COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 1

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

JOHN L. BURRIS Esq., SBN 69888

LATEEF GRAY, Esq., SBN 250055

JAMES COOK Esq., SBN 300212

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS

Airport Corporate Centre

7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120

Oakland, California 94621

Telephone: (510) 839-5200

Facsimile: (510) 839-3882 

john.burris@johnburrislaw.com

lateef.gray@johnburrislaw.com

james.cook@johnburrislaw.com

 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

GARY MILLER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY MILLER, an individual,

 

 Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF OAKLEY, a municipal corporation;

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a municipal 

corporation; RYAN MACLENNAN, 

individually and in his capacity as an officer for 

the Oakley Police Department; CHRISTOPHER 

HAMBLIN, individually and in his capacity as 

an officer for the Oakley Police Department;

“FNU” SCHULTZ, individually and in his 

capacity as a sergeant for the Oakley Police 

Department; DAVID RIDDLE, individually and 

in his capacity as an officer for the Oakley Police 

Department; BRIAN FABEL, individually and 

in his capacity as an officer for the Oakley Police 

Department and DOES 1-50, inclusive, 

individually, jointly and severally,

 Defendants.

 

 CASE NO.: 3:17-cv-206

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

(42 U.S.C §§ 1983, 1988; and pendent tort 

claims)

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 3:17-cv-00206-JD Document 1 Filed 01/15/17 Page 1 of 11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 2

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

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action for damages brought pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, 

and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, under California Civil 

Code Section § 52.1, and under the common law of California. This action is against the CITY OF 

OAKLEY, OFFICERS RYAN MACLENNAN, CHRISTOPHER HAMBLIN, “FNU” SCHULTZ, 

DAVID RIDDLE, BRIAN FABEL of the Oakley Police Department, and DOES 1-50.

2. It is also alleged that these violations and torts were committed during the course and 

scope of the above-mentioned officers’ employment with the City of Oakley Police Department.

JURISDICTION

3. This action arises under Title 42 of the United States Code, § 1983. Title 28 of the 

United States Code, §§ 1331 and 1343 confers jurisdiction upon this Court. The unlawful acts and 

practices alleged herein occurred in Oakley California, which is within the judicial district of this 

Court. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law causes of action under 

28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff GARY MILLER (“Plaintiff”) has been and is a resident of California and a 

United States Citizen. 

5. Defendant, RYAN MACLENNAN, (hereinafter “Defendant Maclennan”) was a 

Police Officer for the Oakley Police Department, and is sued in his individual capacity, and in his 

capacity as an officer of the Oakley Police Department.

6. Defendant, CHRISTOPHER HAMBLIN, (hereinafter “Defendant Hamblin”) was a 

Police Officer for the Oakley Police Department, and is sued in his individual capacity, and in his 

capacity as an officer of the Oakley Police Department.

7. Defendant, “FNU” SCHULTZ, (hereinafter “Defendant Schultz”) was a Police Officer

for the Oakley Police Department, and is sued in his individual capacity, and in his capacity as an 

officer of the Oakley Police Department.

Case 3:17-cv-00206-JD Document 1 Filed 01/15/17 Page 2 of 11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 3

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. Defendant, DAVID RIDDLE, (hereinafter “Defendant Riddle”) was a Police Officer

for the Oakley Police Department, and is sued in his individual capacity, and in his capacity as an 

officer of the Oakley Police Department.

9. Defendant, BRIAN FABEL, (hereinafter “Defendant Fabel”) was a Police Officer for 

the Oakley Police Department, and is sued in his individual capacity, and in his capacity as an officer 

of the Oakley Police Department.

10. Defendant City of Oakley (“City”) is an incorporated public entity duly authorized and 

existing as such in and under the laws of the State of California; and at all times herein mentioned, 

Defendant City has possessed the power and authority to adopt policies and prescribe rules, 

regulations and practices affecting the operation of the City of Oakley Police Department and its 

tactics, methods, practices, customs and usage. At all relevant times, Defendant City was the 

employer of Defendant officers, individually and as peace officers.

11. Defendant County of Contra Costa (“County”) is an incorporated public entity duly 

authorized and existing as such in and under the laws of the State of California; and at all times 

herein mentioned, Defendant County has possessed the power and authority to adopt policies and 

prescribe rules, regulations and practices affecting the operation of the City of Oakley Police 

Department and its tactics, methods, practices, customs and usage. At all relevant times, Defendant 

County was the employer of Defendant officers, individually and as peace officers.

12. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants DOES 1 through 

50, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and 

believes and thereon alleges that each defendant so named is responsible in some manner for the 

injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff as set forth herein. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to 

state the names and capacities of DOES 1-50, inclusive, when they have been ascertained.

ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES

13. Plaintiff is required to comply with an administrative tort claim requirement under 

California law. Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies pursuant to California 

Government Code Section 910. 

Case 3:17-cv-00206-JD Document 1 Filed 01/15/17 Page 3 of 11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 4

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

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

14. On January 15, 2015, at around 8:00 p.m., Plaintiff was in his family’s home, located 

at 5030 Martin Street, in Oakley, when Defendant Fabel of the Oakley Police Department arrived to 

investigate a “neighborhood dispute.” Defendant Fabel knocked on Plaintiff’s front door and asked 

Plaintiff to step outside, which Plaintiff did. Defendant Fabel then questioned Plaintiff near the front 

door. At some point, Defendant Hamblin arrived and Defendant Fabel walked away. Defendant 

Hamblin then started talking to Plaintiff. After some time, Plaintiff, who was never informed that he 

was being detained or arrested, started walking toward his front door, as he needed to take his 

medication. Defendant Hamblin followed Plaintiff. Plaintiff closed his front door and Defendant 

Hamblin thereafter tried to break down Plaintiff’s door.

15. Plaintiff’s wife and middle daughter were sitting in the living room/kitchen area and 

observed this. Plaintiff, his wife and daughter were all in fear at this point. Plaintiff then heard sirens 

outside. Plaintiff tried to call several other law enforcement agencies because he felt that the 

authorities at the scene were conducting themselves unlawfully. 

16. Additional Oakley police officers and Contra Costa County Sheriff’s deputies arrived. 

Defendants Maclennan, Schultz and Riddle were present on the scene.

17. At some point, Plaintiff’s wife was having a telephone conversation with their oldest 

daughter, who had arrived on scene, but was not allowed into the home by several yet-to-be identified 

Oakley police officers. Plaintiff was then receiving messages from yet-to-be identified Oakley police 

officers via his daughter’s mobile phone. The gist of the messages was that Plaintiff should come 

outside. Plaintiff complied and went outside. 

18. As Plaintiff got to the bench near his front door, he saw several yet-to-be identified 

Oakley police officers raise their guns as if they were about to fire. In light of all the recent police 

shootings of unarmed individuals, this scared Plaintiff even more. Plaintiff then retreated back into 

the safety of his home. 

19. Plaintiff’s wife, who was still in communication with several yet-to-be identified 

Oakley police officers via her daughter’s mobile phone, incredulously asked something to the effect 

Case 3:17-cv-00206-JD Document 1 Filed 01/15/17 Page 4 of 11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 5

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

of “why would he go out there now?” At this time, Plaintiff could hear a police dog outside barking. 

After more conversation, Plaintiff again went outside and sat down on the bench near his front door. 

Plaintiff’s hands were in the air. A yet-to-be identified Oakley police officer, without any warning, 

then unleashed a K9 officer, which bit Plaintiff about Plaintiff’s left arm and body. 

20. Plaintiff was then pounced upon by several yet-to-be identified Oakley police officers. 

These yet-to-be identified Oakley police officers then beat Plaintiff about the head and body with 

fists, knees, feet and bricks from Plaintiff’s yard. Plaintiff’s wife was standing at the front door and 

observed Plaintiff being beaten. 

21. At some point, Plaintiff lost consciousness, but vividly remembers being dragged 

down the street and beaten some more about the head and body by several yet-to-be identified Oakley 

police officers. Plaintiff also remembers having his face pinned against a police car by several yet-tobe identified Oakley police officers. 

22. Plaintiff sustained injuries related to being hit with blunt objects as well as multiple 

K9 bites.

23. Defendant Hamblin never stated that Plaintiff was under arrest or being detained. 

Plaintiff believed that he had a right to end the conversation and enter his home. Defendant Hamblin

did not issue any commands to Plaintiff before Plaintiff entered his home. 

24. Plaintiff was taken to Contra Costa County Hospital. As a result of the defendant 

officers' wrongful actions, Plaintiff sustained a concussion. Also, Plaintiff suffered lacerations on his 

left arm from the K9 officer’s bites. In addition, Plaintiff suffered a broken collarbone and bruising 

on his body. Plaintiff still continues to suffer from the injuries sustained that day.

25. Plaintiff alleges that only an unreasonable officer would release a K9 officer and 

repeatedly beat a defenseless man under these circumstances in the manner the Defendant officers 

did. Plaintiff further alleges that he never presented any threat to anyone that could justify the 

amount of force that Defendant officers used, and that Defendant officers unreasonably provoked the 

violent confrontation. 

26. Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress as a direct result of the involved Defendant 

officers' misconduct described herein.

Case 3:17-cv-00206-JD Document 1 Filed 01/15/17 Page 5 of 11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 6

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

27. The actions and omissions of the City and the Defendant Oakley Police Department 

Officers was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances, without legal justification or other 

legal right, done under color of law, within the course and scope of their employment as law 

enforcement officers and/or public officials, and pursuant to unconstitutional customs, policies and 

procedures of the City and/or other jurisdictions. The City was also responsible for Plaintiff’s 

injuries through its own acts and omissions, negligent and otherwise, by failing to properly and 

adequately investigate, train, supervise, monitor, instruct, and discipline its law enforcement officers 

and/or employees and agents, including the officers and officials described herein.

28. The actions of Defendants’ described herein were brutal, malicious, and done without 

just provocation or cause, proximately causing Plaintiff’s injuries and resulting damages.

DAMAGES

29. As a consequence of Defendants’ violations of Plaintiff’s federal civil rights under 42 

U.S.C. §1983, the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Plaintiff was physically, mentally, 

and emotionally injured and damaged as a proximate result of the excessive force used against him.

30. Plaintiff found it necessary to engage the services of private counsel to vindicate his 

rights under the law. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and/or costs 

pursuant to statute(s) in the event that he is the prevailing parties in this action under 42 U.S.C. §§§§ 

1983, 1985-86 and 1988. Plaintiff is also entitled to punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. §§§§ 1983, 

1985-86 and 1988.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution- Unlawful Detention)

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

(Against Defendants Maclennan, Hamblin, Schultz, Riddle, Fabel, and DOES 1-25)

31. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 30 of this 

Complaint.

32. Defendants' above-described conduct violated Plaintiff's right as provided for under 

the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable searches and 

seizures because Defendants lacked the requisite reasonable suspicion to detain Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.

Case 3:17-cv-00206-JD Document 1 Filed 01/15/17 Page 6 of 11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 7

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

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution- Unlawful Seizure)

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

(Against Defendants Maclennan, Hamblin, Schultz, Riddle, Fabel, and DOES 1-25)

33. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 32 of this 

Complaint.

34. Defendants' above-described conduct violated Plaintiff's right as provided for under 

the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable searches and 

seizures because Defendants lacked the requisite probable cause to arrest Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution-Excessive Force)

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

(Against Defendants Maclennan, Hamblin, Schultz, Riddle, Fabel, and DOES 1-25)

35. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 34 of this 

Complaint.

36. Defendants’ above-described conduct constituted violations of Plaintiff’s rights as 

provided for under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These rights include but 

are not limited to the right to be free from excessive force and/or the arbitrary and/or unreasonable 

use of force against him. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Monell - 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

(Against Defendants City and DOES 26-50)

37. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 36 of this 

Complaint.

38. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that high-ranking City officials, 

including high-ranking supervisors such as DOES 26 through 50, and/or each of them, knew and/or 

reasonably should have known about systemic, unwarranted uses of force by Defendants Maclennan, 

Hamblin, Schultz, Riddle, Fabel, and DOES 1-25, and/or the Oakley Police Department. 

Case 3:17-cv-00206-JD Document 1 Filed 01/15/17 Page 7 of 11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 8

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

39. Despite having such notice, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that 

Defendant DOES 26-50, and/or each of them, approved, ratified, condoned, encouraged, sought to 

cover up, and/or tacitly authorized the continuing pattern and practice of misconduct and/or civil 

rights violations by said officers.

40. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that as a result of the 

deliberate indifference, reckless and/or conscious disregard of the misconduct by Defendants 

Maclennan, Hamblin, Schultz, Riddle, Fabel, and DOES 1-25 and/or each of them, the Oakley Police 

Department encouraged these officers to continue their course of misconduct and ignored these 

officers’ lack of training, resulting in the violation of the Plaintiff’s rights as alleged herein.

41. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant DOES 26-50, and/or each of them, were on 

notice of the Constitutional defects in their training of City police officers, including, but not limited 

to their use of excessive force.

42. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions and/or deliberate indifference by high 

ranking City officials, including high ranking Oakley Police Department supervisors DOES 26-50, 

Defendants DOES 1-25, and each of them resulted in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional 

rights including, but not limited to the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as 

guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the right to not be deprived 

of life, liberty or property without due process of the law, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth 

Amendment to the United States Constitution and the right to be free from excessive force by law 

enforcement officers, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §52.1)

(Against Defendants Maclennan, Hamblin, Schultz, Riddle, Fabel, and DOES 1-25)

43. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 42 of this 

Complaint.

44. Defendants’ above-described conduct constituted interference, and attempted 

interference, by threats, intimidation and coercion, with the Plaintiff’s peaceable exercise and 

Case 3:17-cv-00206-JD Document 1 Filed 01/15/17 Page 8 of 11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 9

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

enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of 

California, in violation of California Civil Code §52.1. 

45. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of Civil Code § 52.1, 

Plaintiff suffered violations of his constitutional rights, and suffered damages as set forth herein.

46. Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief and an award of his reasonable attorney’s fees 

pursuant to Civil Code § 52.1(h).

47. Plaintiff is entitled to treble damages, but in no case less than $4,000.00 and an award 

of his reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Civil Code § 52(a).

48. Under the provisions of California Civil Code §52(b), Defendant is liable for punitive 

damages for each violation of Civil Code §52.1, reasonable attorney’s fees and an additional 

$25,000.00. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligence)

(Against Defendants Maclennan, Hamblin, Schultz, Riddle, Fabel, and DOES 1-50

49. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 48 of this 

Complaint, except for any and all allegations of intentional, malicious, extreme, outrageous, wanton, 

and oppressive conduct by defendants, and any and all allegations requesting punitive damages. 

50. The present action is brought pursuant to section 820 and 815.2 of the California 

Government Code. Pursuant to section 820 of the California Government Code, as public employees, 

Defendants DOES 1-25 are liable for injuries caused by their acts or omissions to the same extent as 

a private person. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants DOES 1-25 were acting within the course 

and scope of their employment and/or agency with Defendant City. As such Defendant City is liable 

in respondeat superior for the injuries caused by the acts and omissions of Defendants DOES 1-25 

pursuant to section 815.2 of the California Government Code. 

51. Defendants negligently and without due care violently beat a handcuffed Plaintiff 

without legal justification. Plaintiff was seriously injured as a proximate and direct cause of the 

Defendants’ negligent conduct.

Case 3:17-cv-00206-JD Document 1 Filed 01/15/17 Page 9 of 11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 10

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

52. The violent and needless beating of a handcuffed person occurred as a result of the 

absence of due care for the safety of others and constituted an unreasonable, unwarranted, and 

excessive use of force and manifested an unreasonable risk of injury to Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Battery)

(Against Defendants Maclennan, Hamblin, Schultz, Riddle, Fabel, and DOES 1-25)

53. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 52 of this 

Complaint.

54. Defendants intentionally beat Plaintiff without any just provocation or cause. 

Defendants' conduct was neither privileged nor justified under state statute or common law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.

EIGHT CAUSE OF ACTION

(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)

(Against Defendants Maclennan, Hamblin, Schultz, Riddle, Fabel, and DOES 1-25)

55. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 54 of this 

Complaint.

56. Defendants' above-described conduct was extreme, unreasonable and outrageous. 

Defendants unleashed a K9 officer on a non-resisting Plaintiff and then mercilessly beat Plaintiff 

while he was handcuffed and defenseless, without legal justification.

57. In engaging in the above-described conduct, Defendants intentionally ignored or 

recklessly disregarded the foreseeable risk that Plaintiff would suffer extreme emotional distress as a 

result of Defendants' conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.

JURY DEMAND

58. Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial in this action.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief, as follows:

Case 3:17-cv-00206-JD Document 1 Filed 01/15/17 Page 10 of 11
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 11

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. For general damages according to proof;

2. For special damages, including but not limited to, past, present and/or future wage 

loss, income and support, medical expenses and other special damages in a sum to be determined 

according to proof;

3. For punitive damages and exemplary damages in amounts to be determined according 

to proof as to defendants DOES 1 through 25 and/or each of them; 

4. Any and all permissible statutory damages;

5. For reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988;

6. For cost of suit herein incurred; and

7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS

Dated: January 15, 2017 __/s/ John L. Burris

 John L. Burris Esq.

 Attorney for Plaintiff

 

 

Case 3:17-cv-00206-JD Document 1 Filed 01/15/17 Page 11 of 11