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

 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES- 1

Stanley Goff, Bar No. 289564

15 Boardman Place Suite 2

San Francisco, CA 94103

Telephone: (415) 571-9570

Email: scraiggoff@aol.com

Attorney for Plaintiff Russell Jameson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUSSELL	JAMERSON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DALY	CITY,	ET	AL.	

Defendants.

Case	No.:	3:15-cv-02132-MEJ

COMPLAINT	FOR	DAMAGES:

EXCESSIVE	FORCE,	[42	U.S.C.	§	1983]

STATE	CAUSES	OF	ACTION:

BATTERY

ASSAULT

NEGLIGENCE

BANE	ACT	VIOLATION

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 3:16-cv-07335-LB Document 1 Filed 12/26/16 Page 1 of 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

 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES- 2

JURISDICTION

1. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this complaint under 42 U.S.C. 

§1983.

I.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Russell Jamerson brings an action for the above-mentioned federal and State

causes of action.

3. The City of Daly City is a public entity operating in the State of California.

4. Defendant Daly City Police Officer Karen Douglass # 2065 was at all times relevant to 

this complaint employed as a law enforcement officer for Daly City who engaged in the acts 

leading to the plaintiff’s injuries. This defendant officer is being sued in both her official and 

individual capacities. 

5. Defendant Daly City Police Officer Ian Perez # 1222 was at all times relevant to this 

complaint employed as a law enforcement officer for Daly City who engaged in the acts leading 

to the plaintiff’s injuries. This defendant officer is being sued in both his official individual 

capacities.

6. Defendant Daly City Police Officer Sgt. Hussain was at all times relevant to this 

complaint employed as a law enforcement officer for Daly City who engaged in the acts leading 

to the plaintiff’s injuries. This defendant officer is being sued in both his official individual 

capacities.

Case 3:16-cv-07335-LB Document 1 Filed 12/26/16 Page 2 of 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

 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES- 3

7. Defendant DOE officers were at all times relevant to this complaint employed as law 

enforcement officers for Daly City who engaged in the acts leading to the plaintiff’s injuries. 

These DOE officers have not been identified yet and upon discovery of their identities their true 

names will be added as defendants. These DOE defendants are being sued in their official and 

individual capacities.

8. A tort claim form was drafted and filed with Daly City and this tort claim was rejected 

on July 18, 2016. 

II.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

9. On December 19, 2015 At approximately 5:00PM the plaintiff Russell Jamerson who 

at the time of the incident was 17 years old, left his home at 80 Bel Mar Ave in Daly City to go 

to the Stones Town Galleria Shopping Mall in San Francisco, and to meet up with friends. He 

decided to get something to eat from a Chipotle Restaurant in Daly City across the street from 

his home before continuing his journey. He parked his vehicle in the parking lot of the restaurant. 

10. The plaintiff went inside the Chipotle restaurant to place his to go order. When he 

returned to his vehicle. He mistakenly went to a vehicle that was the exact make and model and 

color of his own car. Believing the car was his, he attempted to use his key on the lock until he 

realized that his key did not work and the car must not have been his. The plaintiff then looked 

around, and discovered that there were 3 Honda accords in row and the next one was his. 

11. During this time period, three onlookers observed the plaintiff attempting to gain 

entry to the car that was not his and believing that he was breaking into the cars, called the Daly 

City police department and gave his description.

Case 3:16-cv-07335-LB Document 1 Filed 12/26/16 Page 3 of 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

 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES- 4

12. The plaintiff unlocked his vehicle, got in the car and began to eat his food and listen 

to music. While he was eating, the plaintiff was approached by defendants who started banging 

on his driver-side window, pointing their weapons at him at point blank range. 

13. The plaintiff who was by then surrounded by six officers, was then ordered to get out 

of his car at gunpoint and placed in handcuffs while his car was searched. 

14. The plaintiff was then asked by an officer without first being advised of his Miranda 

Rights against self-incrimination, "Are you breaking into cars?" "Were you breaking into cars 

over there? In which the plaintiff responded no. 

15. After approximately 30 minutes, the defendants discovered that a mistake had been 

made and released the plaintiff. 

FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION

Plaintiff v. Defendant Officers (Federal Constitutional Claims)

Excessive Force

16. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated the plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth 

Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from the use of excessive force when the 

defendants who outnumbered the plaintiff by 6-1, pointed their guns and tasers at the plaintiff at 

point blank range and kept their guns and tasers trained on the plaintiff for an extended period of 

time. 

17. That during the time that the defendants pointed their guns and tasers pointed at and 

trained on the plaintiff within point-blank range, the plaintiff was unarmed, non-evasive, nonresistant and outnumbered by the defendants and was not engaged in flight.

Case 3:16-cv-07335-LB Document 1 Filed 12/26/16 Page 4 of 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

 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES- 5

STATE CAUSES OF ACTION

Plaintiff v. Defendant Officers (State Battery Claim)

18. Based on the above-stated misconduct, the Defendant officers caused the Plaintiff to 

suffer a battery when the defendants who outnumbered the plaintiff by 6-1, pointed their guns 

and tasers at the plaintiff at point blank range and kept their guns and tasers trained on the 

plaintiff for an extended period of time. 

19. That during the time that the defendants pointed their guns and tasers at the plaintiff 

within point-blank range, the plaintiff was unarmed, non-evasive, non-resistant and outnumbered 

by the defendants and not engaged in flight.

20. That this level of force was intentional without provocation, necessity or legal 

justification.

21. The Defendant officers are liable for all injuries caused by their acts, causing the 

plaintiff to suffer an unlawful battery to the same extent as a private person pursuant to 

California Government Code Section 820(a). 

22. Defendants as public employees are not exonerated or immune from liability for the 

act of committing a battery upon the plaintiff’s person pursuant to California Government Code 

Section 820.8. 

Case 3:16-cv-07335-LB Document 1 Filed 12/26/16 Page 5 of 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

 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES- 6

Plaintiff v. Defendant Daly City (State Battery Claim)

23. Because the individual defendants were acting as agents, servants, and or employees 

of defendant Daly City, and because the individual defendants were acting within the scope and 

course of their employment, and under the direct control and supervision of Daly City the 

defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for battery pursuant to California Government Code §815.2.

Plaintiff v. Defendant Officers (State Assault Claim)

24. Based on the above-stated misconduct, Defendant officers caused the plaintiff to 

suffer a reasonable fear of an imminent battery when the plaintiff observed the defendants who 

outnumbered the plaintiff by 6-1, pointed their guns and tasers at the plaintiff at point blank 

range and kept their guns and tasers trained on the plaintiff for an extended period of time. 

25. That during the time that the defendants pointed their guns and tasers at the plaintiff 

within point-blank range, the plaintiff was unarmed, non-evasive, non-resistant and outnumbered 

by the defendants.

26. That the defendant officers are liable for all injuries caused by their acts of causing 

the plaintiff to suffer a reasonable fear or apprehension of an unlawful battery to the same extent 

as a private person pursuant to California Government Code Section 820(a).

27. Defendants as public employees are not exonerated or immune from liability for the 

act of committing an assault upon the plaintiff’s person pursuant to California Government Code 

Section 820.8.

Case 3:16-cv-07335-LB Document 1 Filed 12/26/16 Page 6 of 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

 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES- 7

Plaintiff v. Defendant Daly City (State Assault Claim)

28. Because the individual defendants were acting as agents, servants, and or employees 

of defendant Daly City, and because the individual defendants were acting within the scope and 

course of their employment, and under the direct control and supervision of Daly City the 

defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for assault pursuant to California Government Code §815.2.

Plaintiff v. Defendant Officers (State Negligence Claim)

29. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of due care not to cause 

the plaintiff to suffer an assault and battery and that this duty was breached by the defendants 

negligence and failure to exercise due care in their handling of the plaintiff who was a minor at 

the time of the incident. 

30. As a direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned acts of defendants, plaintiff 

was injured as set forth above and is entitled to compensatory damages according to proof at the 

time of trial.

31. That the defendant officers are liable for all injuries caused by their acts of causing 

the plaintiff to suffer harm based on their negligence to the same extent as a private person 

pursuant to California Government Code Section 820(a). 

32. Defendants as public employees are not exonerated or immune from liability for 

negligence for causing the Plaintiff to suffer harm pursuant to California Government Code 

Section 820.8.

Case 3:16-cv-07335-LB Document 1 Filed 12/26/16 Page 7 of 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

 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES- 8

Plaintiff v. Defendant Daly City (State Negligence Claim)

33. Because the individual defendants were acting as agents, servants, and or employees

of Daly City, and because the individual defendants were acting within the scope and course of 

their employment, and under the direct control and supervision of Daly City, Defendant City is 

liable for negligence pursuant to California Government Code §815.2.

Plaintiff v. Defendant Officers (52.1. Civil Rights Violation)

34. That Defendant officers interfered with the Plaintiff's Fourth amendment right to be 

free from the unlawful seizure of his person through the exercise of excessive force when the 

Plaintiff observed the defendants who outnumbered the plaintiff by 6-1, pointed their guns and 

tasers at the plaintiff at point blank range and kept their guns and tasers trained on the plaintiff 

for an extended period of time. 

35. That during the time that the defendants pointed their guns and tasers at the plaintiff 

within point-blank range, the plaintiff was unarmed, non-evasive, non-resistant and outnumbered 

by the defendants.

36. That upon observing the defendants pointing their guns and tasers at him at point 

blank range, the plaintiff reasonably believed that if he exercised his right to be free from 

excessive force, that the defendant officers would commit violence against him. 

37. That the defendant officers’ conduct interfered with the plaintiff’s right to be free 

from excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that this violation was 

accomplished by threat, intimidation or coercion.

38. That the plaintiff was harmed because he suffered severe emotional stress as a result 

of the defendant’s conduct; and

Case 3:16-cv-07335-LB Document 1 Filed 12/26/16 Page 8 of 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

 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES- 9

39. That the defendant officers conduct of pointing guns and tasers at the plaintiff (who 

was a minor at the time) at point blank range, was a substantial factor in causing his harm.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment against DEFENDANTS as follows:

1. Compensatory damages as to all defendants;

2. For punitive damages according to proof as to each defendant officer;

3. Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to U.S.C. 1988;

4. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial. 

Dated: December 2, 2016

/s/

Stanley	Goff	Esq.,

Attorney	for	Plaintiff	Russell	Jamerson

Case 3:16-cv-07335-LB Document 1 Filed 12/26/16 Page 9 of 9