Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06964/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06964-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO FILE A CORRECTED 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

John Houston Scott, SBN 72578 Izaak D. Schwaiger, SBN 267888

SCOTT LAW FIRM Attorney at Law

1388 Sutter Street, Suite 715 130 Petaluma Avenue, Suite 1A

San Francisco, CA 94109 Sebastopol, CA 95472

Tel: (415) 561-9601 Tel: (707) 595-4414

Fax: (415) 561-9609 Fax: (707) 581-1983

john@scottlawfirm.net izaak@izaakschwaiger.com

William A. Cohan, SBN 141804 Omar Figueroa, SBN 196650

WILLIAM A. COHAN, P.C. Law Offices of Omar Figueroa

P.O. Box 3448 7770 Healdsburg Avenue, Suite A

Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Sebastopol, CA 95472

Tel: (858) 832-1632 Tel: (707) 829-0215

Fax: (858) 832-1845 Fax: (707) 861-9787

bill@williamacohan.com omar@alumni.stanford.edu

Brian Gearinger, SBN 146125 Randolph Daar, SBN 88195

GEARINGER LAW GROUP Attorney at Law

740 Fourth Street 3330 Geary Blvd., 3rd Floor East

Santa Rosa, CA 95404 San Francisco, CA 94118

Tel: (415) 440-3102 Tel: (415) 986-5591

brian@gearingerlaw.com Fax: (415) 421-1331

rdaar@pier5law.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff, EZEKIAL FLATTEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EZEKIAL FLATTEN

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, JACY TATUM,

JOSEPH HUFFAKER, and DOES 1-50, 

inclusive.

Defendants.

Case No: 4:18-cv-06964-HSG

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER TO FILE A CORRECTED 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 

DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 1 of 67
SCOTT LAW FIRM 

1388 SUTTER STREET, SUITE 715

SAN 

FRANCISCO, CA 94109

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 1 -

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO FILE A CORRECTED 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN plaintiff EZEKIAL FLATTEN, 

defendant CITY OF ROHNERT PARK (City), defendant JOSEPH HUFFAKER, and defendant 

JACY TATUM, by and through their counsels of record, that Plaintiff file his corrected Amended 

First Amended Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief with Exhibits A and B.

RECITALS

1. The plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief 

against the City of Rohnert Park, Jacy Tatum, Joseph Huffaker, and Does 1-50 on March 25, 

2019, at Dkt. 37.

2. Plaintiff inadvertently omitted from this First Amended Complaint for Damages 

and Injunctive Relief Exhibits A and B that were attached to his initial complaint.

STIPULATION

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff and defendants hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

1. The plaintiff may file a [Corrected] Amended First Amended Complaint for 

Damages and Injunctive Relief, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, where the only corrections are to 

add the word “[CORRECTED]” and attach the same Exhibit A and B as were attached to the 

initial complaint.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: May 23, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

SCOTT LAW FIRM

By: /s/John Houston Scott

 John H. Scott, Attorney for Plaintiff

 EZEKIAL FLATTEN

Dated: May 23, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

ALLEN GLAESSNER, HAZELWOOD

 & WERTH, LLP

By: /s/Dale L. Allen

 Dale L. Allen, Attorney for Defendant

 JOSEPH HUFFAKER

Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 2 of 67
SCOTT LAW FIRM 

1388 SUTTER STREET, SUITE 715

SAN 

FRANCISCO, CA 94109

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 2 -

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO FILE A CORRECTED 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Dated: May 23, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

ANGELO, KILDAY & KILDUFF, LLP

By: /s/ Bruce Kilday

 Bruce Kilday, Attorney for Defendant

 JACY TATUM

ATTESTATION

I, John H. Scott, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file 

the foregoing documents. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5.1(i)(3), I hereby attest that concurrence 

in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of its Signatories.

Respectfully submitted.

Dated: May 23, 2019 By: /s/John Houston Scott

 John Houston Scott

 Attorney for Plaintiff

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _____________________ ___________________________________

The Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.

United States District Judge

5/24/2019

Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 3 of 67
Exhibit 1

Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 4 of 67
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[CORRECTED] FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

John Houston Scott, SBN 72578 Izaak D. Schwaiger, SBN 267888

SCOTT LAW FIRM Attorney at Law

1388 Sutter Street, Suite 715 130 Petaluma Avenue, Suite 1A

San Francisco, CA 94109 Sebastopol, CA 95472

Tel: (415) 561-9601 Tel: (707) 595-4414

Fax: (415) 561-9609 Fax: (707) 581-1983

john@scottlawfirm.net izaak@izaakschwaiger.com

William A. Cohan, SBN 141804 Omar Figueroa, SBN 196650

WILLIAM A. COHAN, P.C. Law Offices of Omar Figueroa

P.O. Box 3448 7770 Healdsburg Avenue, Suite A

Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 Sebastopol, CA 95472

Tel: (858) 832-1632 Tel: (707) 829-0215

Fax: (858) 832-1845 Fax: (707) 861-9787

bill@williamacohan.com omar@alumni.stanford.edu

Brian Gearinger, SBN 146125 Randolph Daar, SBN 88195

GEARINGER LAW GROUP Attorney at Law

740 Fourth Street 3330 Geary Blvd., 3rd Floor East

Santa Rosa, CA 95404 San Francisco, CA 94118

Tel: (415) 440-3102 Tel: (415) 986-5591

brian@gearingerlaw.com Fax: (415) 421-1331

rdaar@pier5law.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff, EZEKIAL FLATTEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EZEKIAL FLATTEN

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, JACY TATUM,

JOSEPH HUFFAKER, and DOES 1-50, 

inclusive.

Defendants.

Case No: 4:18-cv-06964-HSG

[CORRECTED] FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 5 of 67
SCOTT LAW FIRM 

1388 SUTTER STREET, SUITE 715

SAN 

FRANCISCO, CA 94109

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

[CORRECTED] FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

PLAINTIFF EZEKIAL FLATTEN complains of Defendants and alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jurisdiction is conferred by virtue of 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and by 18 USC § 1964(c).

2. The conduct alleged herein occurred in Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, State of 

California. Venue of this action lies in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California by virtue of 28 USC § 1391.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Ezekial Flatten resides in Texas. 

4. Defendant City of Rohnert Park is a public entity situated in the County of 

Sonoma, State of California and organized under the laws of the State of California.

5. Defendants Jacy Tatum and Joseph Huffaker were police officers employed by the 

City of Rohnert Park. They acted in the course and scope of their employment, and under color 

of state law, at all times mentioned herein.

6. Plaintiff does not presently know the true names and capacities of defendants 

DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, and therefore sues them by these fictitious names. Plaintiff is

informed and believes that DOES 1 through 50, and each of them, were responsible in some 

manner for the acts or omissions alleged herein. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint 

to add their true names and capacities when they have been ascertained.

7. In doing the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, defendants and each of them 

acted under color of authority and/or under color of state law, and, in concert with each other.

8. Defendants Tatum, Huffaker, and Does 1 through 50 conspired to achieve a 

common goal and/or acted in concert to achieve said goal. In doing the acts and omissions 

alleged herein said Defendants conspired and/or acted in furtherance of the conspiracy to (a) 

unlawfully stop the Plaintiff and seize his property, (b) deprive the Plaintiff of his property 

without due process and through the outrageous abuse of police powers, and (c) retaliate against 

Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 6 of 67
SCOTT LAW FIRM 

1388 SUTTER STREET, SUITE 715

SAN 

FRANCISCO, CA 94109

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

[CORRECTED] FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

the Plaintiff in an effort to chill his speech for exercising his right to speak and petition the 

government regarding matters of public concern.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

9. On December 5, 2017, Ezekial Flatten was travelling southbound on Highway 101 

in the County of Mendocino between the cities of Hopland and Cloverdale. He was driving a 

rental car and transporting approximately three pounds of legal cannabis to be delivered to a 

testing facility for use in lawful commerce.

10. At approximately 12:00 p.m., defendants Huffaker and Doe 1 were parked on the 

side of Highway 101 in an unmarked, black police SUV. As Mr. Flatten passed their position, the 

defendants initiated a pretextual traffic stop of his vehicle without reasonable suspicion to believe 

a crime had been committed. Instead, defendants intended to stop and search Mr. Flatten on a 

hunch that he might have been transporting cannabis and/or the proceeds from cannabis sales.

11. Mr. Flatten yielded to the patrol vehicle’s forward-facing emergency lights and 

pulled off of the road. The defendants contacted plaintiff at the side of his vehicle. They were 

wearing green military-style uniforms with no badges, insignia, or nametags, and were armed 

with handguns and wearing bulletproof vests. The defendants asked plaintiff if he knew how fast 

he was going, to which he replied, “61 or 62.” Doe 1 countered, “You were going a little faster 

than that,” and offered no further explanation for the traffic stop. Instead he began questioning 

Mr. Flatten as to where he was going to and coming from.

12. The defendants informed Mr. Flatten that they were going to search his vehicle 

and its contents. Without consent or other legal justification, the defendants removed a sealed 

cardboard box from the rear of plaintiff’s vehicle and cut it open with a knife, discovering the 

marijuana inside. The defendants then took pictures of plaintiff, plaintiff’s drivers license, and his 

license plate.

13. Defendants informed Mr. Flatten that they were with the ATF, commented that 

marijuana was taking over in California, and advised him that he may be getting a letter from 

Washington. In less than five minutes, the officers had left the scene with Mr. Flatten’s cannabis

Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 7 of 67
SCOTT LAW FIRM 

1388 SUTTER STREET, SUITE 715

SAN 

FRANCISCO, CA 94109

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

[CORRECTED] FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

without ever having run his name for wants and warrants, and without so much as issuing a 

citation for even a traffic infraction.

14. Defendant Huffaker is an officer with the Rohnert Park Department of Public 

Safety. Rohnert Park is a municipality incorporated in the County of Sonoma, State of California. 

Defendant Huffaker was, at the time of these events, a member of a drug interdiction task force 

(hereinafter “Task Force”), and as such has participated in numerous traffic stops along the 101 

corridor ostensibly for the purposes of narcotics enforcement.

15. The Task Force’s most active members are Defendants Tatum and Huffaker. At its 

inception, Rohnert Park’s use of the Task Force was designed to buttress the small department’s 

failing budget through the seizure of cash believed to be associated with narcotics transactions. 

Between 2016 and 2017, the Rohnert Park Department of Public safety kept $1.2 million in 

seized funds for its own use.

16. Together, Tatum and Huffaker conspired to expand the legitimate interdiction 

mission to one of person financial gain, and over the years seized thousands of pounds of 

marijuana and hundreds of thousands of dollars of currency without issuing receipts for the 

seizures, without making arrests for any crimes, and without any official report of the forfeitures 

being made. Oftentimes when arrests or reports were made, the cash and cannabis seized was 

significantly underreported in furtherance of the conspiracy allowing the officers to skim off the 

top of even otherwise legal interdictions.

17. In furtherance of the conspiracy, defendants Tatum and Huffaker sold the seized 

marijuana to black market vendors without declaring the proceeds as income, and engaged in 

money laundering activities through the purchase, improvement, and sale of real property with the 

proceeds of these illegal activities.

18. Jacy Tatum was recognized as Rohnert Park’s Officer of the Year in 2015 for the 

substantial revenues he brought to the department. He was further recognized for his interdiction 

efforts by the private law enforcement intelligence network known as “Desert Snow,” a for-profit 

entity specializing in interdiction training for police officers. Desert Snow operates a privately 

Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 8 of 67
SCOTT LAW FIRM 

1388 SUTTER STREET, SUITE 715

SAN 

FRANCISCO, CA 94109

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

[CORRECTED] FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

maintained criminal intelligence network known as “Black Asphalt”. Through the course of the 

conspiracy, Defendants Tatum, Huffaker, and Does 1-25 used information from Black Asphalt in 

determining what automobiles to intercept, even though the drivers of those automobiles had 

committed no crimes to justify a detention.

19. Working in concert with other officers from Rohnert Park and from outside 

agencies, Tatum and Huffaker and Does 1-25 acted under color of official right and under color 

of state law to take the personal property of Mr. Flatten and others against their will by 

intimidation and implied threats of force, or by obtaining the consent of their victims through the 

wrongful use of threatened force, violence, and fear.

20. On December 7, 2017, two days after Flatten’s traffic stop, plaintiff reported the 

robbery to local media outlets and federal and state law enforcement. On February 11, 2018, an 

article appeared on a Mendocino County journalist’s blog reporting on Mr. Flatten’s story. Two 

days after that publication, Defendant Tatum issued a press release from his department 

attempting to explain the traffic stop (which he mistakenly believed himself to have been a part 

of), and clarifying that “no other agencies including the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office or 

Hopland Tribal Police were involved...” (See Exhibit A, attached).

21. These interdictions became so lucrative to the officers involved that the conspiracy 

required protection from outside scrutiny. Thus, when plaintiff came forward publicly, Tatum 

quickly sought to quash plaintiff’s accusations by issuing a press release to whitewash the 

conspiracy. But Tatum’s statement to the press was too hastily contrived, and his involvement in 

the illegal seizures too prolific. As a result his press release defended the wrong illegal seizure, 

and instead of diffusing the scrutiny plaintiff’s allegations had brought, it confirmed the existence 

of a more expansive, continuing criminal enterprise.

22. Following the bogus press release, an internal investigation was launched at the 

Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety. Shortly thereafter, Defendant Tatum resigned from 

the force, Defendant Huffaker was placed on administrative leave, and the Director of the 

Department announced his retirement. 

Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 9 of 67
SCOTT LAW FIRM 

1388 SUTTER STREET, SUITE 715

SAN 

FRANCISCO, CA 94109

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

[CORRECTED] FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

23. Mr. Flatten’s statements to the press became a matter of public concern, and were 

reported on widely across California and the nation. (See Exhibit B, attached.)

24. Beginning in April of 2018 and continuing to the time of this filing, plaintiff has 

become the subject of surveillance, harassment, threats, and intimidation by agents of the 

defendants and/or co-conspirators whose identities are unknown at this time. On September 27, 

2018, plaintiff discovered a GPS tracking device hardwired beneath his car’s dashboard. On 

November 11, 2018, plaintiff received an anonymous message via social media that he was 

“playing with fire.”

25. These acts were designed to chill plaintiff’s speech regarding a matter of public 

concern. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to remedy the irreparable harm caused by these ongoing 

acts.

STATEMENT OF DAMAGES

26 As a result of defendants’ conduct, plaintiff sustained economic damages and 

consequential damages.

27. As a result of defendants’ conduct, plaintiff sustained and will continue to sustain 

damages to his career, reputation, future and prospective earning capacity and wages, and 

prospective economic opportunities and advantages in an amount determined according to proof.

28. As a further result of defendants’ conduct, plaintiff suffered and will continue to 

suffer general damages including fear, anxiety, humiliation, and emotional distress in an amount 

to be determined according to proof.

29. The actions of Defendants Jacy Tatum, Joseph Huffaker, and Does 1-25 were 

willful, wanton, reckless, malicious, oppressive and/or done with a conscious or reckless 

disregard for the rights of the plaintiff, who seeks punitive and exemplary damages according to 

proof.

30. Plaintiff has retained private counsel to represent him in this matter and is entitled 

to an award of attorneys’ fees.

Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 10 of 67
SCOTT LAW FIRM 

1388 SUTTER STREET, SUITE 715

SAN 

FRANCISCO, CA 94109

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

[CORRECTED] FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

[42 U.S.C. §1983 – UNLAWFUL TERRY STOP AS

AGAINST DEFENDANTS TATUM, HUFFAKER, AND DOE 1]

31. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 33 as though set forth in full. 

32. Defendants Huffaker and Doe 1 conspired to unlawfully and without cause, and under 

color of state law, stop the Plaintiff while he was lawfully driving on Highway101 in the County 

of Mendocino. The stop was done in furtherance of a conspiracy with Defendant Tatum to 

unlawfully stop vehicles for the purpose of stealing cash and/or cannabis.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

[42 U.S.C. §1983 – UNLAWFUL SEARCH AS

AGAINST DEFENDANTS TATUM, HUFFAKER, AND DOE 1]

33. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 35 as though set forth in full. 

34. Defendants Huffaker and Doe 1 conspired to unreasonably and unlawfully stop, 

detain, and search the Plaintiff and his vehicle. This was done in furtherance of a conspiracy with 

Defendant Tatum to unlawfully stop vehicles for the purpose of stealing cash and/or cannabis.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

[42 U.S.C. §1983 – FIRST AMENDMENT AS

AGAINST DEFENDANTS TATUM, HUFFAKER, AND DOES 1-25]

35. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 37 as though set forth in full.

36. The Plaintiff spoke publicly about matters of public concern when he protested the 

illegal stop and seizure. This included complaints to the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office, the 

Mendocino County District Attorney’s Office, and other law enforcement agencies. This also 

included statements that appeared in local newspapers and petitioning activities with the City of 

Rohnert Park.

37. In response to his activities protected by the First Amendment, the Defendants 

and/or other unknown co-conspirators, acting in furtherance of the conspiracy, caused the 

Plaintiff to be the subject of surveillance, harassment, threats and intimidation designed to chill 

his speech in violation of the First Amendment.

Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 11 of 67
SCOTT LAW FIRM 

1388 SUTTER STREET, SUITE 715

SAN 

FRANCISCO, CA 94109

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 -

[CORRECTED] FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

[42 U.S.C. §1983 – CUSTOM AND PRACTICE AS 

AGAINST THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK]

38. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 40 as though set forth in full.

39. The City of Rohnert Park is liable for the conduct of its officers and its decision 

makers due to the custom and practice of its officers and agents making unlawful traffic stops on 

the Highway 101 corridor between Mendocino and Sonoma Counties. This custom and practice 

of members of the Task Force, including Defendants Tatum and Huffaker and Does 1-10, was 

designed and implemented with the goal of unlawfully detaining and searching motorists to steal 

cannabis and/or cash found in their vehicles.

40. As implemented members of the Task Force had the discretion to (a) arrest the 

person(s) who possessed the cannabis and/or cash and report all or some of the property as 

evidence of a crime, or (b) not arrest the person(s) who possessed cannabis and/or cash, steal the 

property, and not report the stop and theft.

41. Pursuant to this custom and practice scores of unlawful traffic stops were made 

during the past ten years. This custom and practice was known of and approved by the chain of 

command of the Department of Public Safety for the City of Rohnert Park, including its former 

Chief Brian Masterson.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

[18 USC §§ 1962(c) and (d)] – RICO AS AGAINST

DEFENDANTS TATUM, HUFFAKER, AND DOES 1-50]

42. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 44 as though set forth in full.

43. Plaintiff alleges causes of action against all defendants (excepting the City of 

Rohnert Park) based on 18 USC §§ 1962(c) and (d) for conducting and conspiring to conduct, 

respectively, the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity by which 

Plaintiff has been injured in his business and property.

Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 12 of 67
SCOTT LAW FIRM 

1388 SUTTER STREET, SUITE 715

SAN 

FRANCISCO, CA 94109

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 -

[CORRECTED] FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

44. Jurisdiction and venue are provided by 18 USC 1964(c) and 28 USC 1391, 

respectively.

45. The “enterprise” (18 USC 1961(4)) through which defendants conducted their 

racketeering activities is identified in paragraph 14 as “the Task Force.”

46. The numerous predicate crimes committed by defendants causing injuries to 

plaintiff and others include: (1) extortion (18 USC 1951(b)(2)); (2) obstruction of justice (18 USC 

1512(b)(1)); (3) money laundering (18 USC 1956)(a)(1)(A)(i) and(a)(1)(B)(i)); and (4) money 

laundering by tax fraud (26 USC 7206) and evasion (26 USC 7201 and 18 USC 

1956(a)(1)(A)(ii)).

47. Defendants conducted financial transactions with the proceeds of extortion with 

intent to promote their continuing racketeering and with the intent to violate 26 USC 7201 and/or 

7206 by filing false and fraudulent income tax returns omitting the income from their extortionate 

seizures of cash and proceeds of the cannabis sold after acquiring it by extortion. Furthermore, 

defendants conducted financial transactions to conceal or disguise the nature, source, ownership 

and control of the proceeds of their extortion, including the purchase of personal property such as 

boats, automobiles, and household goods with the unreported cash, as well as the purchase of real 

property such as 5452 Hall Road in Santa Rosa with unreported cash where the purchase price 

recorded was substantially lower than the price actually paid. This real property was then 

improved through the injection of more unreported cash, with the design to later sell it at a 

substantially increased price, thereby laundering the proceeds of the criminal enterprise.

48. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

[CIVIL CODE §52.1 - BANE ACT AS 

AGAINST THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK]

49. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all allegations set forth herein.

50. Civil Code section 52.1 also known as the Bane Act was enacted to protect 

individuals like the plaintiff from interference with civil rights by threat, intimidation or coercion.

Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 13 of 67
SCOTT LAW FIRM 

1388 SUTTER STREET, SUITE 715

SAN 

FRANCISCO, CA 94109

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 10 -

[CORRECTED] FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

51. Defendants Huffaker and Doe 1 intentionally interfered with the Plaintiff’s civil 

rights under the laws and Constitution of the State of California, including Plaintiff’s right to 

procedural due process, his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and his 

rights under Article 1, Sec. 2(a) of the California Constitution. Defendants Huffaker and Doe 1 

accomplished these violations through threats, intimidation and coercion by virtue of their 

uniforms, weapons and appearance as law enforcement officers acting under color of authority. 

These acts were done in furtherance of the conspiracy alleged herein.

52. The City of Rohnert Park is vicariously liable for the acts of their employees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

[CONVERSION AS AGAINST THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK]

53. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all allegations set forth herein.

54. Plaintiff possessed and had a right to possess medical cannabis being transported 

to a dispensary.

55. Defendants Huffaker and Doe 1 wrongfully exercised control over his personal 

property and took possession of said property.

56. The City of Rohnert Park is vicariously liable for the acts of their employees.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.

PRAYER

1. For appropriate injunctive relief designed to prevent and deter future unlawful 

theft and robbery of property during traffic stops by agents and employees of the City of Rohnert 

Park, Jacy Tatum, Joseph Huffaker, Does 1-25, and other co-conspirators to be identified;

2. For appropriate injunctive relief designed to prevent and deter future threats, 

harassment, surveillance, and intimidation of the Plaintiff by the Defendants and other coconspirators to be identified;

3. For an accounting and return of the property stolen from the Plaintiff;

4. For compensatory damages according to proof;

Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 14 of 67
SCOTT LAW FIRM 

1388 SUTTER STREET, SUITE 715

SAN 

FRANCISCO, CA 94109

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 11 -

[CORRECTED] FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

5. For general damages according to proof;

6. For an award of punitive and exemplary damages against individual defendants 

according to proof;

7. For costs and attorneys’ fees; 

8. For treble damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant 18 USC 

1964(c);

9. For such other relief as the Court may deem proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby requests a jury trial on all issues so triable.

SCOTT LAW FIRM

Dated: May __, 2018

/s/ John Houston Scott

John Houston Scott

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 15 of 67
Exhibit A

Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 16 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 17 of 67
Exhibit B

Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 18 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 19 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 20 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 21 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 22 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 23 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 24 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 25 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 26 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 27 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 28 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 29 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 30 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 31 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 32 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 33 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 34 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 35 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 36 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 37 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 38 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 39 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 40 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 41 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 42 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 43 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 44 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 45 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 46 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 47 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 48 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 49 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 50 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 51 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 52 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 53 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 54 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 55 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 56 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 57 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 58 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 59 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 60 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 61 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 62 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 63 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 64 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 65 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 66 of 67
Case 4:18-cv-06964-HSG Document 58 Filed 05/24/19 Page 67 of 67