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 Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EVELYN WRIGHT-TURBIN, an individual;

CLIFTON GUPTON, an individual,

 

 Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, a municipal corporation; 

WILLIAM FEBEL, individually and in his 

capacity as Police Officer for the CITY OF 

OAKLAND; JASON BELLIGAN, individually 

and in his capacity as Police Officer for the 

CITY OF OAKLAND; and DOES 1-50, 

inclusive, individually and in their official 

capacity as Police Officers for the CITY OF 

OAKLAND,

 Defendants.

 

 CASE NO.: 3:16-cv-7393

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

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

claims)

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 4:16-cv-07393-CW Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 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 Sections 52.1, and under the common law of California. This action is against the CITY OF 

OAKLAND, OFFICERS FEBEL and BELLIGAN of the CITY OF OAKLAND Police Department, 

and DOES 1-25.

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 OAKLAND Police 

Department. 

JURISDICTION

3. This action arises under Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 1983. Jurisdiction 

is conferred upon this Court by Title 42 of the United States Code, Sections 1331 and 1343. The 

unlawful acts and practices alleged herein occurred in the City of Oakland, California, which is 

within the jurisdictional boundaries of this Court. The damages sought are within the jurisdictional 

limits of this Court. 

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff EVELYN WRIGHT-TURBIN (hereinafter “PLAINTIFF WRIGHTTURBIN”), has been and is a resident of the state of California and is a United States Citizen.

5. Plaintiff CLIFTON GUPTON (hereinafter “PLAINTIFF GUPTON”), has been and is 

a resident of the state of California and is a United States Citizen.

6. Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND (hereinafter “CITY”), is and at all times mentioned 

herein, a municipal entity, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California.

Under its authority, CITY operates the Oakland Police Department.

7. Defendant WILLIAM FEBEL (hereinafter “DEFENDANT FEBEL”), was and at all 

times mentioned herein, an Officer for the Oakland Police Department, and is sued in his individual 

capacity, and in his capacity as an officer of the Oakland Police Department.

Case 4:16-cv-07393-CW Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 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 JASON BELLIGAN (hereinafter “DEFENDANT BELLIGAN”), was and 

at all times mentioned herein, an Officer for the Oakland Police Department, and is sued in his 

individual capacity, and in his capacity as an officer of the Oakland Police Department.

9. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants DOES 1 through 

50, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed 

and believe and thereon allege that each defendant so named is legally responsible and liable for the 

incident, injuries and damages hereinafter set forth. Each defendant proximately caused injuries and 

damages because of their negligence, breach of duty, negligent supervision, management or control, 

violation of public policy and/or use of excessive force. Each defendant is liable for his/her personal 

conduct, vicarious or imputed negligence, fault, or breach of duty, whether severally or jointly, or 

whether based upon agency, employment, ownership, entrustment, custody, care or control or upon 

any other act of omission. Plaintiffs will ask leave to amend ther complaint subject to further 

discovery.

10. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, Defendant police officers acted under the 

color of law and in the course and scope of their employment with City of Oakland Police 

Department. In engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendant police officers exceeded the 

authority vested in them as police officers under the United States and California Constitutions, and 

as employees of the City of Oakland Police Department.

ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES

11. Plaintiffs are required to comply with an administrative tort claim requirement under 

California law. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies pursuant to California 

Government Code Section 910. Plaintiffs filed a claim against the City of Oakland on August 24, 

2015. The City of Oakland rejected the claim on June 29, 2016. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

12. In 1987, Plaintiff Wright-Turbin, broke the tibia in her left leg after she was involoved 

in a major car accident. After the accident, Plaintiff Wright-Turbin continued to suffer complications 

as a result of the structural damage to her leg. Sometime in 2014, Plaintiff Wright-Turbin began to 

Case 4:16-cv-07393-CW Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 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

suffer from an unbearable pain in her left knee. On February 2, 2015, Plaintiff Wright-Turbin 

underwent a knee replacement at Alta Bates Summit Medical Center in Berkeley, California. 

13. On the date of the incident, February 24, 2015, Plaintiff Wright-Turbin was asleep on 

the living room couch in her apartment, recovering from her knee replacement. Plaintiff Gupton was 

asleep in the bedroom. At approximately 2:30 p.m., Plaintiff Wright-Turbin was awoken by the 

sound of aggressive knocking at her front door and the adjacent windows. Confused, Plaintiff 

Wright-Turbin managed to make her way to her front door. When Plaintiff Wright-Turbin got to the 

front door, she asked,“Who is it?”, then proceeded to look out the window. When Plaintiff WrightTurbin looked out the window, she saw Defendants Febel, Belligan, and seven yet-to-be identified 

Oakland Police Department Officers. The Defendant officers drew their guns and lifted up a 

battering-ram. The Defendants told Plaintiff Wright-Turbin that if she did not open the door, they 

would enter her apartment by force. Afraid, Plaintiff Wright-Turbin opened her door. Without 

justification, the Defendant officers immediately grabbed Plaintiff Wright-Turbin. In a move of 

desparation, Plaintiff Wright-Turbin lifted up her pant leg and told the Defendant officers that she 

recently had a knee replacement. Even still, without regard for Plaintiff Wright-Turbin’s condition, 

the Defendant officers forcefully removed Plaintiff Wright-Turbin from her apartment. The 

Defendant officers proceeded to throw Plaintiff Wright-Turbin down the steps that led to her 

apartment, injuring her surgically replaced knee in the process. The Defendants then dragged Plaintiff 

Gupton out of the apartment and threw him down the stairs. The Defendant Officers handcuffed both 

Plaintiff Wright-Turbin and Plaintiff Gupton. 

14. During the course of the incident, Plaintiff Wright-Turbin pleaded with the defendant 

officers. Plaintiff Wright-Turbin told the officers that they had the wrong apartment. In response, the 

seargeant on the scene said, “so what?” and “take it up with the people up front.” 

15. The search warrant listed 2230 84th Avenue, Apt. A Oakland, CA, 94605 as the 

addressed to be searched. The address listed was Plaintiff Wright-Turbin’s address, however, the 

officers were looking for suspected drug dealer, Walter Ozell Cooper. Mr. Cooper did not live at the 

listed address, nor did he have any connection to Plaintiffs Wright-Turbin or Gupton. 

Case 4:16-cv-07393-CW Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 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

16. On information and belief, the search warrant was issued as the consequence of 

Defendants’ failure to exercise reasonable care in the investigation and presentation of accurate 

statements that were essential to the finding of probable cause for the warrant.

17. Plaintiffs allege that only unreasonable officers would execute a search warrant in the 

manner and under the circumstances the Defendant officers did, that Plaintiffs Wright-Turbin and 

Gupton never presented any threat to anyone that could justify the amount of force that Defendant 

officers used, and that the Defendant officers had a clear opportunity to evaluate the situation and 

determine that the search warrant was flawed. 

18. As a result of the incident, Plaintiff Wright-Turbin has experienced extreme pain and 

suffering. Plaintiff Wright-Turbin’s surgically replaced knee was injured and required additonal 

months of treatment in order to heal properly. In addition, Plaintiffs Wright-Turbin and Gupton 

currently suffer from paranoia, anxiety, and emotional distress as a consequence of the unlawful 

search. 

19. The actions and omissions of the City and the Defendant Oakland Police Department 

Officers were 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 Plaintiffs’

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.

DAMAGES

20. As a consequence of Defendants’ violations of Plaintiffs’ federal civil rights under 42 

U.S.C. §1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiffs were physically, mentally, emotionally, and 

financially injured and damaged as a proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct. 

21. Plaintiffs found it necessary to engage the services of private counsel to vindicate their

rights under the law. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of attorney’sfees and/or costs pursuant 

to statute(s) in the event that they are the prevailing parties in this action under 42 U.S.C. §§§§ 1983, 

Case 4:16-cv-07393-CW Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 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

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

86 and 1988.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution-Unlawful Search

(42 U.S.C. §1983)

(Plaintiff Wright-Turbin v. Defendants Febel, Belligan, and DOES 1-10, inclusive)

22. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 21 of this 

Complaint.

23. Defendants' above-described conduct violated Plaintiff Wright-Turbin’s right as 

provided for under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from 

unreasonable searches and seizures as Defendants had no legal justification to search Plaintiff 

Wright-Turbin’s apartment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

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

(42 U.S.C. §1983)

(Plaintiffs Wright-Turbin and Gupton v. Defendants Febel, Belligan, and DOES 1-10, inclusive)

24. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 23 of this 

Complaint.

25. Defendants' above-described conduct violated Plaintiffs’ rights as provided for under 

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

seizures because Defendants’ lacked any legal justification to detain Plaintiffs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

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

(42 U.S.C. §1983)

(Plaintiffs Wright-Turbin and Gupton v. Defendants Febel, Belligan, and DOES 1-10, inclusive)

26. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 25 of this 

Complaint

Case 4:16-cv-07393-CW Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 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

27. Defendants’ above-described conduct constituted violations of Plaintiffs’ 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 them. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Monell - 42 U.S.C. Section 1983)

(Against Defendants City and DOES 11-25)

28. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference herein paragraphs 1 through 

27 of this Complaint.

29. As against Defendants City, and/or DOES 11-25 and/or each of them, individually 

and/or in their capacities as official policy-maker(s) for City, including the District Attorney’s Office.

Plaintiff further alleges that the acts and/or omissions alleged in the Complaint herein are indicative 

and representative of a repeated course of conduct by members of Defendant City and are tantamount 

to a custom, policy or repeated practice of condoning and tacitly encouraging the abuse of police 

authority, and disregard for the constitutional rights of citizens, such as Plaintiffs. 

30. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the acts and/or omissions 

alleged herein are the proximate result of a custom, policy, pattern or practice of deliberate 

indifference by Defendants City, Febel, Belligan, DOES 1-25 and/or each of them, to the repeated 

violations of the constitutional rights of citizens by Oakland Police Department officers, which have 

included, but are not limited to, repeated acts of: making false reports, providing false and/or 

misleading information in causing detentions, arrests, imprisonments and/or malicious prosecutions 

based on fabricated and/or misleading statements and/or engaging in similar acts of misconduct on a 

repeated basis and failure to institute and enforce a consistent disciplinary policy and/or early 

warning system.

31. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that the acts and/or 

omissions alleged herein are the proximate result of a custom, policy, pattern or practice of deliberate 

Case 4:16-cv-07393-CW Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 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

indifference by Defendants City, Officers Febel, Belligan, DOES 11-25 and/or each of them, to the 

repeated violations of the constitutional rights of citizens by the Oakland Police Department.

32. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that the damages 

sustained as alleged herein were the proximate result of customs, policies and/or practices which 

included, but were not limited to, the failure to adequately or appropriately hold officers accountable 

for their misconduct, the failure to properly and fairly investigate complaints about officers’ 

misconduct, the failure to enact or adopt policies to ensure adequate and/or appropriate oversight of 

officers to prevent continuing violations of the rights of citizens.

33. The aforementioned deliberate indifference, customs, policies or practices of 

Defendants City, Febel, Belligan, DOES 1-25, and/or each of them, resulted in the deprivation of the 

constitutional rights of Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to, the right to be free from unreasonable

searches and/or seizures.

34. As a result of the violation of their constitutional rights by Defendants City, Febel, 

Belligan, and/or DOES 1-25 and/or each of them, Plaintiffs sustained the injuries and/or damages as 

alleged heretofore in this Complaint.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §52.1)

(Plaintiffs Wright-Turbin and Gupton v. Defendants Febel, Belligan, and DOES 1-10, inclusive)

35. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 34 of this

Complaint.

36. Defendants' above-described conduct constituted interference, and attempted 

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

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.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.

Case 4:16-cv-07393-CW Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 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

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligence)

(Plaintiffs Wright-Turbin and Gupton v. Defendants Febel, Belligan, and DOES 1-25, inclusive)

37. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 36 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.

38. The present action is brought pursuant to sections 820 and 815.2 of the California 

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

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, Defendant Officers Febel, Belligan, and Defendant 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 Febel, Belligan and DOES 1-25 pursuant to section 815.2 of the California 

Government Code. 

39. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants Febel, Belligan and DOES 1-25, inclusive, 

were subject to a duty of care to avoid causing unnecessary physical harm and distress to persons 

through their use of force. In addition, Defendants, and each of them, had a duty to exercise 

reasonable care in the investigation of factual circumstances presented for the purpose of obtaining a 

search warrant. Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have known that Walter Ozell Cooper 

was neither a resident, nor had any connection to the address of 2230 84th Avenue, Apt. A, Oakland,

California. 

40. Defendants, and each of them, by and through their agents, joint venture, and/or 

employees acting within the scope of their employment and/or authority, negligently and carelessly:

a) failed to exercise reasonable care in presenting accurate statements of fact essential to 

the finding of probable cause in obtaining the search warrant;

b) failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent injuries, including the failure to 

prevent, control, rectify, and/or remedy the situation created by Defendants, and each of them;

Case 4:16-cv-07393-CW Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 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

41. The wrongful conduct of Defendants, as set forth herein, did not comply with the 

standard of care to be exercised by reasonable persons and proximately caused Plaintiffs’ injuries.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth. 

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Assault And Battery)

(Plaintiffs Wright-Turbin and Gupton v. Defendants Febel, Belligan, and DOES 1-10, inclusive)

42. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 41 of this 

Complaint.

43. Defendant officers placed Plaintiffs in immediate fear of bodily harm by grabbing

Plaintiffs without just provocation or cause.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.

EIGHT CAUSE OF ACTION

(False Imprisonment)

(Plaintiffs Wright-Turbin and Gupton v. Defendants Febel, Belligan, and DOES 1-10, inclusive)

44. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein paragraphs 1 through 43 of this 

Complaint. 

45. Defendants’ above-described actions constituted an intentional unpermitted act that 

restrained Plaintiffs without legal justification. 

46. Defendants deprived Plaintiffs of their liberty of movement when they carelessly

misidentified Plaintiff Wright-Turbin’s residence. Further, Defendants restrained, confined, and 

detained Plaintiffs for an appreciable time, without Plaintiffs’ knowing and voluntary consent, when 

they wrongfully placed Plaintiffs in handcuffs for the duration of the unlawful search.

47. Defendant’s above-described conduct constituted a false arrest and imprisonment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)

(Plaintiffs Wright-Turbin and Gupton v. Defendants Febel, Belligan, and DOES 1-10, inclusive)

48. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 47 of this 

Complaint.

Case 4:16-cv-07393-CW Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 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

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

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

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

result of Defendants' conduct.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.

JURY DEMAND

51. Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial in this action.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief, as follows:

1. For general damages in a sum according to proof;

2. For special damages in a sum according to proof;

3. For punitive damages in a sum according to proof;

4. For reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988;

5. For any and all statutory damages allowed by law;

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: December 29, 2016 __/s/ John L. Burris___

 John L. Burris Esq.,

 Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 4:16-cv-07393-CW Document 1 Filed 12/29/16 Page 11 of 11