Black Lives Matter-stockton Class Action 166x64

Case 2:18-cv-00591-KJM-AC Document 1 Filed 03/20/18 Page 1 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6

LAW OFFICES OF YOLANDA HUANG YOLANDA HUANG, SBN 104543 475 14th Street, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 329-2140 Facsimile: (510) 580-9410 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 10 11 12

BLACK LIVES MATTER-STOCKTON CHAPTER, an unincorporated association; and DIONNE SMITH-DOWNS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated.

13

Plaintiffs,

14

vs.

15 16 17 18

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, STEVE MOORE, DAVE OLIVER (OLIVR), JOE PETRINO, DOES 1-50. Defendants.

19 20 21 22

No. ___________ CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND COMPENSATORY RELIEF 1. Discrimination Against Plaintiffs Based Upon Speech, Association and Racial Animus: Violations of the 1st, and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, §§ 1, 2, 3 California Constitution. 2. Denying Plaintiffs’ Access To A Public Courthouse: Violations of the 1st, and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, §§ 2; 3 California Constitution. 3. Denying Plaintiffs’ Right to Public Trial: Violation of 6th and 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, §29 California Constitution, Cal. Penal Code §686

23

(Demand for Jury Trials)

24 25 INTRODUCTION

26 27 28

1.

This is an action to enforce the rights of BLACK LIVES MATTER – STOCKTON

CHAPTER, its and ers to exercise their constitutional rights under the First and Page 1 of 13

Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter v. San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office – Civil Rights Class Action Complaint

Case 2:18-cv-00591-KJM-AC Document 1 Filed 03/20/18 Page 2 of 13

1 2 3 4 5

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, §§ 2; 3 of the California Constitution rights to protest and speak out regarding wrongful police shootings of civilians, police harassment of residents of Stockton, and police use of excessive force against black and brown people, and in so doing, to be free from government harassment and discrimination resulting from Defendants’ unconstitutional animosity and prejudice against Plaintiffs. 2.

This is an action to enforce the constitutional rights of BLACK LIVES MATTER –

6

STOCKTON CHAPTER, its and ers under the First and Fourteenth Amendments

7

to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, §§ 1,2, 3 of the California Constitution to have full

8

and complete access, to the San Joaquin County Courthouse Stockton Division, to be able to

9

attend court hearings, free from government harassment and discrimination resulting from

10 11 12 13 14

Defendants’ unconstitutional animosity and prejudice against Plaintiffs. 3.

This is an action for the right of of BLACK LIVES MATTER – STOCKTON

CHAPTER to have a public trial pursuant to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, article 1, § 15 of the California Constitution, and California Penal Code, § 686, subd. 1. 4.

On October 30, 2017, sheriff deputies physically prevented plaintiff BLACK LIVES

15

MATTER – STOCKTON CHAPTER, its chapter president Dionne Smith-Downs, its

16

and ers from entering the courthouse and physically prevented said plaintiffs from

17

attending a court hearing on calendar in Department 8A, before Judge Bernard Garber. On

18

January 29, 2018, sheriff deputies physically intimidated, threatened and harassed of

19

Black Lives Matter – Stockton Chapter while these were inside the San Joaquin County

20

Courthouse – Stockton Branch attending a court hearing, on calendar in Department 8A before

21 22 23 24

Judge Bernard Garber. 5.

The San Joaquin County Courthouse located in Stockton, California, is the largest

courthouse and the primary courthouse for San Joaquin County. JURISDICTION & VENUE 6.

The Jurisdiction of this honorable Court derives from the provisions of the First, Fourth,

25

Fifth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United State Constitution, by way of the Civil

26

Rights Acts, 42 U.S.C. §§1981 (as to certain plaintiffs), 1983 et seq. and 1988; 28 U.S.C. §1331

27

(claims arising under the United States Constitution) and §1343 (claims brought to address

28

deprivations, under color of state authority, of rights privileges, and immunities secured by the Page 2 of 13

Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter v. San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office – Civil Rights Class Action Complaint

Case 2:18-cv-00591-KJM-AC Document 1 Filed 03/20/18 Page 3 of 13

1 2 3 4

United States Constitution), and, by pendent jurisdiction, Secs. 52.1, and 50, of the California Civil Code. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391 because the events took and take place in this District, and the parties generally reside here. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 7.

The claims alleged herein arose in San Joaquin County, State of California. Therefore,

5

venue and assignment, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), lies in the United States District Court for the

6

Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

PARTIES 8.

Plaintiff BLACK LIVES MATTER-Stockton Chapter is an unincorporated association,

and an of Black Lives Matter Global Network, engaged in San Joaquin County and the County Seat, City of Stockton to address police violence against black and brown people, including the shooting and killing of unarmed black and brown civilians, police harassment and the routine violation of the constitutional rights of black and brown people; and the economic and opportunity inequality that black and brown people experience on a daily basis. As of 2016, there were 47 chapters of Black Lives Matter within the United States, and the number of Chapters continue to grow. These chapters are develop and grow in response to the ongoing police

15

violence against black and brown people, including the shooting deaths of black and brown

16

people. Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter has and ers in excess of 100,

17

participates in regional events and planning events in Stockton, California for regional

18

participation. BLACK LIVES MATTER-Stockton Chapter is engaged throughout the year in

19

disseminating information on and protesting police violence. BLACK LIVES MATTER-

20

Stockton Chapter is engaged throughout the year in community events including grocery give-

21 22 23 24

aways in November, toys for tots in December, backpacks for back to school in August, as well as other regular community events. 9.

Plaintiff Dionne-Smith Downs is the president of BLACK LIVES MATTER-Stockton

Chapter and long time Stockton community activist. 10.

Defendant SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE is a “public entity” within the

25

definition of Cal. Gov. Code § 811.2. Defendant Sheriff STEVE MOORE is the elected Sheriff

26

of the County of San Joaquin. The SHERIFF’S OFFICE is responsible for the day-to-day

27

operations of the peace keeping duties of the Sheriff’s Office, whose jurisdiction includes the

28

County Courthouses. The Sheriff’s Office’s duties, responsibilities and powers include Page 3 of 13

Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter v. San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office – Civil Rights Class Action Complaint

Case 2:18-cv-00591-KJM-AC Document 1 Filed 03/20/18 Page 4 of 13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

promulgating policies and procedures for the conduct of the Sheriff’s deputies. As such, the Sheriff’s Office and the Sheriff have caused, created, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the illegal, unconstitutional and discriminatory actions, policies, customs and practices that prevailed at San Joaquin County courthouses, as described below. They have therefore, directly and proximately caused, and will continue to cause in the future, the injuries and violations of rights set forth below. 11.

Defendant SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY is a “public entity” within the definition of Cal.

Gov. Code §811.2. 12.

Defendant JOE PETRINO is an officer of San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office, and was an

officer in charge on the day that sheriff’s deputies physically prevented plaintiffs from entering the Stockton Courthouse 13.

Defendant David Oliver (Olivr) is an officer with the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office,

and was an officer in charge on the day that sheriff’s deputies physically prevented plaintiffs from entering the Stockton Courthouse. 14.

Defendants PETRINO and OLIVER (Olivr) ordered, caused, created, authorized,

condoned, ratified, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the illegal, unconstitutional and discriminatory conduct that prevailed at San Joaquin County courthouses, as described below. 15.

At all times relevant herein, all of the above individual Defendants MOORE, PETRINO

17

and OLIVER were officers and employees acting under the color of law, under color of authority

18

and in the scope of their employment as Command and Supervisory Personnel of the San Joaquin

19

County Sheriff’s Office. Additionally, upon information and belief, one or more of these

20

Defendants failed, with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ and class ’ rights, to

21 22 23 24

adequately train and supervise SJCSO sheriff’s deputies and staff who were involved in violating the rights of the Plaintiffs and class . 16. Plaintiff is informed and believe and therefore allege that each of said defendants DOES 1 through 50, are and/or were agents or employees of Defendants COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, and acted within the scope of that agency or

25

employment or under color of state law.

26

for, the below-described unlawful conduct and resulting injuries by, among other things, personally

27

participating in the unlawful conduct or acting tly or conspiring with others who did so; by

28

authorizing, acquiescing in or setting in motion policies, plans or actions that led to the unlawful

DOE 1-50 are defendants who caused, and are responsible

Page 4 of 13

Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter v. San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office – Civil Rights Class Action Complaint

Case 2:18-cv-00591-KJM-AC Document 1 Filed 03/20/18 Page 5 of 13

1 2 3 4

conduct; by failing to take action to prevent the unlawful conduct; by failing and refusing with deliberate indifference to plaintiffs' rights to initiate and maintain adequate training and supervision; and by ratifying the unlawful conduct that occurred by agents and officers under their direction and control, including failing to take remedial or disciplinary action. Plaintiff alleges that DOE 1 through 50 proximately caused said incidents, injuries, violation of constitutional and legal rights, and

5

damages by reason of their negligence, breach of duty, negligent supervision, management or

6

control, or by reason of other personal, vicarious or imputed negligence, fault, or breach of duty,

7

whether severally or tly, or whether based upon agency, employment, or control or upon any

8

other act or omission. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and/or capacities of defendants sued

9

herein as DOE 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names.

10

Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained and

11 12 13 14

will ask leave to amend this complaint to insert further charging allegations when such facts are ascertained. DOE 1 through 50 are sued in their individual and official capacities. FACTS 17.

On October 30, 2017, of plaintiff Black Lives Matter – Stockton Chapter, who were

being prosecuted for participating in a Black Lives Matter – Stockton Chapter sponsored protest

15

earlier in the year, had on calendar, in Department 8A of the San Joaquin County Superior Court,

16

before Judge Bernard J. Garber, a hearing on their motions to compel discovery or information from

17

the District Attorney regarding the District Attorney’s office skit on Halloween, 2016. [CR 2017-

18

0003904 (Brown); CR-2017-0003900 (Dominique Johnson); CR-2017-0003903 (Trevor Johnson);

19

CR-2017-0003902 (Kenneth Marbley; CR-2017-0003898 (Mendez)] This discovery motion was in

20

of these ’ efforts to recuse the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s office due to

21

the obvious and displayed racism and animosity by the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s

22 23 24 25

Office towards Black Lives Matter – Stockton Chapter, when the District Attorney staff , including attorneys, presented a skit at a department party, held in the department offices, on Halloween, 2016, where staff, including attorneys, dressed as Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. Snow White snorted cocaine and the Dwarves held up signs stating “Dwarf Lives Matter”. 18.

The hearing on October 30, 2017 before Judge Garber was to provide an opportunity for

26

counsel for said defendants/ of Black Lives Matter – Stockton Chapter to present oral

27

argument. Prior to the hearing, a large number of defendant Sheriff’s deputies, more than usual in

28

the courthouse, in full uniform and armed with weapons, formed a line across the front of the San Page 5 of 13

Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter v. San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office – Civil Rights Class Action Complaint

Case 2:18-cv-00591-KJM-AC Document 1 Filed 03/20/18 Page 6 of 13

1 2 3 4

Joaquin County Superior Courthouse-Stockton Division, blocking all entrance and access to the courthouse. 19.

As individuals presented themselves to the entrance of the Superior Court, all white people

were itted into the courthouse. Individuals who appeared to be Black or non-white were examined and questioned, and those whom the Sheriff’s deputies determined to be Black, or

5

of Black Lives Matter were summarily denied access. Those denied access included

6

plaintiff Dionne Smith-Downs and of Black Lives Matter– Stockton Chapter who were

7

named defendants and had been required to attend court in Department 8A that day.

8

20.

9

building, Claimants were doing nothing more than walking toward the courthouse and seeking

10 11 12 13 14

At the time that the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s deputies barred Claimants’ entry into the

entry, in the same manner as every other individual who approached the building. 21. On January 29, 2018, of Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter had another court hearing on the 8th floor, in which they had a motion on calendar. [CR 2017-0003904 (Brown); CR-2017-0003903 (Trevor Johnson); CR-2017-0003898 (Mendez)] The hearing was also set for Judge Garber’s courtroom, 8A, for oral argument. Following the conclusion of the hearing, five or six sheriff’s deputies, appeared at the conclusion of the hearing, and followed of

15

Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter as they walked in the courthouse. These Sheriff deputies

16

engaged in menacing and threatening conduct, and verbally insulted these of Black Lives

17

Matter-Stockton Chapter. Knowing that unarmed, black and brown young men have been shot

18

and killed by Sheriff’s deputies, knowing that these sheriff’s deputies were armed, these

19

of Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter felt fearful and anxious and concerned for their personal

20

safety. These unknown and unnamed Sheriffs’ deputies made it clear and apparent that these

21 22 23 24

claimants had lesser rights than other of the public, were not welcome, would not be permitted to be inside a public building, and that if they did not leave, these Sheriff’s Deputies would subject these of Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter to violence, harassment and arrest. 22.

On both October 30, 2017 and January 29, 2018, the Sheriff’s deputies actions towards

25

plaintiffs are a reflection and result of the conscious and institutional racial bias that exists within

26

the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office.

27

23.

28

defendants/ of Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter’s motions. The denials of the

On both October 30, 2017 and January 29, 2018, Judge Garber denied the

Page 6 of 13

Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter v. San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office – Civil Rights Class Action Complaint

Case 2:18-cv-00591-KJM-AC Document 1 Filed 03/20/18 Page 7 of 13

1 2 3 4

motion was based upon a misstatement of facts, partly urged by the San Joaquin County District Attorney. In addition, Judge Garber stated that he did not consider the discovery to be relevant to the case, meaning that Judge Garber did not consider the racist and animus displayed by the San Joaquin County district attorney’s office toward Black Lives Matter – Stockton Chapter to be relevant in plaintiff ’ right to a fair and impartial prosecution. Inasmuch as the Sheriff’s

5

deputies were assembled prior to the hearing, in numbers far greater than normal, in order for them

6

to exercise their police authority to deny plaintiffs’ access (on October 30, 2017) and to harass and

7

coercively force plaintiffs to exit (on January 29, 2018), it appears, and plaintiff so plead based

8

upon information and belief that the court, in advance of its ruling, had already known prior to

9

oral argument that he would rule negatively and against said defendants/ of Black Lives

10

Matter-Stockton Chapter, and had therefore requested the additional numbers of Sheriffs’ deputies

11 12 13 14

in anticipation of the court’s prepared negative rulings. 24. The spokesperson for the Sheriff’s Office made a public statement that the Sheriff’s Office is responsible for making security decisions at the courthouse, and on October 30, 2017, decided to exclude individuals in advance of any possible protest. 25. At no time on either October 30, 2017 or January 29, 2018 did any of Black Lives

15

Matter-Stockton Chapter engage in any disruptive conduct or speech, not even loud speech while

16

at the San Joaquin County Courthouse-Stockton Division.

17 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

18

Plaintiff Class – and ers of Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter

19 20 21 22 23 24

26.

Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and, pursuant to Rule 23 (a), (b)(1) and

(b)(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a class of men and women who who are now, or will in the future seek ittance to the San Joaquin County Courthouse, or who wish to attend, witness and observe what transpires inside Courtrooms of this Courthouse, and to by being physically present during court hearings, any of Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter who may be prosecuted for their participation in protests and activities sponsored by Black Lives

25

Matter-Stockton Chapter.

26

27.

27

are at a genuine and substantial risk of having their constitutional rights violated because of the

28

policies and practices of Defendants SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, and SAN

All and ers, present and future, of Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter

Page 7 of 13

Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter v. San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office – Civil Rights Class Action Complaint

Case 2:18-cv-00591-KJM-AC Document 1 Filed 03/20/18 Page 8 of 13

1 2

JOAQUIN COUNTY based upon hostility and racial animus towards Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter including: a.

3

b. Denial of a right to a public trial;

4

c. Harassment and discrimination by defendants due to plaintiffs’ hip and

5

participation in Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter;

6

d. Harassment and discrimination due to plaintiffs’ exercise of the first amendment rights

7

to protest police violence against unarmed civilians; and, e. Harassment and discrimination as a result of the racial animus within the San Joaquin

8

County Sheriff’s Office toward black and brown people.

9 10 11 12 13 14

Denial of access to public buildings, including the San Joaquin County Courthouse;

24.

The proposed class as defined is sufficiently numerous that der of all of the

class is impracticable and unfeasible. All of these individuals who participate in Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter events, whether or ers are at risk of being harmed, or having their constitutional rights violated by defendants San Joaquin County Sheriff’s office, either during arrest, or in court dates following arrest, or in court for those who are arrested. Further, the pending criminal prosecutions are not yet resolved . Trial in those matters

15

appear likely, and plaintiffs intend to, and desire to attend future court hearings, and the trial itself

16

in of those defendant/ of Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter.

17

COMMONALITY: FED. R. CIV. P. 23(A)(2)

18

25.

19

limited to:

20 21 22 23 24 25

There are questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiff Class, including, but not a.

Whether Defendants should be ened from preventing of the Plaintiff class from entering public buildings, in particular County Courthouses;

b. Whether Defendants’ conduct in preventing and blocking of the Plaintiff class from entering the San Joaquin County Courthouse-Stockton division violates the 1st, 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution, Article 1, §§ 2; 3 California Constitution and California Penal Code §686. c. Whether Defendants’ conduct in preventing and blocking of the Plaintiff

26

class from entering the San Joaquin County Courthouse-Stockton division violates the

27

rights of to a public trial in violation of the 6th and 14th Amendment of the

28

U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, §29 California Constitution, and Cal. Penal Code Page 8 of 13

Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter v. San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office – Civil Rights Class Action Complaint

Case 2:18-cv-00591-KJM-AC Document 1 Filed 03/20/18 Page 9 of 13

§686.

1

d. Whether Defendants should be ened from harassing of the Plaintiff class

2

when of the Plaintiff class are in public buildings, in particular County

3

Courthouses; and,

4

e. Whether Defendants’ conduct in following, harassing, threatening of the

5

Plaintiff class when they are inside the San Joaquin County Courthouse-Stockton

6

violates the 1st and 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, §§1,2,3;

7

California Constitution.

8

26.

9

their actions violate the law. TYPICALITY: FED. R. CIV. P. 23(A)(3)

10 11 12 13 14

Defendants are expected to raise common defenses to these claims, including denying that

27.

The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the of the proposed

class. Plaintiffs and all other of the class have sustained similar injuries arising out of and caused by Defendants’ common course of conduct and policies in violation of the law as alleged herein. ADEQUACY: FED. R. CIV. P. 23(A)(4)

15

28.

16

interests of the putative class because they have no disabling conflict(s) of interest that

17

would be antagonistic to those of the other class .

18

29.

19

omissions of Defendants. Plaintiffs have retained counsel who are competent and experienced in

20

complex class action litigation and prisoner’s rights litigation.

23 24

Plaintiffs, as well as plaintiff class , seek to en the unlawful acts and

FED. R. CIV. P. 23(B)(1)(A) AND (B)

21 22

Plaintiffs are of the class and will fairly and adequately represent and protect the

30.

Since the number of class is more than 100, separate actions by individuals could

result in inconsistent and varying decisions, which in turn would result in conflicting and incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants. FED. R. CIV. P. 23(B)(2)

25

31.

26

Procedure 23(b)(2) because Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds that apply

27

generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is

28

appropriate respecting the class and will apply to all of the class.

This action is also maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Page 9 of 13

Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter v. San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office – Civil Rights Class Action Complaint

Case 2:18-cv-00591-KJM-AC Document 1 Filed 03/20/18 Page 10 of 13

1 2 3 4

REQUISITES FOR RELIEF 32. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the violations of the plaintiffs’ constitutional and lawful rights complained of herein were caused by customs, policies, directives, practices, acts and omissions of authorized policy makers of the defendants SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE and SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, including defendants MOORE, PETRINO, OLIVER

5

(Olivr) and other supervisory officials of the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s office, who encouraged,

6

authorized, directed, condoned, and ratified the unconstitutional and unlawful conduct complained of

7

herein. Said customs, policies and practices include, but are not limited to discriminatory conduct

8

against individuals and organizations that protest police violence against civilians; black and brown

9

people who engage in First Amendment protected activity; the failure to maintain adequate policies,

10 11 12 13 14

and to adequately train, supervise and control Sheriff’s deputies concerning the policing of individuals who engage in protests and other expressive activities with respect to insuring that these individuals’ constitutional rights are not violated. 33. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants described herein, the named individual plaintiffs have been denied their constitutional, statutory and legal rights as stated below, and have suffered general and special damages, including but not limited to, mental and emotional

15

distress, physical injuries and bodily harm, pain, fear, humiliation, embarrassment, discomfort, and

16

anxiety and other damages in an amount according to proof.

17

34. Defendants’ acts were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and done with conscious

18

disregard and deliberate indifference for plaintiffs’ rights.

19

35. Defendants’ policies, practices, customs, conduct and acts alleged herein have resulted and will

20

continue to result in irreparable injury to plaintiffs, including but not limited to violations of their

21 22 23 24

constitutional and statutory rights. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs described herein. The plaintiffs and class intend in the future to exercise their constitutional rights of freedom of speech and association by engaging in demonstrations and expressive activities in the City of Stockton and San Joaquin County. Defendants’ conduct described herein has created fear, anxiety and uncertainty among plaintiffs with respect to their exercise now

25

and in the future of these constitutional rights. Plaintiffs therefore seek injunctive relief from this

26

court, to ensure that plaintiffs and persons similarly situated will not suffer violations of their rights

27

from defendants’ illegal and unconstitutional policies, customs and practices as described herein.

28 Page 10 of 13

Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter v. San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office – Civil Rights Class Action Complaint

Case 2:18-cv-00591-KJM-AC Document 1 Filed 03/20/18 Page 11 of 13

1 2 3 4

36. An actual controversy exists between plaintiffs and defendants in that plaintiffs contend that the policies, practices and conduct of defendants alleged herein are unlawful and unconstitutional, whereas plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendants contend that said policies, practices and conduct are lawful and constitutional. Plaintiffs seek a declaration of rights with respect to this controversy.

5

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

6 7

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

8

(First and Fourteen Amendment United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §1983)

9 10 11 12

37.

paragraphs 1 through 36 above. 38.

Defendants above-described conduct violated plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech and

association under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution … SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

13 14

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein all allegations previously made in

(Sixth Amendment United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §1983) 39.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein all allegations previously made in

15

paragraphs 1 through 36 above.

16

40.

17

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution …

Defendants above-described conduct violated plaintiffs’ rights to public trial under the

18

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

19

(Fourteen Amendment United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §1983)

20 21 22 23

41.

paragraphs 1 through 36 above. 42.

Defendants above-described conduct violated plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection under

the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

24

FOURTH CLAIM OF ACTION

25 26

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein all allegations previously made in

(Violation of California Civil Code § 51.7) 43.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 36 of this complaint.

27 28 Page 11 of 13

Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter v. San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office – Civil Rights Class Action Complaint

Case 2:18-cv-00591-KJM-AC Document 1 Filed 03/20/18 Page 12 of 13

1 2 3

44.

Defendants’ above-described conduct violated plaintiffs’ right to be free from violence and

intimidation by threat of violence because of their actual or perceived political affiliation and/or viewpoint, in violation of California Civil Code section 51.7. FIFTH CLAIM OF ACTION

4

(Violation of California Civil Code § 52.1)

5

45.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 36 of this complaint.

6

46.

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

7

by threats, intimidation and coercion, with plaintiffs’ peaceable exercise and enjoyment of rights

8

secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of California, in violation

9

of California Civil Code section 52.1. SIXTH CLAIM OF ACTION

10

Negligence

11 12 13 14

47.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 36 of this complaint.

48.

Defendants have a duty of care to plaintiffs to ensure that defendants did not cause

unnecessary or unjustified harm to plaintiffs, and a duty of care to hire, train, supervise and discipline OPD and ACSD officers so as to not cause harm to plaintiffs and to prevent violations

15

of plaintiffs’ constitutional, statutory and common law rights.

16

49.

17

defendants owed to the named individual plaintiffs.

The above-described acts and omissions of defendants breached the duty of care

18 PRAYER

19 20 21 22 23 24

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendants, and each of them, as follows: 1. For an order certifying the class defined herein pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(2) and (3); 2. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief restraining defendants from engaging in the unlawful and unconstitutional actions complained of above; 3. For general and compensatory damages for violation of plaintiffs’ federal and state

25

constitutional and statutory rights, pain and suffering, all to be determined according to proof;

26

8. For punitive and exemplary damages in amounts to be determined according to proof as to the

27

individual defendants;

28 Page 12 of 13

Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter v. San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office – Civil Rights Class Action Complaint

Case 2:18-cv-00591-KJM-AC Document 1 Filed 03/20/18 Page 13 of 13

1 2 3 4

9. For an award of statutory damages and penalties pursuant to Cal. Civil Code section 52(b) to be determined according to proof; 10. For attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and California Civil Code section 52(b) and section 52.1(h), and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5; 11. For costs of suit;

5

12. For pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law;

6

13. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

7 8

Dated: March 19, 2018

9

____/s/ Yolanda Huang________ By: YOLANDA HUANG Attorney for Plaintiffs

10 11 12 13 14 15

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

16 17

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial.

18 19 20 21

Dated: March 19, 2018 ____/s/ Yolanda Huang___________ By: YOLANDA HUANG Attorney for Plaintiffs

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 13 of 13

Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter v. San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office – Civil Rights Class Action Complaint

CIVIL COVER SHEET

JS 44 (Rev. 08/16)

2:18-cv-00591-KJM-AC 1-1 03/20/18 1 of 2 The JS 44 civil cover sheet Case and the information contained herein neither replaceDocument nor supplement the filing Filed and service of pleadings orPage other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

BLACK LIVES MATTER-STOCKTON CHAPTER, an unincorporated association; and DIONNE SMITH-DOWNS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated.

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, STEVE MOORE, DAVE OLIVER (OLIVR), JOE PETRINO, DOES 1-50.

San Joaquin County

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) NOTE:

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

LAW OFFICES OF YOLANDA HUANG YOLANDA HUANG, SBN 104543 475 14th Street, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612; Telephone: (510) 329-2140; Facsimile: (510) 580-9410

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) 1

2

U.S. Government Plaintiff

3

U.S. Government Defendant

4

Attorneys (If Known) J. Mark Myles, San Joaquin County Counsel 44 San Joaquin Street, Suite 679 Stockton, CA 95202

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) PTF Citizen of This State 1

Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party) Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

REAL PROPERTY 210 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property

PERSONAL INJURY 310 Airplane 315 Airplane Product Liability 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 330 Federal Employers’ Liability 340 Marine 345 Marine Product Liability 350 Motor Vehicle 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability 360 Other Personal Injury 362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice CIVIL RIGHTS 440 Other Civil Rights 441 Voting 442 Employment 443 Housing/ Accommodations 445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment 446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other 448 Education

1

and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4 of Business In This State

2

2

Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State

5

5

Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country

3

3

Foreign Nation

6

6

Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

TORTS

110 Insurance 120 Marine 130 Miller Act 140 Negotiable Instrument 150 Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment 151 Medicare Act 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans (Excludes Veterans) 153 Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran’s Benefits 160 Stockholders’ Suits 190 Other Contract 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise

DEF

Citizen of Another State

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) CONTRACT

San Joaquin County

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

PERSONAL INJURY 365 Personal Injury Product Liability 367 Health Care/ Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 370 Other Fraud 371 Truth in Lending 380 Other Personal Property Damage 385 Property Damage Product Liability PRISONER PETITIONS Habeas Corpus: 463 Alien Detainee 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence 530 General 535 Death Penalty Other: 540 Mandamus & Other 550 Civil Rights 555 Prison Condition 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of Confinement

625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 881 690 Other

BANKRUPTCY 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 PROPERTY RIGHTS 820 Copyrights 830 Patent 840 Trademark

LABOR 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 720 Labor/Management Relations 740 Railway Labor Act 751 Family and Medical Leave Act 790 Other Labor Litigation 791 Employee Retirement Income Security Act

SOCIAL SECURITY 861 HIA (1395ff) 862 Black Lung (923) 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 864 SSID Title XVI 865 RSI (405(g))

FEDERAL TAX SUITS 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant) 871 IRS—Third Party 26 USC 7609

IMMIGRATION 462 Naturalization Application - Other Immigration 465 Actions

OTHER STATUTES 375 False Claims Act 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 3729(a)) 400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce 460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV 850 Securities/Commodities/ Exchange 890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 893 Environmental Matters 895 Freedom of Information Act 896 Arbitration 899 istrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only) 1 Original Proceeding

2 Removed from State Court

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY DATE

3

Remanded from Appellate Court

6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict Litigation Litigation Transfer Direct File Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): 42 USC 1983 Brief description of cause: 1. Discrimination Against Plaintiffs Based Upon Speech, Association and Racial Animus: Violations of the 1st, and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, §§ 1, 2, 3 California Constitution.2.Denying Plaintiffs’ Access To A Public Courthouse: Violations of the 1st, and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, §§ 2; 3 California Constitution. 3. Denying Plaintiffs’ Right to Public Trial: Violation of 6th and 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, §29 California Constitution, Cal. Penal Code §686 CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. (See instructions):

4 Reinstated or Reopened

5 Transferred from Another District (specify)

DEMAND $ Excess of $100,000

JUDGE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: JURY DEMAND:

DOCKET NUMBER

Yes

No

03/19/2018 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT #

Case 2:18-cv-00591-KJM-AC Document 1-1 Filed 03/20/18 Page 2 of 2 AMOUNT

APPLYING IFP

JUDGE

MAG. JUDGE

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 08/16)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44 Authority For Civil Cover Sheet The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: I.(a) (b) (c)

Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section "(see attachment)".

II.

Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box. Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)

III.

Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party.

IV.

Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

V.

Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes. Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts. Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statue.

VI.

Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII.

Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction. Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.