20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 4:17-cv-00133-KAW Document1 Filed 01/11/17 Page 5 of 12

26. Mr. Simpson continued to casually walk away and was holding nothing but a
water bottle in his hand when Officer Buckley seized him from behind. Next, Officers Buckley,
Fergus, Morse and Clifford tackled Mr. Simpson to the ground where they began to beat, punch
and knee him as he lay on the ground.

27. Once Mr. Simpson was placed in handcuffs, he immediately began to complain
about the injuries he suffered to his head and upper body. It was only after the Defendant
Officers began to panic about the consequences of the beating they administered did they claim
to have found a gun that was supposedly concealed in a sock that was reportedly in the general
vicinity where Mr. Simpson was beaten. Mr. Simpson vociferously denied that the gun belonged]
to him and made a point of reminding the Officers there were several other people besides him
who were also in close proximity to gun based upon where they claim they found it.

28. Officer Buckley wrote a sworn, detailed report that fabricated his encounter with
Mr. Simpson in order to justify the officers’ unlawful arrest and use of excessive force. Officer
Buckley claimed in his perjured version of events: he ran in front of Mr. Simpson; that he made
contact with Mr. Simpson three times and that each time Mr. Simpson evaded the officer by
moving up and down the street; that he asked Mr. Simpson multiple questions; that Mr. Simpson
kept his hands near his waistband and refused to show his hands to Officer Buckley; that Mr.
Simpson attempted to run away; and that Mr. Simpson was walking with a limp as if he was
trying to conceal a gun.

29. Officer Buckley reaffirmed each and every point of this perjured story a second
time when the officer testified in federal court before Federal Judge Breyer during an evidentiary
hearing. Officer Buckley went so far as to describe the incident using an aerial map of the street
corner and marker to denote each and every detail of his false narrative during his court

testimony.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
-5



21

22

23

24

25

Case 4:17-cv-00133-KAW Document1 Filed 01/11/17 Page 10 of 12

FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT supervisors, Defendants, and DOES 1-50, and each off
them, and the aforementioned customs, policies or practices of Defendants and/or DOES 1-50 inl
his/their capacity as police officer(s) for the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO}
resulted in the deprivation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights including, but not limited to, the
following:
a. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as guaranteed
by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
b. The right not to be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law, as
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
c. The right to equal protection of the laws, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution; and/or,
51. Said rights are substantive guarantees under the Fourth and/or Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(False Arrest/Imprisonment in violation
of CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1 “The Bane Act”)
(Against Defendants John Fergus, Thomas Buckley, Elizabeth Morse, Andrew Clifford and
DOES 1-50)

52. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 51 of this
complaint.

53. Defendants’ above-described conduct constituted interference, and attempted
interference, by threats, intimidation and coercion, with the Plaintiff's peaceable exercise and
enjoyment of rights, including but not limited to his right to be free from unreasonable search
and seizure, to due process, to equal protection of the laws, to be free from state actions that
shocks the conscience, and to life, liberty, and property, secured by the Constitution and laws
of the United States and the State of California, in violation of California Civil Code §52.1.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
-10



20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 4:17-cv-00133-KAW Document1 Filed 01/11/17 Page 7 of 12

CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fourth Amendment — Detention and Arrest under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983)
(Against Defendants John Fergus, Thomas Buckley, Elizabeth Morse, Andrew Clifford and
DOES 1-25)

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

35. At the time Defendant Officers seized Plaintiff, officers did not have reasonable
suspicion to justify the detention nor did they have probably cause to make an arrest. Officers
simply seized Plaintiff from behind, forced him to the ground, beat Plaintiff into submission,
arrested and imprisoned him, which violated Plaintiff's right to be secure in his person against
unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed to Plaintiff under the Fourth Amendment to
the United States Constitution.

36. | The Defendant Officers detained Plaintiff without reasonable suspicion and
arrested him without probable cause, in violation of their training and the law. As a result of
their misconduct, all these Defendant Officers are liable for Plaintiff's injuries, either because
they were integral participants in the wrongful detention and arrest, or because they failed to
intervene to prevent these violations.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fourth Amendment — Excessive Force under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983)
(Against Defendants John Fergus, Thomas Buckley, Elizabeth Morse, Andrew Clifford and
DOES 1-25)

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

38. | When the Defendant Officers beat Plaintiff during an unlawful detention and
arrest, they deprived Plaintiff of his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable
searches and seizures as guaranteed to Plaintiff under the Fourth Amendment to the United

States Constitution. The Defendant Officers’ actions were excessive and unreasonable,

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
-7



21

22

23

24

25

Case 4:17-cv-00133-KAW Document1 Filed 01/11/17 Page 6 of 12

30. In contradiction to Officer Buckley’s fabricated description of events, a
surveillance video showed Mr. Simpson casually walking with a water bottle in his hand when
Officer Buckley suddenly seized Mr. Simpson from behind. The video goes on to show the
group of Defendant Officers tackle and beat Mr. Simpson while he was on the ground. In light
of the foregoing, Judge Breyer dismissed the bogus criminal charges. Judge Breyer was
apparently so offended by Officer Buckley’s conduct he encouraged the U.S. Attorney to hand
over the evidence to the San Francisco Police Department in order for the officer to be
disciplined for perjury. Judge Breyer also remarked that had it not been for video footage of the
incident, he would have believed Officer Buckley, which would have ultimately resulted in Mr.
Simpson being unjustly convicted and subject to a lengthy prison sentence.

31.  Asaresult of the officers’ unconstitutional arrest, Mr. Simpson was physically
and emotionally injured along with suffering pecuniary and emotional injuries while he was in
custody defending against the trumped up charges.

DAMAGES

32. Asa proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered wrongful
detention and arrest. As a further proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered
physical injury, loss of wages, emotional distress, fear, terror, anxiety, humiliation, and loss of
sense of security, dignity, and pride as a United States Citizen.

33. The conduct of the Defendant Police Officers was malicious, wanton, and
oppressive. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to and award of punitive damages against said

Defendant Officers.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
-6



20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 4:17-cv-00133-KAW Document1 Filed 01/11/17 Page 9 of 12

conduct by members of the CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT
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.

45. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the acts and omissions
alleged herein are the direct and proximate result of the deliberate indifference of Defendants
and/or DOES 1-50 in his/their capacity as police officer(s) for the CITY AND COUNTY OF
SAN FRANCISCO, and each of them, to repeated acts of misconduct, which were tacitly
authorized, encouraged or condoned by the Defendants and/or DOES 1-50 in his/their capacity
as police officer(s) for the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, and each of them.

46. The injuries and damages to Plaintiff as alleged herein were the foreseeable and
proximate result of said customs, policies, patterns and/or practices of Defendants and/or
DOES 1-50 in his/their capacity as police officer(s) for the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, and each of them.

47. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the damages sustained
as alleged herein were the direct and proximate result of municipal customs and/or policies of
deliberate indifference in the training, supervision and/or discipline of members of the
Defendants and/or DOES 1-50 in his/their capacity as police officer(s) for the CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.

48. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and upon such information and belief
alleges that Plaintiff's damages and injuries were caused by customs, policies, patterns or
practices of Defendants and/or DOES 1-50 in his/their capacity as police officer(s) for the
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, and each of them, of deliberate indifference in
the training, supervision and/or discipline of Defendants, and DOES 1-50, and/or each of them.

49. The aforementioned customs, policies or practices of Defendants and/or DOES 14
50 in his/their capacity as police officer(s) for the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, and each of them, resulted in the deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights.

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

ranking CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO officials, including high ranking SAI

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
-9



20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 4:17-cv-00133-KAW Document1 Filed 01/11/17 Page 1 of 12

JOHN L. BURRIS, Esq., SBN 69888
ADANTE D. POINTER, Esq., SBN 236229
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS
Airport Corporate Center

7677 Oakport St., Suite 1120

Oakland, CA 94621

Telephone: (510) 839-5200

Facsimile: (510) 839-3882

Email: John.Burris@johnburrislaw.com
Email: Adante.Pointer@johnburrislaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRANDON SIMPSON
Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation;
JOHN FERGUS, individually and in his
capacity as a City of San Francisco Police
Officer; THOMAS BUCKLEY, individually
and in his capacity as a City of San Francisco
Police Officer; ELIZABETH MORSE,
individually and in her capacity as a City of
San Francisco Police Officer; ANDREW
CLIFFORD, individually and in his capacity
as a City of San Francisco Police Officer;
DOES 1-50, inclusive.

Defendants.

NN

Case No.: 3:17-cv-133

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
(42 U.S.C §§ 1983)

(Cal. Civ. Code §52.1)

(Cal. Penal Code §242)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
-1



20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 4:17-cv-00133-KAW Document1 Filed 01/11/17 Page 12 of 12

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

Dated: January > 2017 Law Offices of John L. Burris

/s/_ John L. Burris
John L. Burris
Attorneys for Plaintiff

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
-12



14

15

16

21

22

23

24

25

Case 4:17-cv-00133-KAW Document1 Filed 01/11/17 Page 11 of 12

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Assault and Battery — Violation of CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE § 242)
(Against Defendants John Fergus, Thomas Buckley, Elizabeth Morse, Andrew Clifford and
DOES 1-25)
54. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 53 of

this complaint.

55. Defendants, while working as police officers for the CITY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, and acting within the course an scope of their duties, intentionally struck,
grabbed, punched and kneed Plaintiff as well as forced him into handcuffs and imprisoned him
without a lawful basis.

56. As a result of the actions of these Defendants, Plaintiff suffered physical
injuries. The Defendant Officers did not have legal justification for using force against
Plaintiff, and these Defendants’ use of force while carrying out their police officer duties was
an unreasonable use of force.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth

JURY DEMAND

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

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief, as follows:

i. For general damages in a sum to be proven at trial;

2. For special damages, including but not limited to, past, present and/or future wagel
loss, income and support, medical expenses and other special damages in a sum to
be determined 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 reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to California Civil Code Section 52.1;

6. For cost of suit herein incurred; and

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
-il



20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 4:17-cv-00133-KAW Document1 Filed 01/11/17 Page 8 of 12

especially because officers did not have a lawful basis to detain Plaintiff when the four
Defendant Officers piled on top of Plaintiff, kneed and punched Plaintiff without cause, which
violated their training and Plaintiffs constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment.

39. As a result of their misconduct, each of the Defendant Officers is liable for
Plaintiff's injuries, either because they were an integral participant in, or failed to intervene in,
the conduct described above;

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Municipal Liability for Unconstitutional Custom or Policy (Monell)—42 U.S.C. section
1983)
(Against Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and DOES 26-50)

40. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs 1-39
of this complaint.

41. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that high ranking
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO officials, including Defendants, and DOES 26+
50, and/or each of them, knew and/or reasonably should have known about acts of misconduct
by Defendants, and DOES 1-25, and/or each of them.

42. Despite having such notice, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges
that Defendants, and DOES 1-50, and/or each of them, approved, ratified, condoned, encouraged)
and/or tacitly authorized the continuing pattern and practice of misconduct and/or civil rights
violations by said officers.

43. 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.
and DOES 1-50, and/or each of them, encouraged these officers to continue their course off
misconduct, resulting in the violation of Plaintiffs rights as alleged herein.

44. As against Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

Defendants and/or DOES 1-50 in his/their capacity as police officer(s) for the CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Plaintiff further alleges that the acts and/or omissions

alleged in the Complaint herein are indicative and representative of a repeated course of

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
-8



21

22

23

24

25

Case 4:17-cv-00133-KAW Document1 Filed 01/11/17 Page 4 of 12

management or control, violation of public policy, and false arrests. 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 or omission. Plaintiff will ask leave to amend this
complaint subject to further discovery.

18. In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them acted within the
course and scope of their employment for the City and County of San Francisco.

19. In doing the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them,
acted under color of authority and/or under color of law.

20. Due to the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them,
acted as the agent, servant, and employee and/or in concert with each of said other Defendants
herein.

21. Plaintiff filed a state claim of action for their state causes of action and received a

letter of rejection from the Defendant City and County of San Francisco on July 11, 2016.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
22. At approximately 11 p.m. on December 1st, 2015, Mr. Simpson was peacefully
gathered with a group of people on the corner of Taylor and Eddy in the Tenderloin District.

23. Nevertheless, without receiving any reports or complaints about the group, San
Francisco Police Officers decided to detain and/or arrest the group in order to investigate their
hunch the young men were engaged in playing craps. To that end, Officers kept the group under
surveillance until they abruptly brought their patrol cars to a sliding and screeching stop in front
of the group. The group dispersed with some of the young men running while others walked
away.

25. Officers Buckley and Fergus jumped out of their patrol car and began running
toward the group. Mr. Simpson was casually walking up the street when he overheard Officer

Buckley said something to the effect of “What’s going on, guys” to the dispersing group.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
-4



20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 4:17-cv-00133-KAW Document1 Filed 01/11/17 Page 3 of 12

confers venue upon this Court.

PARTIES

10. Plaintiff BRANDON SIMPSON (“Simpson”) is a competent adult, a resident of
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, readily recognizable as an AFRICAN-AMERICAN male, and is a
United States Citizen.

11. Defendant CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (“hereinafter
Defendant”) is and at all times herein mentioned is a municipal entity duly organized and
existing under the laws of the State of California that manages and operates the CITY OF SAN
FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT.

13. Defendant JOHN FERGUS (Badge No. 1943), was and at all times mentioned
herein is a police officer for the City of San Francisco, and is sued in his individual and official
capacity.

14. Defendant NICHOLAS BUCKLEY (Badge No. 528), was and at all times
mentioned herein is a police officer for the City of San Francisco, and is sued in his individual
and official capacity.

15. Defendant ELIZABETH MORSE (Badge No. 1268), was and at all times
mentioned herein is a police officer for the City of San Francisco, and is sued in her individual
and official capacity.

16. Defendant ANDREW CLIFFORD (Badge No. 2388), was and at all times
mentioned herein is a police officer for the City of San Francisco, and is sued in his individual
and official capacity.

17. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and/or capacities of defendants sued herein
as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names.
Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege his true names and capacities when ascertained.
Plaintiff believes and alleges that each of the DOE defendants 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,

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES,
-3



20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 4:17-cv-00133-KAW Document1 Filed 01/11/17 Page 2 of 12

INTRODUCTION

L. This action arises out of the unlawful arrest and beating of Brandon Simpson by
City of San Francisco Police Officers John Fergus, Thomas Buckley, Elizabeth Morse and
Andrew Clifford in the Tenderloin district of San Francisco.

2. At approximately 11 p.m. on December 1st, 2015, Mr. Simpson was peacefully
gathered with a group of people on the corner of Taylor and Eddy in the Tenderloin District.
There were no reports or complaints regarding the group when Officers Fergus and Buckley
brought their patrol car to a sliding stop in front of the group. In response, the group, including
Mr. Simpson, began to disperse. To that end, Mr. Simpson began casually walking up the street
while holding nothing but a water bottle in his hand.

3. Without warning, Officer Buckley grabbed Mr. Simpson from behind. Then
Officers Buckley, Fergus, Clifford and Morse tackled him to the ground. Next the Officers
began to punch and knee Mr. Simpson. Video footage of the incident shows the four officers on
top of Mr. Simpson punching and kneeing him without remorse while he was lying flat on the
ground.

4. In an effort to justify the Officers’ excessive use of force, the Defendant Officers
concocted a completely fabricated story about their encounter with Mr. Simpson. The Officers
claimed he ran, fought and actively resisted being brought into custody. The Officers repeated
their false accounts in their police reports and on the witness stand during the course of the
Federal prosecution against Mr. Simpson. Fortunately, the Officers’ lies were exposed when a
videotape surfaced that contradicted the Officers’ claims. After reviewing the videotape, United
States District Court Judge Breyer dismissed the bogus criminal charges and recommended

Officer Buckley be disciplined for his misconduct.

JURISDICTION
5. This action arises under Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 1983. The
unlawful acts and practices alleged herein occurred in the City and County of San Francisco,

California, which is within this judicial district. Title 28 United State Code Section 1391 (b)

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
-2