact their state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health department to coordinate e ective quarantine and necessary medical care.

Implement social distancing strategies to increase the physical space between incarcerated/detained persons (ideally 6 feet between all individuals, regardless of the presence of symptoms). Strategies will need to be tailored to the individual space in the facility and the needs of the population and sta . Not all strategies will be feasible in all facilities. Example strategies with varying levels of intensity include:
Common areas: Enforce increased space between individuals in holding cells, as well as in lines and waiting areas such as intake (e.g., remove every other chair in a waiting area)

Recreation: Choose recreation spaces where individuals can spread out
Stagger time in recreation spaces

Restrict recreation space usage to a single housing unit per space (where feasible)

Meals: Stagger meals

Rearrange seating in the dining hall so that there is more space between individuals (e.g., remove every other chair and use only one side of the table)

Provide meals inside housing units or cells
Group activities: Limit the size of group activities

Increase space between individuals during group activities

Suspend group programs where participants are likely to be in closer contact than they are in their housing environment

Consider alternatives to existing group activities, in outdoor areas or other areas where individuals can spread out

Housing: If space allows, reassign bunks to provide more space between individuals, ideally 6 feet or more in all directions. (Ensure that bunks are cleaned thoroughly if assigned to a new occupant.)
Arrange bunks so that individuals sleep head to foot to increase the distance between them

Rearrange scheduled movements to minimize mixing of individuals from di erent housing areas

Medical: If possible, designate a room near each housing unit to evaluate individuals with COVID-19 symptoms, rather than having them walk through the facility to be evaluated in the medical unit. If this is not feasible, consider staggering sick call.

Designate a room near the intake area to evaluate new entrants who are agged by the intake screening process for COVID-19 symptoms or case contact, before they move to other parts of the facility.

Communicate clearly and frequently with incarcerated/detained persons about changes to their daily routine and how they can contribute to risk reduction.

Note that if group activities are discontinued, it will be important to identify alternative forms of activity to support the mental health of incarcerated/detained persons.

Consider suspending work release programs and other programs that involve movement of incarcerated/detained individuals in and out of the facility. Provide up-to-date information about COVID-19 to incarcerated/detained persons on a regular basis, including:
Symptoms of COVID-19 and its health risks
Reminders to report COVID-19 symptoms to sta at the rst sign of illness
Consider having healthcare sta perform rounds on a regular basis to answer questions about COVID-19.

Prevention Practices for Sta

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html#ImplementSocialDistancing

9/21

6/24/2020

Case 2:20-cv-G0u5id0an2c7e-oCn BMaMna-gAemSent DofoCcoruonmaveirnustD1is5e-a1se 20F1i9le(CdOV0I6D-/1294) i/n2C0orrePctiaongael an1d3D4etoenftio1n4F5acilitPieas |gCeDCID #:427

Remind sta to stay at home if they are sick. Ensure that sta are aware that they will not be able to enter the facility if they have symptoms of COVID-19, and that they will be expected to leave the facility as soon as possible if they develop symptoms while on duty.

Perform verbal screening (for COVID-19 symptoms and close contact with cases) and temperature checks for all sta daily on entry. See Screening section below for wording of screening questions and a recommended procedure to safely perform temperature checks.
In very small facilities with only a few sta , consider self-monitoring or virtual monitoring (e.g., reporting to a central authority via phone).

Send sta home who do not clear the screening process, and advise them to follow CDC-recommended steps for persons who are ill with COVID-19 symptoms.

Provide sta with up-to-date information about COVID-19 and about facility policies on a regular basis, including: Symptoms of COVID-19 and its health risks
Employers’ sick leave policy
If sta develop a fever, cough, or shortness of breath while at work: immediately put on a face mask, inform supervisor, leave the facility, and follow CDC-recommended steps for persons who are ill with COVID-19 symptoms.
If sta test positive for COVID-19: inform workplace and personal contacts immediately, and do not return to work until a decision to discontinue home medical isolation precautions is made. Monitor CDC guidance on discontinuing home isolation regularly as circumstances evolve rapidly.
If a sta member is identi ed as a close contact of a COVID-19 case (either within the facility or in the community): self-quarantine at home for 14 days and return to work if symptoms do not develop. If symptoms do develop, follow CDC-recommended steps for persons who are ill with COVID-19 symptoms.
If a sta member has a con rmed COVID-19 infection, the relevant employers should inform other sta about their possible exposure to COVID-19 in the workplace, but should maintain con dentiality as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Employees who are close contacts of the case should then self-monitor for symptoms (i.e., fever, cough, or shortness of breath).
When feasible and consistent with security priorities, encourage sta to maintain a distance of 6 feet or more from an individual with respiratory symptoms while interviewing, escorting, or interacting in other ways.
Ask sta to keep interactions with individuals with respiratory symptoms as brief as possible.

Prevention Practices for Visitors

If possible, communicate with potential visitors to discourage contact visits in the interest of their own health and the health of their family members and friends inside the facility.

Perform verbal screening (for COVID-19 symptoms and close contact with cases) and temperature checks for all visitors and volunteers on entry. See Screening section below for wording of screening questions and a recommended procedure to safely perform temperature checks.
Sta performing temperature checks should wear recommended PPE.

Exclude visitors and volunteers who do not clear the screening process or who decline screening.

Provide alcohol-based hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol in visitor entrances, exits, and waiting areas.

Provide visitors and volunteers with information to prepare them for screening. Instruct visitors to postpone their visit if they have symptoms of respiratory illness.

If possible, inform potential visitors and volunteers before they travel to the facility that they should expect to be screened for COVID-19 (including a temperature check), and will be unable to enter the facility if they do not clear the screening process or if they decline screening.

Display signage outside visiting areas explaining the COVID-19 screening and temperature check process. Ensure that materials are understandable for non-English speakers and those with low literacy.

Promote non-contact visits: Encourage incarcerated/detained persons to limit contact visits in the interest of their own health and the health of their visitors.

Consider reducing or temporarily eliminating the cost of phone calls for incarcerated/detained persons.

Consider increasing incarcerated/detained persons’ telephone privileges to promote mental health and reduce exposure from direct contact with community visitors.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html#ImplementSocialDistancing

10/21

 
 6/24/2020

Case 2:20-cv-G0u5id0an2c7e-oCn BMaMna-gAemSent DofoCcoruonmaveirnustD1is5e-a1se 20F1i9le(CdOV0I6D-/1294) i/n2C0orrePctiaongael an1d3D5etoenftio1n4F5acilitPieas |gCeDCID e posu e o d ect co tact t co u ty s to#:4s2. 8

Consider suspending or modifying visitation programs, if legally permissible. For example, provide access to virtual visitation options where available.
If moving to virtual visitation, clean electronic surfaces regularly. (See Cleaning guidance below for instructions on cleaning electronic surfaces.)

Inform potential visitors of changes to, or suspension of, visitation programs.

Clearly communicate any visitation program changes to incarcerated/detained persons, along with the reasons for them (including protecting their health and their family and community members’ health).
If suspending contact visits, provide alternate means (e.g., phone or video visitation) for incarcerated/detained individuals to engage with legal representatives, clergy, and other individuals with whom they have legal right to consult.

NOTE: Suspending visitation would be done in the interest of incarcerated/detained persons’ physical health and the health of the general public. However, visitation is important to maintain mental health. If visitation is suspended, facilities should explore alternative ways for incarcerated/detained persons to communicate with their families, friends, and other visitors in a way that is not nancially burdensome for them. See above suggestions for promoting non-contact visits.

Restrict non-essential vendors, volunteers, and tours from entering the facility.

Management
If there has been a suspected COVID-19 case inside the facility (among incarcerated/detained persons, sta , or visitors who have recently been inside), begin implementing Management strategies while test results are pending. Essential Management strategies include placing cases and individuals with symptoms under medical isolation, quarantining their close contacts, and facilitating necessary medical care, while observing relevant infection control and environmental disinfection protocols and wearing recommended PPE.

Operations

Implement alternate work arrangements deemed feasible in the Operational Preparedness

Suspend all transfers of incarcerated/detained persons to and from other jurisdictions and facilities (including work release where relevant), unless necessary for medical evaluation, medical isolation/quarantine, care, extenuating security concerns, or to prevent overcrowding.
If a transfer is absolutely necessary, perform verbal screening and a temperature check as outlined in the Screening section below, before the individual leaves the facility. If an individual does not clear the screening process, delay the transfer and follow the protocol for a suspected COVID-19 case – including putting a face mask on the individual, immediately placing them under medical isolation, and evaluating them for possible COVID-19 testing. If the transfer must still occur, ensure that the receiving facility has capacity to appropriately isolate the individual upon arrival. Ensure that sta transporting the individual wear recommended PPE (see Table 1) and that the transport vehicle is cleaned thoroughly after transport.

If possible, consider quarantining all new intakes for 14 days before they enter the facility’s general population (SEPARATELY from other individuals who are quarantined due to contact with a COVID-19 case). Subsequently in this document, this practice is referred to as routine intake quarantine.

When possible, arrange lawful alternatives to in-person court appearances.

Incorporate screening for COVID-19 symptoms and a temperature check into release planning. Screen all releasing individuals for COVID-19 symptoms and perform a temperature check. (See Screening section below.) If an individual does not clear the screening process, follow the protocol for a suspected COVID-19 case – including putting a face mask on the individual, immediately placing them under medical isolation, and evaluating them for possible COVID-19 testing.

If the individual is released before the recommended medical isolation period is complete, discuss release of the individual with state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health departments to ensure safe medical transport and continued shelter and medical care, as part of release planning. Make direct linkages to community resources to ensure proper medical isolation and access to medical care.

Before releasing an incarcerated/detained individual with COVID-19 symptoms to a community-based facility,

such as a homeless shelter, contact the facility’s sta to ensure adequate time for them to prepare to continue

medical isolation or contact local public health to explore alternate housing options
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html#ImplementSocialDistancing

11/21

6/24/2020

Case 2:20-cv-G0u5id0an2c7e-oCn BMaMna-gAemSent DofoCcoruonmaveirnustD1is5e-a1se 20F1i9le(CdOV0I6D-/1294) i/n2C0orrePctiaongael an1d3D6etoenftio1n4F5acilitPieas |gCeDCID medical isolation, or contact local public health#:4to29explore alternate housing options.
Coordinate with state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health departments.  When a COVID-19 case is suspected, work with public health to determine action. See Medical Isolation section below.

When a COVID-19 case is suspected or con rmed, work with public health to identify close contacts who should be placed under quarantine. See Quarantine section below.

Facilities with limited onsite medical isolation, quarantine, and/or healthcare services should coordinate closely with state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health departments when they encounter a con rmed or suspected case, in order to ensure e ective medical isolation or quarantine, necessary medical evaluation and care, and medical transfer if needed. See Facilities with Limited Onsite Healthcare Services section.

Hygiene
Continue to ensure that hand hygiene supplies are well-stocked in all areas of the facility. (See above.) Continue to emphasize practicing good hand hygiene and cough etiquette. (See above.)

Cleaning and Disinfecting Practices
Continue adhering to recommended cleaning and disinfection procedures for the facility at large. (See above.) Reference speci c cleaning and disinfection procedures for areas where a COVID-19 case has spent time (below).

Medical Isolation of Con rmed or Suspected COVID-19 Cases
NOTE: Some recommendations below apply primarily to facilities with onsite healthcare capacity. Facilities without onsite healthcare capacity, or without su cient space to implement e ective medical isolation, should coordinate with local public health o cials to ensure that COVID-19 cases will be appropriately isolated, evaluated, tested (if indicated), and given care.
As soon as an individual develops symptoms of COVID-19, they should wear a face mask (if it does not restrict breathing) and should be immediately placed under medical isolation in a separate environment from other individuals.
Keep the individual’s movement outside the medical isolation space to an absolute minimum. Provide medical care to cases inside the medical isolation space. See Infection Control and Clinical Care sections for additional details.
Serve meals to cases inside the medical isolation space. Exclude the individual from all group activities.
Assign the isolated individual a dedicated bathroom when possible.
Ensure that the individual is wearing a face mask at all times when outside of the medical isolation space, and whenever another individual enters. Provide clean masks as needed. Masks should be changed at least daily, and when visibly soiled or wet.
Facilities should make every possible e ort to place suspected and con rmed COVID-19 cases under medical isolation individually. Each isolated individual should be assigned their own housing space and bathroom where possible. Cohorting should only be practiced if there are no other available options.
If cohorting is necessary: Only individuals who are laboratory con rmed COVID-19 cases should be placed under medical isolation as a cohort. Do not cohort con rmed cases with suspected cases or case contacts.
Unless no other options exist, do not house COVID-19 cases with individuals who have an undiagnosed respiratory infection. Ensure that cohorted cases wear face masks at all times.
In order of preference, individuals under medical isolation should be housed: Separately, in single cells with solid walls (i.e., not bars) and solid doors that close fully
Separately, in single cells with solid walls but without solid doors
As a cohort, in a large, well-ventilated cell with solid walls and a solid door that closes fully. Employ social distancing strategies related to housing in the Prevention section above.
As a cohort, in a large, well-ventilated cell with solid walls but without a solid door. Employ social distancing strategies related to housing in the Prevention section above.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html#ImplementSocialDistancing

12/21

6/24/2020

Case 2:20-cv-G0u5id0an2c7e-oCn BMaMna-gAemSent DofoCcoruonmaveirnustD1is5e-a1se 20F1i9le(CdOV0I6D-/1294) i/n2C0orrePctiaongael an1d3D7etoenftio1n4F5acilitPieas |gCeDCID #:430
As a cohort, in single cells without solid walls or solid doors (i.e., cells enclosed entirely with bars), preferably with an empty cell between occupied cells. (Although individuals are in single cells in this scenario, the air ow between cells essentially makes it a cohort arrangement in the context of COVID-19.)
As a cohort, in multi-person cells without solid walls or solid doors (i.e., cells enclosed entirely with bars), preferably with an empty cell between occupied cells. Employ social distancing strategies related to housing in the Prevention section above.
Safely transfer individual(s) to another facility with available medical isolation capacity in one of the above arrangements (NOTE – Transfer should be avoided due to the potential to introduce infection to another facility; proceed only if no other options are available.)

If the ideal choice does not exist in a facility, use the next best alternative.

If the number of con rmed cases exceeds the number of individual medical isolation spaces available in the facility, be especially mindful of cases who are at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19. Ideally, they should not be cohorted with other infected individuals. If cohorting is unavoidable, make all possible accommodations to prevent transmission of other infectious diseases to the higher-risk individual. (For example, allocate more space for a higher-risk individual within a shared medical isolation space.)
Persons at higher risk may include older adults and persons of any age with serious underlying medical conditions such as lung disease, heart disease, and diabetes. See CDC’s website for a complete list, and check regularly for updates as more data become available to inform this issue.
Note that incarcerated/detained populations have higher prevalence of infectious and chronic diseases and are in poorer health than the general population, even at younger ages.
Custody sta should be designated to monitor these individuals exclusively where possible. These sta should wear recommended PPE as appropriate for their level of contact with the individual under medical isolation (see PPE section below) and should limit their own movement between di erent parts of the facility to the extent possible.
Minimize transfer of COVID-19 cases between spaces within the healthcare unit.
Provide individuals under medical isolation with tissues and, if permissible, a lined no-touch trash receptacle. Instruct them to:
Cover their mouth and nose with a tissue when they cough or sneeze
Dispose of used tissues immediately in the lined trash receptacle
Wash hands immediately with soap and water for at least 20 seconds. If soap and water are not available, clean hands with an alcohol-based hand sanitizer that contains at least 60% alcohol (where security concerns permit). Ensure that hand washing supplies are continually restocked.
Maintain medical isolation until all the following criteria have been met. Monitor the CDC website for updates to these criteria.
For individuals who will be tested to determine if they are still contagious: The individual has been free from fever for at least 72 hours without the use of fever-reducing medications AND
The individual’s other symptoms have improved (e.g., cough, shortness of breath) AND
The individual has tested negative in at least two consecutive respiratory specimens collected at least 24 hours apart
For individuals who will NOT be tested to determine if they are still contagious: The individual has been free from fever for at least 72 hours without the use of fever-reducing medications AND
The individual’s other symptoms have improved (e.g., cough, shortness of breath) AND
At least 10 days have passed since the rst symptoms appeared
For individuals who had a con rmed positive COVID-19 test but never showed symptoms: At least 10 days have passed since the date of the individual’s rst positive COVID-19 test AND
The individual has had no subsequent illness
Restrict cases from leaving the facility while under medical isolation precautions, unless released from custody or if a transfer is necessary for medical care, infection control, lack of medical isolation space, or extenuating security concerns.
If an incarcerated/detained individual who is a COVID-19 case is released from custody during their medical isolation period, contact public health to arrange for safe transport and continuation of necessary medical care and

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html#ImplementSocialDistancing

13/21

6/24/2020

Case 2:20-cv-G0u5id0an2c7e-oCn BMaMna-gAemSent DofoCcoruonmaveirnustD1is5e-a1se 20F1i9le(CdOV0I6D-/1294) i/n2C0orrePctiaongael an1d3D8etoenftio1n4F5acilitPieas |gCeDCID #:431
medical isolation as part of release planning.

Cleaning Spaces where COVID-19 Cases Spent Time
Thoroughly clean and disinfect all areas where the con rmed or suspected COVID-19 case spent time. Note – these protocols apply to suspected cases as well as con rmed cases, to ensure adequate disinfection in the event that the suspected case does, in fact, have COVID-19. Refer to the De nitions section for the distinction between con rmed and suspected cases.
Close o areas used by the infected individual. If possible, open outside doors and windows to increase air circulation in the area. Wait as long as practical, up to 24 hours under the poorest air exchange conditions (consult CDC Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Health-Care Facilities for wait time based on di erent ventilation conditions), before beginning to clean and disinfect, to minimize potential for exposure to respiratory droplets.
Clean and disinfect all areas (e.g., cells, bathrooms, and common areas) used by the infected individual, focusing especially on frequently touched surfaces (see list above in Prevention section).
Hard (non-porous) surface cleaning and disinfection If surfaces are dirty, they should be cleaned using a detergent or soap and water prior to disinfection.
For disinfection, most common EPA-registered household disinfectants should be e ective. Choose cleaning products based on security requirements within the facility.
Consult a list of products that are EPA-approved for use against the virus that causes COVID-19  . Follow the manufacturer’s instructions for all cleaning and disinfection products (e.g., concentration, application method and contact time, etc.).
Diluted household bleach solutions can be used if appropriate for the surface. Follow the manufacturer’s instructions for application and proper ventilation, and check to ensure the product is not past its expiration date. Never mix household bleach with ammonia or any other cleanser. Unexpired household bleach will be e ective against coronaviruses when properly diluted. Bleach solutions will be e ective for disinfection up to 24 hours.
Prepare a bleach solution by mixing: 5 tablespoons (1/3rd cup) bleach per gallon of water or
4 teaspoons bleach per quart of water
Soft (porous) surface cleaning and disinfection For soft (porous) surfaces such as carpeted oors and rugs, remove visible contamination if present and clean with appropriate cleaners indicated for use on these surfaces. After cleaning: If the items can be laundered, launder items in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions using the warmest appropriate water setting for the items and then dry items completely.
Otherwise, use products that are EPA-approved for use against the virus that causes COVID-19  and are suitable for porous surfaces.
Electronics cleaning and disinfection For electronics such as tablets, touch screens, keyboards, and remote controls, remove visible contamination if present. Follow the manufacturer’s instructions for all cleaning and disinfection products.
Consider use of wipeable covers for electronics.
If no manufacturer guidance is available, consider the use of alcohol-based wipes or spray containing at least 70% alcohol to disinfect touch screens. Dry surfaces thoroughly to avoid pooling of liquids.

Additional information on cleaning and disinfection of communal facilities such can be found on CDC’s website.

Ensure that sta and incarcerated/detained persons performing cleaning wear recommended PPE. (See PPE section below.)
Food service items. Cases under medical isolation should throw disposable food service items in the trash in their medical isolation room. Non-disposable food service items should be handled with gloves and washed with hot water or in a dishwasher. Individuals handling used food service items should clean their hands after removing gloves.
Laundry from a COVID-19 cases can be washed with other individuals’ laundry. Individuals handling laundry from COVID-19 cases should wear disposable gloves, discard after each use, and clean their hands after.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html#ImplementSocialDistancing

14/21

6/24/2020

Case 2:20-cv-G0u5id0an2c7e-oCn BMaMna-gAemSent DofoCcoruonmaveirnustD1is5e-a1se 20F1i9le(CdOV0I6D-/1294) i/n2C0orrePctiaongael an1d3D9etoenftio1n4F5acilitPieas |gCeDCID #:432

Do not shake dirty laundry. This will minimize the possibility of dispersing virus through the air.
Launder items as appropriate in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. If possible, launder items using the warmest appropriate water setting for the items and dry items completely.
Clean and disinfect clothes hampers according to guidance above for surfaces. If permissible, consider using a bag liner that is either disposable or can be laundered. Consult cleaning recommendations above to ensure that transport vehicles are thoroughly cleaned after carrying a con rmed or suspected COVID-19 case.

Quarantining Close Contacts of COVID-19 Cases
NOTE: Some recommendations below apply primarily to facilities with onsite healthcare capacity. Facilities without onsite healthcare capacity, or without su cient space to implement e ective quarantine, should coordinate with local public health o cials to ensure that close contacts of COVID-19 cases will be e ectively quarantined and medically monitored.

Incarcerated/detained persons who are close contacts of a con rmed or suspected COVID-19 case (whether the case is another incarcerated/detained person, sta member, or visitor) should be placed under quarantine for 14 days (see CDC guidelines).
If an individual is quarantined due to contact with a suspected case who is subsequently tested for COVID-19 and receives a negative result, the quarantined individual should be released from quarantine restrictions.
In the context of COVID-19, an individual (incarcerated/detained person or sta ) is considered a close contact if they: Have been within approximately 6 feet of a COVID-19 case for a prolonged period of time OR
Have had direct contact with infectious secretions of a COVID-19 case (e.g., have been coughed on)

Close contact can occur while caring for, living with, visiting, or sharing a common space with a COVID-19 case. Data to inform the de nition of close contact are limited. Considerations when assessing close contact include the duration of exposure (e.g., longer exposure time likely increases exposure risk) and the clinical symptoms of the person with COVID-19 (e.g., coughing likely increases exposure risk, as does exposure to a severely ill patient).

Keep a quarantined individual’s movement outside the quarantine space to an absolute minimum. Provide medical evaluation and care inside or near the quarantine space when possible.
Serve meals inside the quarantine space.
Exclude the quarantined individual from all group activities.
Assign the quarantined individual a dedicated bathroom when possible.
Facilities should make every possible e ort to quarantine close contacts of COVID-19 cases individually. Cohorting multiple quarantined close contacts of a COVID-19 case could transmit COVID-19 from those who are infected to those who are uninfected. Cohorting should only be practiced if there are no other available options.
If cohorting of close contacts under quarantine is absolutely necessary, symptoms of all individuals should be monitored closely, and individuals with symptoms of COVID-19 should be placed under medical isolation
If an entire housing unit is under quarantine due to contact with a case from the same housing unit, the entire housing unit may need to be treated as a cohort and quarantine in place.
Some facilities may choose to quarantine all new intakes for 14 days before moving them to the facility’s general population as a general rule (not because they were exposed to a COVID-19 case). Under this scenario, avoid mixing individuals quarantined due to exposure to a COVID-19 case with individuals undergoing routine intake quarantine.
If at all possible, do not add more individuals to an existing quarantine cohort after the 14-day quarantine clock has started.
If the number of quarantined individuals exceeds the number of individual quarantine spaces available in the facility, be especially mindful of those who are at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19. Ideally, they should not be cohorted with other quarantined individuals. If cohorting is unavoidable, make all possible accommodations to reduce exposure risk for the higher-risk individuals. (For example, intensify social distancing strategies for higher-risk individuals.)
In order of preference, multiple quarantined individuals should be housed: Separately, in single cells with solid walls (i.e., not bars) and solid doors that close fully
Separately, in single cells with solid walls but without solid doors
As a cohort, in a large, well-ventilated cell with solid walls, a solid door that closes fully, and at least 6 feet of personal space assigned to each individual in all directions

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html#ImplementSocialDistancing

15/21

 
 6/24/2020

Case 2:20-cv-G0u5id0an2c7e-oCn BMaMna-gAemSent DofoCcoruonmaveirnustD1is5e-a1se 20F1i9le(CdOV0I6D-/1294) i/n2C0orrePctiaongael an1d4D0etoenftio1n4F5acilitPieas |gCeDCID #:433

As a cohort, in a large, well-ventilated cell with solid walls and at least 6 feet of personal space assigned to each individual in all directions, but without a solid door

As a cohort, in single cells without solid walls or solid doors (i.e., cells enclosed entirely with bars), preferably with an empty cell between occupied cells creating at least 6 feet of space between individuals. (Although individuals are in single cells in this scenario, the air ow between cells essentially makes it a cohort arrangement in the context of COVID-19.)

As a cohort, in multi-person cells without solid walls or solid doors (i.e., cells enclosed entirely with bars), preferably with an empty cell between occupied cells. Employ social distancing strategies related to housing in the Prevention section to maintain at least 6 feet of space between individuals housed in the same cell.
As a cohort, in individuals’ regularly assigned housing unit but with no movement outside the unit (if an entire housing unit has been exposed). Employ social distancing strategies related to housing in the Prevention section above to maintain at least 6 feet of space between individuals.

Safely transfer to another facility with capacity to quarantine in one of the above arrangements (NOTE – Transfer should be avoided due to the potential to introduce infection to another facility; proceed only if no other options are available.)

Quarantined individuals should wear face masks if feasible based on local supply, as source control, under the following circumstances (see PPE section and Table 1):
If cohorted, quarantined individuals should wear face masks at all times (to prevent transmission from infected to uninfected individuals).

If quarantined separately, individuals should wear face masks whenever a non-quarantined individual enters the quarantine space.

All quarantined individuals should wear a face mask if they must leave the quarantine space for any reason.
Asymptomatic individuals under routine intake quarantine (with no known exposure to a COVID-19 case) do not need to wear face masks.

Sta who have close contact with quarantined individuals should wear recommended PPE if feasible based on local supply, feasibility, and safety within the scope of their duties (see PPE section and Table 1).
Sta supervising asymptomatic incarcerated/detained persons under routine intake quarantine (with no known exposure to a COVID-19 case) do not need to wear PPE.

Quarantined individuals should be monitored for COVID-19 symptoms twice per day, including temperature checks. If an individual develops symptoms, they should be moved to medical isolation immediately and further evaluated. (See Medical Isolation section above.)

See Screening section for a procedure to perform temperature checks safely on asymptomatic close contacts of COVID-19 cases.

If an individual who is part of a quarantined cohort becomes symptomatic: If the individual is tested for COVID-19 and tests positive: the 14-day quarantine clock for the remainder of the cohort must be reset to 0.
If the individual is tested for COVID-19 and tests negative: the 14-day quarantine clock for this individual and the remainder of the cohort does not need to be reset. This individual can return from medical isolation to the quarantined cohort for the remainder of the quarantine period.

If the individual is not tested for COVID-19: the 14-day quarantine clock for the remainder of the cohort must be reset to 0.

Restrict quarantined individuals from leaving the facility (including transfers to other facilities) during the 14-day quarantine period, unless released from custody or a transfer is necessary for medical care, infection control, lack of quarantine space, or extenuating security concerns.

Quarantined individuals can be released from quarantine restrictions if they have not developed symptoms during the 14-day quarantine period.

Meals should be provided to quarantined individuals in their quarantine spaces. Individuals under quarantine should throw disposable food service items in the trash. Non-disposable food service items should be handled with gloves and washed with hot water or in a dishwasher. Individuals handling used food service items should clean their hands after removing gloves.
Laundry from quarantined individuals can be washed with other individuals’ laundry. Individuals handling laundry from quarantined persons should wear disposable gloves, discard after each use, and clean their hands after.

Do not shake dirty laundry. This will minimize the possibility of dispersing virus through the air.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html#ImplementSocialDistancing

16/21

6/24/2020

Case 2:20-cv-G0u5id0an2c7e-oCn BMaMna-gAemSent DofoCcoruonmaveirnustD1is5e-a1se 20F1i9le(CdOV0I6D-/1294) i/n2C0orrePctiaongael an1d4D1etoenftio1n4F5acilitPieas |gCeDCID

y

y

p#:434 y

pg

g

Launder items as appropriate in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. If possible, launder items using the warmest appropriate water setting for the items and dry items completely.
Clean and disinfect clothes hampers according to guidance above for surfaces. If permissible, consider using a bag liner that is either disposable or can be laundered.

Management of Incarcerated/Detained Persons with COVID-19 Symptoms
NOTE: Some recommendations below apply primarily to facilities with onsite healthcare capacity. Facilities without onsite healthcare capacity or without su cient space for medical isolation should coordinate with local public health o cials to ensure that suspected COVID-19 cases will be e ectively isolated, evaluated, tested (if indicated), and given care.
If possible, designate a room near each housing unit for healthcare sta to evaluate individuals with COVID-19 symptoms, rather than having them walk through the facility to be evaluated in the medical unit.
Incarcerated/detained individuals with COVID-19 symptoms should wear a face mask and should be placed under medical isolation immediately. Discontinue the use of a face mask if it inhibits breathing. See Medical Isolation section above.
Medical sta should evaluate symptomatic individuals to determine whether COVID-19 testing is indicated. Refer to CDC guidelines for information on evaluation and testing. See Infection Control and Clinical Care sections below as well. If testing is indicated (or if medical sta need clari cation on when testing is indicated), contact the state, local, tribal, and/or territorial health department. Work with public health or private labs as available to access testing supplies or services.
If the COVID-19 test is positive, continue medical isolation. (See Medical Isolation section above.)
If the COVID-19 test is negative, return the individual to their prior housing assignment unless they require further medical assessment or care.

Management Strategies for Incarcerated/Detained Persons without COVID-19 Symptoms
Provide clear information to incarcerated/detained persons about the presence of COVID-19 cases within the facility, and the need to increase social distancing and maintain hygiene precautions.
Consider having healthcare sta perform regular rounds to answer questions about COVID-19.
Ensure that information is provided in a manner that can be understood by non-English speaking individuals and those with low literacy, and make necessary accommodations for those with cognitive or intellectual disabilities and those who are deaf, blind, or low-vision.
Implement daily temperature checks in housing units where COVID-19 cases have been identi ed, especially if there is concern that incarcerated/detained individuals are not notifying sta of symptoms.See Screening section for a procedure to safely perform a temperature check.
Consider additional options to intensify social distancing within the facility.

Management Strategies for Sta
Provide clear information to sta about the presence of COVID-19 cases within the facility, and the need to enforce social distancing and encourage hygiene precautions.
Consider having healthcare sta perform regular rounds to answer questions about COVID-19 from sta .
Sta identi ed as close contacts of a COVID-19 case should self-quarantine at home for 14 days and may return to work if symptoms do not develop.
See above for de nition of a close contact.
Refer to CDC guidelines for further recommendations regarding home quarantine for sta .

Infection Control

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html#ImplementSocialDistancing

17/21

6/24/2020

Case 2:20-cv-G0u5id0an2c7e-oCn BMaMna-gAemSent DofoCcoruonmaveirnustD1is5e-a1se 20F1i9le(CdOV0I6D-/1294) i/n2C0orrePctiaongael an1d4D2etoenftio1n4F5acilitPieas |gCeDCID #:435

Infection control guidance below is applicable to all types of correctional facilities. Individual facilities should assess their unique needs based on the types of exposure sta and incarcerated/detained persons may have with con rmed or suspected COVID-19 cases.

All individuals who have the potential for direct or indirect exposure to COVID-19 cases or infectious materials (including body substances; contaminated medical supplies, devices, and equipment; contaminated environmental surfaces; or contaminated air) should follow infection control practices outlined in the CDC Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Patients with Suspected or Con rmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Healthcare Settings. Monitor these guidelines regularly for updates.
Implement the above guidance as fully as possible within the correctional/detention context. Some of the speci c language may not apply directly to healthcare settings within correctional facilities and detention centers, or to facilities without onsite healthcare capacity, and may need to be adapted to re ect facility operations and custody needs.
Note that these recommendations apply to sta as well as to incarcerated/detained individuals who may come in contact with contaminated materials during the course of their work placement in the facility (e.g., cleaning).
Sta should exercise caution when in contact with individuals showing symptoms of a respiratory infection. Contact should be minimized to the extent possible until the infected individual is wearing a face mask. If COVID-19 is suspected, sta should wear recommended PPE (see PPE section).
Refer to PPE section to determine recommended PPE for individuals persons in contact with con rmed COVID-19 cases, contacts, and potentially contaminated items.

Clinical Care of COVID-19 Cases
Facilities should ensure that incarcerated/detained individuals receive medical evaluation and treatment at the rst signs of COVID-19 symptoms.
If a facility is not able to provide such evaluation and treatment, a plan should be in place to safely transfer the individual to another facility or local hospital.
The initial medical evaluation should determine whether a symptomatic individual is at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19. Persons at higher risk may include older adults and persons of any age with serious underlying medical conditions such as lung disease, heart disease, and diabetes. See CDC’s website for a complete list, and check regularly for updates as more data become available to inform this issue.
Sta evaluating and providing care for con rmed or suspected COVID-19 cases should follow the CDC Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Con rmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) and monitor the guidance website regularly for updates to these recommendations.
Healthcare sta should evaluate persons with respiratory symptoms or contact with a COVID-19 case in a separate room, with the door closed if possible, while wearing recommended PPE and ensuring that the suspected case is wearing a face mask.
If possible, designate a room near each housing unit to evaluate individuals with COVID-19 symptoms, rather than having them walk through the facility to be evaluated in the medical unit.
Clinicians are strongly encouraged to test for other causes of respiratory illness (e.g., in uenza).
The facility should have a plan in place to safely transfer persons with severe illness from COVID-19 to a local hospital if they require care beyond what the facility is able to provide.
When evaluating and treating persons with symptoms of COVID-19 who do not speak English, using a language line or provide a trained interpreter when possible.

Recommended PPE and PPE Training for Sta and Incarcerated/Detained Persons

Ensure that all sta (healthcare and non-healthcare) and incarcerated/detained persons who will have contact with infectious materials in their work placements have been trained to correctly don, do , and dispose of PPE relevant to the level of contact they will have with con rmed and suspected COVID-19 cases.
Ensure that sta and incarcerated/detained persons who require respiratory protection (e.g., N95s) for their work responsibilities have been medically cleared, trained, and t-tested in the context of an employer’s respiratory protection program.

For PPE training materials and posters please visit the CDC website on Protecting Healthcare Personnel
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html#ImplementSocialDistancing

18/21

6/24/2020

Case 2:20-cv-G0u5id0an2c7e-oCn BMaMna-gAemSent DofoCcoruonmaveirnustD1is5e-a1se 20F1i9le(CdOV0I6D-/1294) i/n2C0orrePctiaongael an1d4D3etoenftio1n4F5acilitPieas |gCeDCID For PPE training materials and posters, please visit #th:4e36CDC website on Protecting Healthcare Personnel.

Ensure that all sta are trained to perform hand hygiene after removing PPE.

If administrators anticipate that incarcerated/detained persons will request unnecessary PPE, consider providing training on the di erent types of PPE that are needed for di ering degrees of contact with COVID-19 cases and contacts, and the reasons for those di erences (see Table 1). Monitor linked CDC guidelines in Table 1 for updates to recommended PPE.

Keep recommended PPE near the spaces in the facility where it could be needed, to facilitate quick access in an emergency.

Recommended PPE for incarcerated/detained individuals and sta in a correctional facility will vary based on the type of contact they have with COVID-19 cases and their contacts (see Table 1). Each type of recommended PPE is de ned below. As above, note that PPE shortages are anticipated in every category during the COVID-19 response.
N95 respirator See below for guidance on when face masks are acceptable alternatives for N95s. N95 respirators should be prioritized when sta anticipate contact with infectious aerosols from a COVID-19 case.

Face mask

Eye protection – goggles or disposable face shield that fully covers the front and sides of the face

A single pair of disposable patient examination gloves Gloves should be changed if they become torn or heavily contaminated.

Disposable medical isolation gown or single-use/disposable coveralls, when feasible If custody sta are unable to wear a disposable gown or coveralls because it limits access to their duty belt and gear, ensure that duty belt and gear are disinfected after close contact with the individual. Clean and disinfect duty belt and gear prior to reuse using a household cleaning spray or wipe, according to the product label.

If there are shortages of gowns, they should be prioritized for aerosol-generating procedures, care activities where splashes and sprays are anticipated, and high-contact patient care activities that provide opportunities for transfer of pathogens to the hands and clothing of sta .

Note that shortages of all PPE categories are anticipated during the COVID-19 response, particularly for non-healthcare workers. Guidance for optimizing the supply of each category can be found on CDC’s website:
Guidance in the event of a shortage of N95 respirators Based on local and regional situational analysis of PPE supplies, face masks are an acceptable alternative when the supply chain of respirators cannot meet the demand. During this time, available respirators should be prioritized for sta engaging in activities that would expose them to respiratory aerosols, which pose the highest exposure risk.

Guidance in the event of a shortage of face masks

Guidance in the event of a shortage of eye protection

Guidance in the event of a shortage of gowns/coveralls

Classi cation of Individual Wearing PPE
Incarcerated/Detained Persons
Asymptomatic incarcerated/detained persons (under quarantine as close contacts of a COVID-19 case*)
Incarcerated/detained persons who are con rmed or suspected COVID-19 cases, or showing symptoms of COVID-19
Incarcerated/detained persons in a work placement handling laundry or used food service items from a COVID-19 case or case contact
Incarcerated/detained persons in a work placement cleaning areas where a COVID-19 case has spent time

N95

Face

respirator mask

Eye

Gown/

Protection Gloves Coveralls

Apply face masks for source control as feasible based on local supply, especially if housed as a cohort
X

X

X

Additional PPE may be needed

X

X

based on the product label. See

CDC guidelines for more details.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html#ImplementSocialDistancing

19/21

6/24/2020

Case 2:20-cv-G0u5id0an2c7e-oCn BMaMna-gAemSent DofoCcoruonmaveirnustD1is5e-a1se 20F1i9le(CdOV0I6D-/1294) i/n2C0orrePctiaongael an1d4D4etoenftio1n4F5acilitPieas |gCeDCID #:437

Classi cation of Individual Wearing PPE

N95

Face

respirator mask

Eye Protection Gloves

Gown/ Coveralls

Sta
Sta having direct contact with asymptomatic incarcerated/detained persons under quarantine as close contacts of a COVID-19 case* (but not performing temperature checks or providing medical care)

Face mask, eye protection, and gloves as local supply and scope of duties allow.

Sta performing temperature checks on any group of people (sta , visitors, or incarcerated/detained persons), or providing medical care to asymptomatic quarantined persons

X

X

X

X

Sta having direct contact with (including transport) or

X**

o ering medical care to con rmed or suspected COVID-

19 cases (see CDC infection control guidelines)

X

X

X

Sta present during a procedure on a con rmed or

X

suspected COVID-19 case that may generate respiratory

aerosols (see CDC infection control guidelines)

X

X

X

Sta handling laundry or used food service items from a COVID-19 case or case contact

X

X

Sta cleaning an area where a COVID-19 case has spent

Additional PPE may be needed

X

X

time

based on the product label. See

CDC guidelines for more details.

Classi cation of Individual Wearing PPE

* If a facility chooses to routinely quarantine all new intakes (without symptoms or known exposure to a COVID-19 case) before integrating into the facility’s general population, face masks are not necessary. ** A NIOSH-approved N95 is preferred. However, based on local and regional situational analysis of PPE supplies, face masks are an acceptable alternative when the supply chain of respirators cannot meet the demand. During this time, available respirators should be prioritized for procedures that are likely to generate respiratory aerosols, which would pose the highest exposure risk to sta .

Verbal Screening and Temperature Check Protocols for Incarcerated/Detained Persons, Sta , and Visitors
The guidance above recommends verbal screening and temperature checks for incarcerated/detained persons, sta , volunteers, and visitors who enter correctional and detention facilities, as well as incarcerated/detained persons who are transferred to another facility or released from custody. Below, verbal screening questions for COVID-19 symptoms and contact with known cases, and a safe temperature check procedure are detailed.

Verbal screening for symptoms of COVID-19 and contact with COVID-19 cases should include the following questions: Today or in the past 24 hours, have you had any of the following symptoms? Fever, felt feverish, or had chills?
Cough?
Di culty breathing?
In the past 14 days, have you had contact with a person known to be infected with the novel coronavirus (COVID19)?
The following is a protocol to safely check an individual’s temperature: Perform hand hygiene

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html#ImplementSocialDistancing

20/21

6/24/2020

Case 2:20-cv-G0u5id0an2c7e-oCn BMaMna-gAemSent DofoCcoruonmaveirnustD1is5e-a1se 20F1i9le(CdOV0I6D-/1294) i/n2C0orrePctiaongael an1d4D5etoenftio1n4F5acilitPieas |gCeDCID #:438

Put on a face mask, eye protection (goggles or disposable face shield that fully covers the front and sides of the face), gown/coveralls, and a single pair of disposable gloves

Check individual’s temperature

If performing a temperature check on multiple individuals, ensure that a clean pair of gloves is used for each individual and that the thermometer has been thoroughly cleaned in between each check. If disposable or noncontact thermometers are used and the screener did not have physical contact with an individual, gloves do not need to be changed before the next check. If non-contact thermometers are used, they should be cleaned routinely as recommended by CDC for infection control.
Remove and discard PPE

Perform hand hygiene

Page last reviewed: May 7, 2020

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html#ImplementSocialDistancing

21/21

 
 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 28 Filed 07/14/20 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:557

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 BLACK LIVES MATTER LOS

Case No.: 20-cv-5027-CBM-AS

ANGELES, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

ORDER RE: NOTICE OF EX

13 vs.

PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING

14

ORDER AND MOTION FOR

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

15

(DKT. NO. 14)

Defendants.

16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ ex parte application for a temporary

17

restraining order (the “Application”) and motion for preliminary injunction (the

18

“Motion”). (See Dkt. No. 14.) Defendants City of Los Angeles (the “City”) and

19

Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) Michael Moore (“Chief

20

Moore”) (collectively, “Defendants”) oppose the Application. (Dkt. No. 24

21

(Opp.).)

22

Also pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice

23

(“RJN”). (Dkt. No. 16.) Defendants do not oppose the RJN.

24

I. BACKGROUND

25

This putative class action concerns the response of the LAPD to protests and

26

demonstrations which occurred throughout Los Angeles in the wake of the death

27

of George Floyd. (Compare First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (Dkt. No. 9) at ¶

28

1

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 28 Filed 07/14/20 Page 2 of 6 Page ID #:558

1 1 with Opp. at p. 3:5-11.) Plaintiffs assert in the FAC four causes of action under

2 42 U.S.C. § 1983: (1) a claim for injunctive relief for violations of the First,

3 Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, California

4 Constitution Articles 1, 2, 3, 7, and 13, Cal. Pen. Code § 835.5, and Cal. Civ. Code

5 §§ 52.1, 815.6; (2) a claim for damages for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth

6 Amendments of the United States Constitution arising from the arrests of certain

7 Plaintiffs; (3) a claim for damages for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth

8 Amendments of the United States Constitution arising from force used against

9 certain Plaintiffs; and (4) a claim for damages for violations of the Fourth and

10 Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution arising from the arrests

11 of certain Plaintiffs for infractions.

12

II. JURISDICTION

13

The Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal

14 question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights jurisdiction).

15

III. LEGAL STANDARD

16

The standard for issuing a temporary restraining order is similar to the

17 standard for issuing a preliminary injunction, and requires the parties seeking

18 relief to show (1) they are likely to succeed on the merits, (2) they are likely to

19 suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief, (3) the balance of

20 equities is in their favor, and (4) injunctive relief is in the public interest. See

21 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Under this standard,

22 “serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships that tips sharply

23 towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as

24 the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the

25 injunction is in the public interest.” All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 623 F.3d

26 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations omitted). Temporary restraining

27 orders “should be restricted to serving their underlying purpose of preserving the

28 status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a

2

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 28 Filed 07/14/20 Page 3 of 6 Page ID #:559

1 hearing, and no longer.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto

2 Truck Drivers Local No. 70 of Alameda Cty., 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974).

3

IV. DISCUSSION

4 A. Request for Judicial Notice

5

Plaintiffs requested the Court take judicial notice of the following:

6 Publications from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (Ex. 25-26, 29, 31); the

7 LAPD’s Use of Force Directives (Ex. 27-28); and an order granting a temporary

8 restraining order and order to show cause in Anti-Police Terror Project, et al. v.

9 City of Oakland, et al., No. 3:20-cv-03866-JCS (N.D. Cal. 2020) (Ex. 30).

10

The Court may take judicial notice of “information … made publicly

11 available by government entities” on their websites. Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ.

12 Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998-999 (9th Cir. 2010). The U.S. Centers for Disease

13 Control, Los Angeles Police Department, and the United States District Court for

14 the Northern District of California are government entities, and the documents

15 Plaintiffs attach as exhibits are publicly available online. Therefore, the Court

16 GRANTS judicial notice of Ex. 25-31.

17 B. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated they are likely to suffer irreparable

18

harm.

19

For purposes of this order, the Court assumes Plaintiffs are likely to succeed

20 on the merits. Therefore, Plaintiffs must demonstrate they are likely to suffer

21 irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20.

22 “Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to warrant

23 granting a preliminary injunction … [A] plaintiff must demonstrate immediate

24 threatened injury as a prerequisite to preliminary injunctive relief.” Caribbean

25 Marine Services Co. v. Baldridge, 884, F.2d 668, 674 (9th Cir. 1988) (emphasis in

26 original; internal citations omitted). “Issuing a preliminary injunction based only

27 on a possibility of irreparable harm is inconsistent with [the United States

28 Supreme Court’s] characterization of injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy

3

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 28 Filed 07/14/20 Page 4 of 6 Page ID #:560

1 that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such

2 relief.” Id. at 22 (citation omitted).

3

Plaintiffs dedicate one paragraph to discussing irreparable harm, stating:

4

[I]n light of the potential for serious or even lethal injuries resulting

5

from these practices, there is a clear possibility of irreparable harm in

the absence of injunctive relief. Cf., e.g., Black Lives Matter Seattle-

6

King County [v. City of Seattle, Seattle Police Dept.], [No. 2:20-cv-

7

0887-RAJ,] 2020 WL 3128299, at *4 [(W.D. Wash. 2020) (Jones, J.)]

(“Plaintiffs have established a threat of immediate, irreparable harm in

8

the absence of a TRO. They have shown a likelihood of success on

9

their First and Fourth Amendment claims, demonstrating that

irreparable harm has already occurred.”); Abay [v. City of Denver],

10

[No. 20-cv-01616-RBJ,] 2020 WL 3034161, at *4 [(D. Colo. 2020)

11

(Jackson, J.)] (“Indeed, irreparable harm has already occurred in the

form of physical injury and the suppression of speech.”). 12

13 (Application at p. 24:8-14.) Although they apparently concede they have shown

14 only a “possibility of irreparable harm,” Plaintiffs generally declare they wish to

15 continue protesting, but fear they will be injured or arrested if they do so.

16

Defendants argue Plaintiffs were not diligent in seeking a temporary

17 restraining order because they waited nineteen days to file this Application, which

18 indicates there is a lack of urgency and irreparable harm. (Compare Dkt. No. 1

19 (Compl.) with Dkt. No. 14 (the Application).) The Ninth Circuit has held that a

20 “long delay before seeking a preliminary injunction implies a lack of urgency and

21 irreparable harm.” Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Pub. Co., Inc., 762 F.2d

22 1374, 1377 (9th Cir. 1985). Here, Plaintiffs waited a significant period of time

23 before seeking this temporary restraining order, which weighs against finding

24 irreparable harm is likely to occur in the absence of a temporary restraining order.

25 Plaintiffs’ delay, however, is only “a factor to be considered in weighing the

26 propriety of the relief,” Lydo Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Las Vegas, 745 F.2d 1211,

27 1213 (9th Cir. 1984), and not a complete bar, as Defendants suggest.

28

4

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 28 Filed 07/14/20 Page 5 of 6 Page ID #:561

1

Defendants argue next that the irreparable harm Plaintiffs face, if any, is

2 speculative, as it is premised on future actions of LAPD officers during protests

3 that have yet to occur. Additionally, Defendants offer undisputed evidence that

4 the activity of the LAPD that forms the basis of Plaintiffs’ Application has ceased

5 since June 4, 2020. LAPD Commander Rimkunas declares that protests have

6 continued since June 4, 2020, but the “LAPD has not (1) declared an unlawful

7 assembly, (2) ordered crowds to disperse, (3) deployed [less-than-lethal weapons]

8 for crowd dispersal, or (4) used batons for crowd dispersal at these events.”

9 (Rimkunas Decl. at ¶ 22.) Rimkunas declares that “[m]ass arrests for violations of

10 an unlawful assembly dispersal order only occurred on May 29, May 30, and May

11 31, 2020. No additional mass arrests for violation of an unlawful assembly

12 dispersal took place since June 3, 2020 at the latest.” (Id. at ¶ 27.)

13

Here, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated they are likely to suffer irreparable

14 harm based merely on speculation that LAPD officers may violate their rights

15 under the United States Constitution. Although Plaintiffs proffer evidence that

16 they previously suffered irreparable harm while protesting and intend to continue

17 those activities, the irreparable harm Plaintiffs allege rests on the assumption that

18 more protests will lead to more constitutional violations. Defendants have offered

19 undisputed evidence that protests have continued after June 3, 2020, but no mass

20 arrests or use of kinetic projectiles and batons has occurred, which tends to dispel

21 Plaintiffs’ theory.

22

Therefore, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated they are likely to suffer

23 irreparable harm in the absence of a temporary restraining order.

24

V. CONCLUSION

25

Because Plaintiffs have not demonstrated they are likely to suffer irreparable

26 harm in the absence of a temporary restraining order, the Court DENIES the

27 Application. Although they captioned this Application as a “Notice of Ex Parte

28 Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary

5

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 28 Filed 07/14/20 Page 6 of 6 Page ID #:562

1 Injunction,” Plaintiffs do not request an order to show cause why a preliminary

2 injunction should not issue. As the Court indicated by minute order, the Court

3 addresses in this order only Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order.

4 (See Dkt. No. 21 (“The Court will review briefs for purposes of ruling on the ex

5 parte application for a temporary restraining order filed by Plaintiffs.”) Nothing in

6 this order precludes Plaintiffs from filing a noticed motion for a preliminary

7 injunction, consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 and the local rules of the Central

8 District of California.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

11 DATED: July 14, 2020

12

13

CONSUELO B. MARSHALL

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

 
 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 90 Filed 04/28/21 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:1571

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 BLACK LIVES MATTER LOS ANGELES, et al.,
12 Plaintiff,
13 vs.
14 CIY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,
15 Defendant.
16

Case No.: CV 20-5027 CBM(ASx) AMENDED ORDER RE: RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER [71][75]

17

18

19

20 The matter before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dissolve or Clarify
21 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(4), in the interim, Motion to stay the Temporary
22 Restraining Order (“TRO”), or in the alternative, Motion to stay TRO pending
23 emergency appellate relief. (Dkt. 75.) In this case, notice was given and
24 Defendants had an opportunity to be heard during the April 15, 2021, hearing.
25 Therefore, Rule 65(b)(4) does not apply. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion is
26 denied. However, the parties have now met and conferred, and agreed that the
27 Court’s previous order should be modified.
28

1

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 90 Filed 04/28/21 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:1572

1

BACKGROUND

2

This putative class action concerns the response of the Los Angeles Police

3 Department (“LAPD”) to protests and demonstrations which occurred throughout

4 Los Angeles in the wake of the death of George Floyd. Subsequently, Plaintiffs’

5 filed a TRO on June 24, 2020, seeking to enjoin LAPD from using projectiles or

6 baton strikes to disperse or control crowds, limit Defendants’ cite and release time

7 frame to 15 minutes, limit detentions to no more than 30 minutes, and require

8 Defendants to adhere to CDC guidelines when keeping protestors held in buses.

9

Plaintiffs’ filed this second TRO in light of recent protests in Echo Park that

10 occurred on March 25, 2021. Plaintiffs allege LAPD “fired on non-violent

11 protestors with 40 mm and 37 mm weapons.”1 Two weeks prior, at the Breonna

12 Taylor solidarity protest, Plaintiffs allege that LAPD struck a member of the press

13 in the back and as a result, he was rendered unconsciousness and suffered a

14 concussion. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the LAPD’s use of 40mm and 37mm less-

15 lethal launchers in public demonstrations except when deployed by officers that

16 are properly trained. Plaintiff also seek to restrict LAPD from aiming the weapons

17 at the upper bodies of demonstrators at close range within five feet.

18

On April 15, 2021, the Court held a status conference. Subsequent to the

19 status conference, as ordered by the Court, Defendants submitted video evidence

20 showing how to load and use the 40mm less-lethal launcher and a video of officers

21 simulating a “skirmish line” while using the 37mm less-lethal launcher.

22 Defendants also submitted LAPD’s Use of Force Tactics Directive, which includes

23 the Department’s policy and protocols for using the 37mm and 40mm less-lethal

24 launchers. (Dkt. 65.) The Court also considered Plaintiffs’ Supplemental filing, a

25

26

27 1 The 37mm Foam Baton Round consists of five foam rubber projectiles that are discharged at

28

once. The 40mm Less-Lethal Launcher has a rifled barrel that uses a single foam projectile. (Exh. 3, p. 73.)

2

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 90 Filed 04/28/21 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:1573

1 declaration of a journalist that who attended the Echo Park demonstration, that

2 was submitted after the status conference. (Dkt. 68.)

3

JURISDICTION

4

The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

5 28 U.S.C. § 1343.

6

LEGAL STANDARD

7

The standard for issuing a TRO requires the party seeking relief to show (1)

8 that he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable

9 harm in the absence of injunctive relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in his

10 favor, and (4) that injunctive relief is in the public interest. See Winter v. Nat. Res.

11 Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Under this standard, “serious questions

12 going to the merits and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the

13 plaintiff can support the issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long as the

14 plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the

15 injunction is in the public interest.” All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d

16 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations omitted). Temporary restraining

17 orders “should be restricted to serving their underlying purpose of preserving the

18 status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a

19 hearing, and no longer.” Reno Air Racing Ass’n v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131

20 (9th Cir. 2006).

21

DISCUSSION

22 A. Request for Judicial Notice

23

Plaintiffs’ request that this Court take judicial notice of three exhibits: 1) An

24 Independent Examination report of the Los Angeles Police Department 2020

25 Protest Response, 2) A report prepared by the National Police Foundation, titled

26 “A Crisis of Trust,” and 3) A report issued by the Los Angeles Police Department

27 titled “Safe LA 2020 Civil Unrest After Action Report.”

28

3

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 90 Filed 04/28/21 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:1574

1

Exhibit 1 is a report made available on the City of Los Angeles, City Clerk

2 website that analyzed LAPD’s crowd control tactics and compliance with existing

3 departmental policies during the demonstrations resulting from the death of

4 George Floyd. The report indicates that people were “struck in the face and head”

5 by 37 mm and 40 mm munitions, which caused “significant injuries.” Exhibit 2

6 summarizes findings and recommendations of LAPD’s tactics and policies and

7 Exhibit 3 is a review of the LAPD’s action after the June 2020 demonstrations.

8

The City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles Police Department are

9 government entities and the documents Plaintiffs attach as exhibits are publicly

10 available online. Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998-99 (9th Cir.

11 2010) (holding that courts may take judicial notice of official information posted

12 on a government website if its accuracy is undisputed). The Court grants

13 Plaintiffs’ request to take judicial notice of Exhibits 1, 2 and 3.

14 B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

15

Fourth Amendment excessive force claims are analyzed under the

16 framework outlined by the Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386

17 (1989). Donovan v. Phillips, 685 Fed. App’x. 611, 612 (9th Cir. 2017). Under

18 Graham, all claims of excessive force by law enforcement should be analyzed

19 under the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonableness” standard. Davis v. City of Las

20 Vegas, 478 F.3d 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2007). “This analysis requires balancing the

21 nature and quality of the intrusion on a person’s liberty with the countervailing

22 governmental interests at stake to determine whether the force used was

23 objectively reasonable under the circumstances.” Id. (internal quotation marks

24 omitted).

25

“Reasonableness” of a given use of force must be measured from the

26 perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene and must appreciate the “split-

27 second judgments” that officers must often make. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. The

28 Ninth Circuit has held that it was unreasonable to use pepper spray and projectiles

4

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 90 Filed 04/28/21 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:1575

1 against individuals “who were suspected of only minor criminal activity, offered

2 only passive resistance, and posed little to no threat of harm to others.” Nelson v.

3 City of Davis, 685 F.3d 867, 884-87 (9th Cir. 2012)

4

The Plaintiffs provide evidence in the form of declarations and videos that

5 LAPD likely violated Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights by using less-lethal

6 launchers (37mm and 40mm) against Plaintiffs who state that they were peacefully

7 demonstrating (or reporting on the demonstrations) at Echo Park on March 25,

8 2021, and the Breonna Taylor solidarity protest on or around March 11, 2021,

9 when they suffered injuries from less-lethal projectiles.2 Dkt. No. 58-7 ¶ 2, Exh.

10 13, 14 (shot by a “less lethal projectile” in the right arm between the elbow and

11 shoulder and partner was shot in the abdomen “at close range”); Dkt. No. 58-3 ¶¶

12 2-3, Exh. 7 (shot by a “less-lethal munition” in the back while filming the

13 demonstration and walking away from the area); Dkt. No. 58-4 ¶ 3, Exh. 8, 9

14 (LAPD firing “less lethal projectiles” at “less than a two feet distance” of the

15 protestors “aim[ed] directly at [their] upper body); Dkt. No. 58-8 ¶ 2, Exh. 15

16 (shot by a “less lethal projectile at the left side of my abdomen at close range”).

17

Defendant’s Use of Force policy states that Less-Lethal force options are

18 only permissible when:

19 An officer reasonably believes that suspects or subjects in a
20 crowd are violently resisting a lawful order to disperse or poses an
21

22

23

24

2 Exhibit 4 is a Declaration of Christina Astorga who participated in a demonstration that occurred on August 21, 2020, who received injuries as a result from the officers use of the less-

25 lethal launchers and Exhibit 5, a video of the demonstration which depicts the officers using
less-lethal projectiles.

26

The Declaration of Andrew Guerrero, who participated in a downtown Los Angeles protest on
27 August 26, 2020, declares that he was injured from the officers’ use of the less-lethal munition

28

and further states LAPD fired the launcher without “providing any opportunity to disperse.” (Dkt. No. 58-6 ¶ 3, 4)

5

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 90 Filed 04/28/21 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:1576

1

immediate threat of violence or physical harm. . . . [M]ere non-

2

compliance do[es] not alone justify the use of Less-Lethal force. . . .

3 LAPD Use of Force-Tactics Directive.
4 The recommended deployment range for the 37mm launcher is 10 feet to 50
5 feet from the front of the crowd and the recommended deployment range for the
6 40mm is five feet (up to 110 feet for the effective deployment range). Id. The
7 video evidence shows that the less-lethal launchers were used in close range of the
8 Plaintiffs, which likely caused significant injuries. The Court finds Plaintiffs have
9 shown a likelihood of success on their Fourth Amendment claim.
10 C. Irreparable Harm
11 Plaintiffs must demonstrate that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in
12 the absence of an injunction. Plaintiffs argue that an injunction is warranted “in
13 light of the potential for serious injuries the LAPD continues to cause” and the
14 “potential[] lethal injuries.”
15 Irreparable injury is not presumed by the Court upon a showing of a
16 likelihood of success on the merits. Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Fla. Ent. Mgmt.,
17 736 F.3d 1239, 1248-49 (9th Cir. 2013). A party seeking injunctive relief must
18 proffer evidence sufficient to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm. Id. at
19 1251. “To demonstrate irreparable injury as to their Fourth Amendment injury
20 here, Plaintiffs must demonstrate a likelihood, not a mere possibility, of future
21 irreparable injury of the same character.” Downes-Covington v. Las Vegas Metro.
22 Police Dep’t, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 240330, at *35 (D. Nev. Dec. 17, 2020).
23 Here, Plaintiffs provide evidence of past and recent demonstrations since
24 the death of George Floyd involving Officer Derek Chauvin, in which Defendants
25 used less-lethal munition on protestors who do not appear to be violently resisting
26 or posing an immediate threat of violence or physical harm. Plaintiffs state that
27 the trial of Derek Chauvin is expected to reach a verdict between April 19, 2021,
28

6

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 90 Filed 04/28/21 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:1577

1 and April 23, 2021, and as a result, Plaintiffs will plan protest and demonstrations

2 that will likely be widespread and substantial. (Decl. Abdullah ¶ 3.) As of the

3 writing of this Order, closing arguments in the Derek Chauvin case are set for

4 today, Monday, April 19, 2021. It is reasonable to believe that demonstrations will

5 continue. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of irreparable

6 injury. See, e.g., Abay v. City of Denver, 445 F. Supp. 3d 1286, 1294 (D. Colo.

7 2020) (granting-in-part a TRO and enjoining officers from discharging Kinetic

8 Impact Projectiles (“KIPs”) and all other “non- or less-lethal projectiles” to target

9 the head, pelvis, or back, and from shooting KIPs indiscriminately into a crowd).

10 D. Balance of the Equities and the Public Interest

11

In their Motion to Strike, Defendants argue that enjoining officers from

12 using crowd control tools to protect the rights of those who wish to lawfully

13 exercise their First Amendment rights, as well as the safety and security of the

14 public, is harmful. Plaintiffs assert the “balance of interest” tips strongly in their

15 favor because Defendants’ “indiscriminate” use of less-lethal launchers are

16 commonly fired on bystanders or non-violent and distant protestors.3

17

When the government is a party, these last two factors of the standard for

18 issuing a TRO merge. Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell, 747 F.3d 1073, 1092 (9th

19 Cir. 2014). Plaintiffs must identify the harm that a TRO might cause a Defendant

20 and weigh it against the injury to a Plaintiffs. Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 2011

21 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46030, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2011). As to public interest,

22 “it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s

23 constitutional rights.” Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012)

24

Here, Plaintiffs’ TRO does not discuss potential harm to Defendants, but the

25 Court considered potential harm to Defendants in issuing this order. There is a

26

27 3 See Los Angeles Times, LAPD Projectiles Fired at Lakers Crowd Causes Severe Injuries (Oct.

28

15, 2020), available at: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-15/lapd-projectilesgruesome-injuries-lakers-celebration.

7

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 90 Filed 04/28/21 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:1578

1 strong interest in preserving a person’s First Amendment rights, including the right

2 of peaceful assembly. On balance, Plaintiffs’ requested relief is tailored to

3 restricting LAPD’s use of less-lethal launchers on peaceful protestors and those

4 who are documenting the demonstrations. Plaintiffs’ tailored request does not

5 seek to ban LAPD’s crowd control tactics; their request limits LAPD’s use of the

6 launchers in order to ensure that the safety of the protestors and the officers can

7 both be achieved.

8

CONCLUSION

9

Accordingly, Defendants’ Request to Strike Plaintiffs’ TRO and, in the

10 alternative, additional time to file opposition is DENIED. The Court’s previous

11 Order is modified as follows:

12

1. LAPD is restricted from using the 40mm and 37mm launchers in public

13 demonstrations except by officers who successfully completed Department

14 training and meet all annual qualification requirements on the weapons;

15

2. An officer may use 40mm less-lethal munitions only when the officer

16 reasonably believes that a suspect is violently resisting arrest or poses an

17 immediate threat of violence or physical harm. The use of 40mm less-lethal

18 munitions should be preceded by a warning, if feasible;

19

3. An officer may use 37mm less-lethal munitions as a crowd control tool

20 only with the prior approval of the incident commander and only when a dispersal

21 order has been issued, unless immediate action is necessary to stop violence, to

22 ensure public safety and restore order. A warning to disperse must be given,

23 consistent with all of the dispersal order requirements set forth in LAPD Use of

24 Force – Tactics Directive No. 11.1, and then the officer may fire the 37 mm at the

25 ground 5 to 10 feet in front of the crowd. The 37 mm may not be used as a target

26 specific munition unless absolutely necessary to prevent imminent serious bodily

27 injury to the officer or others.

28

8

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 90 Filed 04/28/21 Page 9 of 9 Page ID #:1579

1

4. The 40mm launcher must not be used to target the head, neck, face, eyes,

2 kidneys, chest, groin or spine of a person.

3

5. The 40 mm and 37 mm launchers should be fired at a distance of five feet

4 or greater from another person, unless an officer or other person is attacked and

5 there is a threat of imminent serious harm.

6

This order supersedes the Order re TRO issued on April 19, 2021.

7

8

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

11

12

DATED: April 28, 2021

13

14

15

16

CONSUELO B. MARSHALL

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

 
 Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 102 Filed 05/10/21 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:1779

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, et al, Case No.: CV 20-5027 CBM

12

Plaintiffs,

13 vs.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

14 City of Los Angeles, et al,

15

Defendants.

16

17

The Court having granted Plaintiffs’ Request for Preliminary Injunction

18 issues the following:

19

20

1. LAPD is restricted from using the 40mm and 37mm launchers in public

21 demonstrations except by officers who successfully completed Department

22 training and meet all annual qualification requirements on the weapons;

23

2. An officer may use 40mm less-lethal munitions only when the officer

24 reasonably believes that a suspect is violently resisting arrest or poses an

25 immediate threat of violence or physical harm. The use of 40mm less-lethal

26 munitions should be preceded by a warning, if feasible, consistent with the Use of

27 Force Warning set forth in LAPD Use of Force – Tactics Directive No. 17;

28

3. An officer may use 37mm less-lethal munitions as a crowd control tool

1

Case 2:20-cv-05027-CBM-AS Document 102 Filed 05/10/21 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:1780

1 only with the prior approval of the incident commander and only when a dispersal

2 order has been issued, unless immediate action is necessary to stop violence, to

3 ensure public safety and restore order. A warning to disperse must be given,

4 consistent with all of the dispersal order requirements set forth in LAPD Use of

5 Force – Tactics Directive No. 11.1, and then the officer may fire the 37 mm at the

6 ground 5 to 10 feet in front of the crowd. The 37 mm may not be used as a target

7 specific munition unless absolutely necessary to prevent imminent serious bodily

8 injury to the officer or others;

9

4. The 40mm launcher must not be used to target the head, neck, face, eyes,

10 kidneys, chest, groin or spine of a person.

11

5. The 40 mm and 37 mm launchers should only be fired at a distance of five

12 feet or greater from another person, unless an officer or other person is attacked

13 and there is a threat of imminent serious harm.

14

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

17 DATED: May 10, 2021

18

19

CONSUELO B. MARSHALL

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2