Del Agua Federal Complaint

Case 2:15-at-00115 Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 1 of 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ALAN COPE JOHNSTON (CA SBN 66334)

ACJohnston@mofo.com
ERIK J. OLSON (CA SBN 175815)
EJOlson@mofo.com
DIEK O. VAN NORT (CA SBN 273823)
DVanNort@mofo.com
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
755 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304-1018
Telephone: 650.813.5600
Facsimile: 650.494.0792
ANGELA CHAN (CA SBN 250138)
angelac@advancingjustic-alc.org
ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE ASIAN
LAW CAUCUS
55 Columbus Avenue
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: 415.848.7719
Facsimile: 415.896.1702
11
12
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

MARTIN DEL AGUA and JULIE DEL AGUA
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16
MARTIN DEL AGUA and JULIE DEL AGUA,
Case No.
17
Plaintiffs,
COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
18
v.
19
20
SCOTT R. JONES, in his official capacity,

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO.
Defendants.
21
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
22
23
Plaintiff, MARTIN DEL AGUA, by and through their attorneys, allege as follows:
24
INTRODUCTION
25
1.
Based solely on a voluntary request, which had never been reviewed by a judge
26
and had been issued solely by a representative of the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement
27
Service ("ICE"), Defendant, Scott Jones and the Sacramento County Sheriffs office unlawfully
28
held Martin Del Agua against his will, improperly separating him from his family, in the
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CASE NO.
pa-1661160

1
Sacramento County jail for three days. Mr. Jones and the deputies working under his direction
held Mr. Del Agua even though they knew that he was eligible for release based on his original
arrest. They held Mr. Del Agua even though a state statute stated clearly that Mr. Jones was not
permitted to honor the voluntary request of ICE to hold Mr. Del Agua. Mr. Jones and his
deputies knowingly held Mr. Del Agua in jail due solely to an unconstitutional and improper
voluntary request from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service, known as an ICE
Hold.
8
9
2.
Mr. Del Aguas unlawful detention violated the Fourth Amendment and
Fourteenth Amendment and constituted false imprisonment. It also violated Californias Bane
10
Act, a state law allowing aggrieved parties to recover damages when their constitutionally
11
protected rights are interfered with by law enforcement. Defendants illegal acts have done and
12
continue to do untold damage to Mr. Del Agua and to his family. Equally importantly, they are
13
likely to repeat themselves because Mr. Del Aguas neighbor, who precipitated the events that
14
ultimately led to Mr. Del Aguas improper false imprisonment, continues to threaten Mr. Del
15
Agua and his family with additional complaints to Mr. Jones and his deputies regarding Mr. Del
16
Agua and his family.
17
3.
Mr. Del Agua and his wife seek an injunction to prevent these unlawful events
18
from recurring, a declaration that Mr. Jones has violated Mr. Del Aguas constitutional rights and
19
falsely imprisoned him, and damages to account for the injury that the unlawful imprisonment
20
caused him.
21
4.
Mr. Del Agua also should never been arrested in the first place. Contrary to the
22
report of the officers who arrested him and as shown in indisputable video proof, he was neither
23
drunk nor in public at the time of this arrest. He did not in any way interfere with or resist the
24
efforts of the officers to investigate a noise complaint by a neighbor even though Mr. Del Agua
25
had a valid restraining order against his neighbor due to his prior harassment and threats against
26
the Del Aguas. Despite this, the officers used excessive force, berated Mr. Del Aguas family,
27
destroyed his personal property, arrested Mr. Del Agua under false pretenses and filed a false
28
report. As a result of the officers misconduct, the County has sustained an internal affairs
CASE NO.
pa-1661160

1
complaint against the officers. This misconduct represents a separate violation of his
constitutional rights and a further false imprisonment of Mr. Del Agua.

PARTIES
3
4
5.
At all times relevant to the Complaint, Plaintiff Martin Del Agua was a resident of
Sacramento County, California. He is married to a U.S. citizen and is the father of two minor
children, who are also U.S. citizens. Mr. Del Agua works as a landscaper in the county.
7
8
9
6.
Plaintiff Julie Del Agua is a resident of Sacramento County, California and the
wife of Martin Del Agua. She works in the county as a middle school teacher.
7.
Defendant Scott R. Jones is the elected Sheriff of Sacramento County, California.
10
He is also a resident of the Eastern District of California. Defendant is responsible, in whole or
11
in part, for the Sacramento County Sheriffs Department, the Sacramento County jail, and the
12
Sacramento County Sheriffs Deputies, their agents, employees, and others working on the
13
behalf. Defendant is being sued in his official capacity.
14
15
8.
Defendant County of Sacramento is a political subdivision of the State of
California with the capacity to sue and be sued.
16
17
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9.
This Court has federal question jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action
18
because it states a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the United States Constitution. Venue
19
is proper in the Eastern District of California, under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b), in that all
20
Defendants reside in this State and one Defendant resides in this district, and a substantial part of
21
the events or omissions giving rise to plaintiffs claims occurred in this district.
22
BACKGROUND
23
A.
24
25
10.
ICE Holds and Defendants Policy of Honoring Them Despite A State

Law Forbidding It.
An immigration hold, also known as an immigration detainer or ICE hold, is a
26
fill-in-the-blank form issued by a federal immigration officer to another law enforcement agency
27
(LEA), requesting that the LEA detain an individual in its custody for 48 hours, excluding
28
weekends and holidays, beyond the time when he or she would otherwise be released, in order to
CASE NO.
pa-1661160

1
provide ICE extra time to assume physical custody of the person and investigate his or her
immigration status. See Cal. Gov. Code 7282(5)(c) (describing immigration detainers); see also
2013 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 570 (A.B.4) (same). ICE used ICE Holds in order to cause local law
enforcement agencies to detain individuals without a warrant and without judicial review until
ICE can arrange to take custody over the individual. ICE Holds are voluntary requests and
impose no legal obligations on local law enforcement agencies.
11.
ICE does not obtain probable cause sufficient to justify prolonged detention in
local jail for immigration purposes before issuing a Hold. ICE does not obtain any review by any
judicial officer prior to issuing an ICE Hold. As such, ICE Holds are not warrants or court orders
10
because they are neither issued nor approved by judicial officers. They are merely unsworn
11
requests that may be issued by a wide variety of immigration officers, including immigration
12
enforcement agents and deportation officers. See 8 C.F.R. 287.7(b). Nor does the ICE Hold
13
legally require any post-detention review by any judicial officer of the validity of the ICE Hold or
14
of the subsequent detention by a local law enforcement agency.
15
12.
As one government attorney explained, ICE uses detainers as a stop gap
16
measure . . . to give ICE time to investigate and determine whether somebodys an alien, and/or
17
subject to removal, before local law enforcement releases that person from custody. Oral
18
Argument Transcript, ECF #79, Galarza v. Szalczyk, No. 10-06815 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 10, 2012).
19
13.
In December 2012, the California Attorney General circulated legal guidance to
20
California law enforcement agenciesincluding on information and belief the Defendant Scott
21
Jones and the Sacramento County Sheriffs Departmentadvising them regarding ICE Holds and
22
the associated Secure Communities program. The guidance reads: Unlike arrest warrants and
23
criminal detainers, however, immigration detainers may be issued by border patrol agents,
24
including aircraft pilots, special agents, deportation officers, immigration inspectors, and other
25
employees of ICE, without the review of a judicial officer and without meeting traditional
26
evidentiary standards. Further, it states, Are Local Law Enforcement Agencies Required to
27
Fulfill Individual ICE Immigration Detainers? No. Local law enforcement agencies in California
28
can make their own decisions about whether to fulfill an individual ICE immigration
CASE NO.
pa-1661160

1
detainer . . . Several local law enforcement agencies appear to treat immigration detainers,
sometimes called ICE Holds, as mandatory orders. But immigration detainers are not
compulsory. Instead, they are merely requests enforceable at the discretion of the agency holding
the individual arrestee. The guidance stated that ICE Holds are voluntary requests and there was
no obligation for Defendants to hold people in response to them.
14.
On January 1, 2014, Californias Transparency and Responsibility Using State
Tools Act (see Cal. Gov. Code 7282, 7282.5) (the TRUST Act) went into effect. Pursuant
to the TRUST Act, California law enforcement officials cannot detain an individual pursuant to
an ICE Hold unless certain conditions are met. The TRUST Act prohibit[s] a law enforcement
10
official, as defined, from detaining an individual on the basis of a United States Immigration and
11
Customs Enforcement hold after that individual becomes eligible for release from custody,
12
unless, at the time that the individual becomes eligible for release from custody, certain
13
conditions are met, including, among other things, that the individual has been convicted of
14
specified crimes. 2013 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 570 (A.B.4). The enumerated offenses are set forth
15
in California Government Code section 7282.5(a), and include felony convictions, sex related
16
criminal convictions, federal aggravated felonies, and outstanding federal arrest warrants. They
17
do not include detention based on noise complaints or allegations of public drunkenness.
18
15.
Defendants were aware of the TRUST Act immediately after its passage, and
19
certainly by the time it went into effect in January 2014. For example, in December 2013,
20
Defendants received a notice from the ACLU and other non-profit organizations, explaining the
21
TRUST Act and the limitations it imposed on local law enforcement agencies in California.
22
23
24
16.
Detentions of individuals based solely on ICE Holds have been challenged in
Court, and such detentions have been found unlawful.

17.
Despite all of the foregoing, Defendants, and the Sacramento County Sheriffs
25
Department, continued in 2014 a policy of detaining individuals based solely on receipt of an ICE
26
Hold. Defendants policy permitted Deputies and other Sheriff Department employees to retain
27
custody of individuals for at least 48 hours (not including holidays and weekends) based on these
28
voluntary requests from ICE in the absence of a warrant and without judicial review of the
CASE NO.
pa-1661160

1
detention. Defendants policy of detaining individuals based solely on receipt of an ICE-issued
immigration detainer requests continued until at least April 2014 and, on information and belief,
it may continue today. At a minimum, Mr. Jones indicated in May 2014 that any hiatus in
enforcement is temporary and based solely on further legal research about what the law requires.
5
6
B.
18.
The Del Aguas Obtain a Restraining Order Against Their Neighbor.
Martin and Julie Del Agua are homeowners of Sacramento County who live in a
community to the south of Highway 50 off Watt Avenue. Beginning in 2013, they have
experienced escalating harassment from their next door neighborGregory James Thrasher. The
harassment became so severe that Ms. Del Agua sought and obtained a restraining order against
10
Mr. Thrasher because of fears he posed a credible ongoing threat of violence to the Del Agua
11
family. The restraining order was originally issued in August 2013. Despite the existence of this
12
restraining order, Mr. Thrasher has continued to verbally harass and threaten the Del Agua
13
family, including repeated threats to call local law enforcement regarding Mr. Del Agua on
14
multiple occasions. Mr. Thrashers threats and misconduct continue to the present.
15
C.
16
17
19.
The Sheriff Departments Misconduct Toward Martin Del Agua and

Julie Del Agua on the Night of Friday February 7, 2014.
On Friday, February 7, 2014, Mr. Del Agua was at home working in his garage
18
near his two young children under the age of eight and listening to music. At or around 7:30 pm,
19
Mr. Del Agua was startled when a Sacramento County Sheriffs Deputy (Deputy 1) began
20
speaking to him from over the fence that separates his property from Mr. Thrashers property.
21
Deputy 1 spoke in English. Deputy 1 and Deputy 2 had come to Mr. Thrashers property to
22
respond to a noise complaint by Mr. Thrasher regarding Mr. Del Agua.
23
20.
Mr. Del Agua has limited English capabilities. Mr. Del Agua believed that Deputy
24
1 was asking him to turn down his music. (Deputy 1 would later claim that he told Mr. Del Agua
25
in English to turn off his music.) Mr. Del Agua lowered the volume of his music. Shortly after
26
doing so, Mr. Del Ague raised his garage door, and walked just beyond his garage door and
27
waited passively for the officer underneath the eves of his property.
28
CASE NO.
pa-1661160

1
21.
Despite Mr. Del Agua passive stance and his compliance, a Deputy rushed him,
took him from behind, and violently slammed Mr. Del Agua first into a nearby trash can, and then
onto the hood of a vehicle parked in Mr. Del Aguas driveway. All this occurred as Mr. Del
Aguas two young children watched. Despite no resistance from Mr. Del Agua, the Deputy
forcefully pushed Mr. Del Agua into the car, removed items, including his phone from Mr. Del
Aguas pocket and hurled them into the garage. While pushing down on Mr. Del Agua, the
Deputy repeated the same action with Mr. Del Aguas wallet, shoes, and his belt. The Deputy
then handcuffed Mr. Del Agua. All the foregoing reflected unnecessary and excessive force
beyond anything required to take custody over Mr. Del Agua and cannot be justified based on any
10
threat posed by Mr. Del Agua to the officers or any other person. Mr. Del Agua posed no threat,
11
showed no hostility and offered no resistance to questioning or to any effort to take him into
12
custody.
13
22.
Shortly after Mr. Del Agua was accosted and handcuffed, Ms. Del Agua entered
14
the garage. She turned off the music. She asked the Deputies why they were arresting and
15
abusing her husband.
16
23.
The Deputies reacted to Ms. Del Aguas questions in a hostile and threating
17
manner. The Deputy restraining Mr. Del Aqua began yelling at Ms. Del Agua. Ms. Del Aqua
18
requested that the Deputies stop yelling. A Deputy approached Ms. Del Agua andin a raised
19
voiceyelled to Ms. Del Agua that the neighbor had complained about the music, that Mr. Del
20
Agua had failed to obey an order to turn off the music, andfor thathe was being taken into
21
custody. When Ms. Del Agua sought to explain that their family had a legal restraining order
22
against their neighbor for harassing conduct, the Deputy refused to listen, stating that the
23
restraining order did not matter, and that it Ms. Del Aguas responsibility to control her
24
husband.
25
24.
Following this exchange, the other Deputy entered the garage without permission
26
from Ms. Del Agua. After doing so, he threatened Ms. Del Agua that he planned to call Child
27
Protective Services about her family.
28
CASE NO.
pa-1661160

1
25.
At no point prior to his arrest did Mr. Del Agua pose any threat to the Deputies.
At no point did Ms. Del Agua provide any reason for a Deputy to threaten her with an effort to
interfere with her rights as parent. At no point following his arrest or his booking was Mr. Del
Agua apprised of his rights or given a Miranda-warning.
26.
Despite being called out to investigate a noise complaint and despite telling Ms.
Del Agua that her husband was being arrested for failing to turn off music, the Deputies later
booked Mr. Del Agua for allegedly being in public under the influence of intoxicating liquor in
violation of California Penal Code 647(f).1 Mr. Del Agua never left his own property and was
not in public within the meaning of that statute. Nor was he given a field sobriety test or was any
10
other step taken to determine if he was intoxicated before his arrest. Mr. Del Agua also was not
11
unable to exercise care for his own safety or the safety of others, and was not interfering with or
12
obstructing or preventing the free use of any street, sidewalk, or other public way. In connection
13
with Mr. Del Aguas arrest, the Deputies also prepared a false report, claiming that Mr. Del Agua
14
became aggressive and ran out of a side door. The report goes onto claim that Ms. Del Agua
15
would not listen and became argumentative. On information and belief, the Deputies
16
provided these false statements and false charges to cover up the excessive force that they used
17
during Mr. Del Aguas arrest.
18
27.
Mr. and Mrs. Del Agua filed a formal internal affairs complaint following his
19
arrest and asked for an investigation. In December 2014, the Sheriffs Department responded,
20
The information obtained in the investigation revealed substantial evidence to support your
21
claim regarding employee misconduct. Therefore the disposition of this case will be classified as
22
SUSTAINED.
23
24
25
26
27
28
California Penal Code section 647(f) provides that it is a misdemeanor to be found in

any public place under the influence of intoxicating liquor . . . in condition that he or she is unable
to exercise case for his or her own safety or the safety of others, or . . . interferes with or obstructs
or prevents the free use of any street, sidewalk, or other public way.
CASE NO.
pa-1661160

1
D.
That Night, The Charges Against Martin Del Aqua Are Dropped, But
Defendants Refused To Release Him.
2
3
28.
Mr. Del Agua was booked into Sacramento County Jail on charges of being
intoxicated in public. At or around 9:30 pm that evening (Friday, February 7, 2014), it was
determined that Mr. Del Agua was eligible for release. Also around 9:00 pm, one of Defendant
Scott Joness employees at the Sacramento County jail told Ms. Del Agua that her husband would
be released and could return home later that evening.
8
9
29.
Despite the lack of any charges and his availability for release on February 7, Mr.
Del Agua was not released on February 7. Instead, Defendant Scott Jones and others acting at his
10
direction continued to hold Mr. Del Agua in custody based solely on an ICE Hold sent by ICE
11
within hours of his arrest. The ICE Hold was a voluntary request to the Defendants to retain
12
custody of Mr. Del Agua. The ICE Hold was issued solely by an ICE officer and did not reflect
13
any review by any judicial officer.
14
30.
Acting under color of state law, using physical barriers and threats of force,
15
Defendants continued to detain Mr. Del Agua against his will. This detention involved
16
restraining Mr. Del Agua in one or more jail cells or custodial rooms, and updating, or causing
17
others to update, Mr. Del Aguas Sacramento County Inmate Information form. Defendants
18
noted the existence of an ICE Hold, and concluded that Mr. Del Agua was not eligible for release
19
based solely on the ICE Hold.
20
31.
Defendants detained Mr. Del Agua in one or more jail cells or custodial rooms
21
using physical restraints, intimidation, force and threats of force. Mr. Del Aguas detention was
22
overseen by both armed and unarmed Deputy Sheriffs working at Defendant Scott Joness
23
direction and under his supervision. These armed and unarmed Deputies implicitly threatened,
24
intimated, and coerced Mr. Del Agua to remain in custody through both physical incarceration
25
and implicit threats that, should Mr. Del Agua have attempted to leave, he would be subject to
26
physical violence.
27
32.
28
Defendants failed to undertake any investigation into whether Mr. Del Aguas
continued detention was authorized under the TRUST Act. Defendants did not review Mr. Del
CASE NO.
pa-1661160

1
Aguas criminal history, nor did they determine whether Mr. Del Aguas detention would violate
any federal, state, or local law.
3
4
E.
33.
Julie Del Aguas Efforts to Have Martin Del Agua Released.
Having heard nothing about her husbands status since the previous evening, Ms.
Del Aqua contacted the Sacramento County Jail on Saturday, February 8, 2014 at or around 7:00
am. During this telephone call, Ms. Del Aqua learned that her husbanddespite being eligible
for releaseremained in Defendants custody because of an ICE Hold. The Sacramento County
Inmate Information website stated that Mr. Del Agua was being held on an ICE hold, that he was
not eligible for bail, and did not list any pending criminal charges. Concerned that her husbands
10
rights were in jeopardy, Ms. Del Aqua spent the next two days working with several attorneys to
11
get Mr. Del Agua released from custody.
12
34.
Only following the direct intervention of Mr. Del Aguas attorneys on Sunday,
13
February 9, 2014 did Defendant begin an investigation into whether Mr. Del Aguas continued
14
detention violated the TRUST Act. That investigation concluded that the Defendants had no legal
15
right to continue detaining Mr. Del Agua pursuant to the TRUST Act.
16
17
18
35.
Mr. Del Agua was then released from Sacramento County Jail on or around 11:30
pm on February 9, 2014.
36.
During and after his release, both Mr. Del Agua and Ms. Del Agua continued to
19
suffer emotional, psychological and economic harm. Mr. Del Agua suffered pain in his arms and
20
side, and has experienced and continues to experience symptoms of withdrawal, anxiety and
21
depression stemming from his continued detention. Ms. Del Aqua was stunned by her husband
22
arrest, and she sufferedand continues to sufferstress-related anxiety and emotional distress
23
from the experience. Mr. Del Agua has lost wages, and his personal cellular telephone was
24
destroyed during the arrest.
25
37.
Mr. and Mrs. Del Agua continue to reside in the home they own next to Mr.
26
Thrasher. Mr. Thrasher continues to act in a threatening manner toward them. He continues to
27
threaten them that he will call the Sherriff or other local law enforcement. He is aware of Mr. Del
28
Aguas arrest and has taken advantage of this knowledge to extend his threats. Due to the
CASE NO.
pa-1661160
10

1
Defendants unlawful behavior and false imprisonment of Mr. Del Agua, Mr. and Ms. Del Agua
are persistently afraid that Mr. Thrasher will again cause Defendants to take Mr. Del Agua into
custody and he will again be subject to false imprisonment due to an ICE Hold. The Del Aguas
rationally and with good reason have a credible fear that the events of February 7, 2014 will recur
unless Defendants are permanently prevented from acting in a manner that violates the United
States Constitution, the California TRUST Act and Mr. and Ms. Del Aguas rights.
F.
8
9
38.
The Del Aguas Unsuccessfully Pursue Administrative Remedies

Against Sacramento County and Defendant.
Following Mr. Del Aguas wrongful arrest, and his improper detention, the Del
10
Aguas filed an administrative complaint against Sacramento County on or around June 11, 2014.
11
The administrative complaint was received by the Countys Board of Supervisors on June 11, and
12
the County acknowledged receipt of the Complaint on June 18, 2014.
13
39.
The complaintwhich the County has neither accepted not deniedsought a
14
change in Defendants policy and practices with respect to ICE Holds, discipline for the involved
15
Deputies, an apology from the Defendant, and compensation.
16
G.
17
18
40.
Defendants Adopt a Temporary Policy Limiting Compliance with

Immigration Detainers, But Continues Cooperating With ICE.
In response to Californias passage of the TRUST Act, and several court cases
19
challenging the authority of local law enforcement to detain suspects in response to ICE Holds,
20
the Defendants adopted a new policy statement on May 15, 2014. It states that Defendants [w]ill
21
temporarily discontinue honoring immigration detainers (Form I-247) issued by ICE. This policy
22
shall remain in effect until further legal research is completed. Defendants explicitly defined the
23
policy as temporary and stated that the new policy shall be effective only until further research is
24
completed to determine if ICE Holds violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States
25
Constitution in light of a decision by a United States District Court for the District of Oregon,
26
Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas Co. (D.Or. April 11, 2014, No. 3:12-cv-02317-ST).
27
28
CASE NO.
pa-1661160
11

1
2
3
4
H.
41.
The Del Aguas Are Entitled To An Injunction.
The Del Aguas have a rational and well-grounded fear that the events on the night
of February 7, 2014 will recur.

42.
The events started as a result of a noise complaint by Mr. Thrasher, their neighbor.
The Del Aguas continue to have persistent disputes with Mr. Thrasher, continue to need the
benefit of their restraining order, and continue to receive threats from him that he will call local
law enforcement against them. He is very likely to take this act in the near future.
8
9
43.
If he does, it is likely that Mr. Del Agua will be taken into custody and booked
again at the county jail.
10
44.
11
county jail.
12
45.
Mr. Del Agua is likely to be subject to an ICE Hold if he is booked again in the
Defendants May 2014 policy regarding ICE Holds is temporary and depends
13
explicitly on Sacramento Sheriffs Departments unresolved determination whether compliance
14
with ICE Holds violate the Fourth Amendment or other laws.
15
46.
Mr. Del Agua requested written confirmation from Defendant Scott Jones stating
16
that Mr. Del Agua will not be and should not be held pursuant to any ICE Hold or other detainer,
17
other than a judicial or duly authorized warrant or other lawful arrest. Defendants refused to
18
provide any written assurance that Mr. Del Agua would not be held again.
19
20
21
22
47.
Absent a judicial determination that ICE Holds are unlawful, Mr. Del Agua is
likely to be held due to another ICE Hold.

48.
Due the foregoing, the Del Aguas persistently fear that Mr. Thrashers conduct
will result again in the future unlawful detention of Mr. Del Agua by Defendants.
23
49.
The Del Aguas are entitled to an injunction to prevent that from occurring.
24
50.
The Del Aguas are also entitled to a declaration from this Court that his detention
25
was unlawful.
26
27
28
I.
51.
Administrative Proceedings
Pursuant to California Government Code, Martin Del Agua timely filed a claim
with the County of Sacramento on June 11, 2014.

CASE NO.
pa-1661160
12

1
52.
The County of Sacramento acknowledged receipt of the claim in writing but did
not otherwise grant or reject Mr. Del Aguas claim. Counsel for Mr. Del Agua attempted
unsuccessfully to negotiate a resolution with the County.
4
5
53.
Mr. Del Agua has complied with the claim filing prerequisites of the California
Tort Claims Act prior to initiating this action.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution,
Actionable Under 42 U.S.C. 1983 Against All Defendants
7
8
54.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each allegation in all proceeding paragraphs.
55.
The Fourth Amendment states, The right of the people to be secure in their
10
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
11
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,
12
and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
13
56.
Defendants acted under color of law and acted or purported to act in the
14
performance of official duties under federal, state, county, or municipal laws, ordinances, or
15
regulations.
16
17
18
57.
The attack on Martin Del Agua on the night of February 7, 2014 violated Mr. Del
Aguas Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force.

58.
The arrest and detention of Mr. Del Agua on the night of February 7, 2014 on false
19
charges of being intoxicated in public violated Mr. Del Aguas Fourth Amendment right to be
20
free from unreasonable search and seizure and to be free from seizure without probable cause.
21
59.
The detention of Mr. Del Agua after the evening of February 7, 2014 at or about
22
9:30 pm, when it was determined that Mr. Del Agua could be released, constitutes a further
23
unreasonable seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
24
60.
Defendants seized Mr. Del Agua and held him against his will solely based on an
25
ICE Hold, which was a voluntary request issued to Defendants by an ICE officer without any
26
review by a judge or a showing of probable cause. The ICE Hold did not provide the Sheriff with
27
a legal basis pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to hold Mr. Del Agua.
28
CASE NO.
pa-1661160
13

1
61.
Defendants unlawfully seized Mr. Del Agua for nearly 50 hours and denied him
the right to bail in response to a voluntary ICE hold request and in violation of the TRUST Act
after it was determined that he should be released if the ICE Hold not existed.
4
5
6
62.
By these acts, Defendants violated Mr. Del Aguas rights under the Fourth
Amendment of the United States Constitution.

63.
The above-stated violations of Martin Del Aguas constitutional rights occurred as
the result of the deliberate, reckless, and malicious acts, omissions, and practices of Defendant
County of Sacramento in at least the following ways: approval, ratification, encouragement, and
authorization of excessive use of force by sheriff officers, including in this case; official policies
10
and procedures that condone use of excessive force and improper detention; failure to properly
11
train and supervise its sheriff officers in the lawful use of force and in detention consistent with
12
the Fourth Amendment; and official policies, procedures, and practices that condone detentions in
13
response to ICE hold requests that are not based on probable cause or signed by a judge. These
14
acts, omissions, and policies contributed to the injuries to Mr. Del Agua.
15
64.
16
economic losses.
17
Due to these violations, Mr. Del Agua has suffered emotional, psychological and
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution,
Actionable Under 42 U.S.C. 1983 Against All Defendants
18
19
65.
20
66.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits Defendants
21
from depriving Mr. Del Agua of a liberty interest without due process. A state law can create a
22
protected liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment if it includes explicit mandatory
23
language limiting a law enforcement officers discretion. Californias TRUST Act includes
24
explicit mandatory language prohibiting law enforcement officials from detaining individuals
25
based solely on receipt of an ICE-issued immigration detainer unless two express statutory
26
conditions are met: (1) the continued detention does not violate federal, state or local law; and (2)
27
the detainee criminal record or current charged offense is among the Acts enumerated offenses.
28
CASE NO.
pa-1661160
14

1
67.
Acting under color of law, Defendants continued to detain Mr. Del Agua after
charges against him were dropped in response to an ICE Hold. Defendants failed to conduct any
investigation into whether or not Mr. Del Aguas current offense or his criminal history met the
TRUST Acts enumerated criteria.
68.
Defendants were barred from detaining Mr. Del Agua based solely on receipt of an
ICE Hold requests unless the individual in his custody met the TRUST Acts clearly enumerated
criteria. Mr. Del Agua did not fall within any of the TRUST Acts enumerated criteria.
Accordingly, Defendants had no right to detain Mr. Del Agua. Defendants conducted no inquiry
or investigation into whether Mr. Del Aguas continued detention violated the TRUST Act,
10
failing to properly acknowledge the legal requirement to do so until confronted by the Del Aguas
11
lawyers on February 9, 2014.
12
13
14
69.
By failing to follow the TRUST Act, Defendants deprived Mr. Del Agua of liberty
without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

70.
The above-stated violations of Martin Del Aguas constitutional rights occurred as
15
the result of the deliberate, reckless, and malicious acts, omissions, and practices of Defendant
16
County of Sacramento in at least the following ways: approval, ratification, encouragement, and
17
authorization of detention based on ICE Holds; official policies and procedures that condone
18
improper detention; and failure to properly train and supervise its sheriff officers in the lawful
19
detention consistent with the Fourth Amendment and the TRUST Act. These acts, omissions, and
20
policies contributed to the injuries to Mr. Del Agua.
21
71.
22
economic losses.
23
Due to these violations, Mr. Del Agua has suffered emotional, psychological and
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Tortious False Arrest and Imprisonment Against All Defendants
24
25
72.
26
73.
California law forbids the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another.
27
Fermino v. Fedco, Inc., 7 Cal. 4th, 701, 715. The tort consists of the "nonconsensual, intentional
28
confinement of a person, without lawful privilege, for an appreciable length of time, however
CASE NO.
pa-1661160
15

1
short." Id. The tort does not entail an intent or motive to cause harm; indeed false
imprisonments often appear to arise from initially legitimate motives. Id. at 716
3
4
74.
Defendants improperly detained and arrested Mr. Del Agua on and after February
7, 2014 without lawful justification or probable cause.
75.
Defendants intentionally deprived Mr. Del Agua of his freedom of movement by
using of physical restraints and cells, force, and threats of force to retain custody over him after
all charges against Mr. Del Agua were dropped. Despite the absence of lawful basis to retain
custody and without Mr. Del Aguas consent, Defendants nevertheless compelled Mr. Del Agua
to remain in his custody for approximately for 50 hours between February 7 and February 9,
10
11
2014.
76.
The Defendants intentional, wrongful imprisonment of Mr. Del Agua caused Mr.
12
Del Agua to suffer harm in the form of lost wages, lost or damaged personal property, and
13
physical and emotion injuries.
14
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Interference with a Constitutionally Protected Right in
Violation of California Civil Code Section 52.1 Against All Defendants
15
16
77.
17
78.
California Civil Code section 52.1 (the Bane Act) permits individuals to bring
18
civil actions for damages where a person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law,
19
interferes by threats, intimidation, or coercion . . . with the exercise or enjoyment by any
20
individual . . . or rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. A Bane Act
21
claims has two elements: (1) an act of interference with a legal right by (2) intimidation, threats,
22
and coercion.
23
24
25
79.
By the use of excessive force and improper detention on the night of February 7,
2014, Defendants violated Mr. Deluas rights under the Fourth Amendment.
80.
By detaining Mr. Del Agua after he became eligible for release, Defendants
26
interfered with Mr. Del Aguas right to be free from unlawful seizures under the Fourth
27
Amendment, and with his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
28
CASE NO.
pa-1661160
16

1
81.
Defendants intimidated, threatened, and coerced Mr. Del Agua by detaining him in
one or more jail cells or custodial rooms. This detention was accomplished through physical
restraints, and was overseen by armed and unarmed Deputies working under Defendant Scott
Joness supervision and at his direction.
5
6
82.
interference with his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligence, California Torts Claim Act Against All Defendants
8
9
10
11
12
13
Mr. Del Agua is entitled to damages under the Bane Act for Defendants
83.
Plaintiffs Mr. and Mrs. Del Agua incorporate by reference each allegation in all
proceeding paragraphs.
84.
Defendants breached their duty of reasonable care by negligently acting or
omitting to act in such a way that resulted in injury to Plaintiffs.

85.
Defendants breached their duty of reasonable care by negligently acting or
14
omitting to act in such a way that resulted in Mr. Del Aguas unlawful arrest and detention, which
15
Defendants knew or should have known would cause substantial harm to George.
16
86.
Defendants were negligent in performing their duties and failed, neglected and/or
17
refused to properly and fully discharge their responsibilities by, among other things, failing to
18
adequately train and supervise employees and agents.
19
20
21
22
23
87.
Defendants were acting within the scope of their employment when they
committed these acts.

88.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered
and continue to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
False Arrest and Imprisonment, California Torts Claim Act Against All Defendants
24
25
89.
26
90.
Defendants intentionally and unlawfully deprived Mr. Del Agua of his liberty by
27
arresting and detaining him without a legal basis to do so.
28
CASE NO.
pa-1661160
17

1
2
3
4
91.
Defendants were acting within the scope of their employment when they
committed these acts.

92.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct, Martin Del Agua has
suffered and continues to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Del Agua prays for judgment as follows:
A.
Enjoining Defendants from detaining individuals based solely on a request from
ICE and/or a believe that a person may be deportable absent a determination by a judicial officer
that probable cause exists to hold the individual for immigration enforcement purposes.
10
11
12
13
14
15
B.
Enjoining Defendants from depriving individuals of their liberty interests without
first providing the due process created by Californias TRUST Act.

C.
For a declaratory judgment that Defendants continued detention of Mr. Del Agua
violated Mr. Del Aguas Fourth Amendment rights.

D.
For a declaratory judgment that Defendants continued detention of Mr. Del Agua
violated Mr. Del Aguas Fourteenth Amendment rights.
16
E.
For general damages against Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial;
17
F.
For special damages against Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial;
18
G.
For punitive damages against Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial;
19
H.
For costs incurred in this action;
20
I.
For reasonable attorneys fees;
21
J.
For such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.
22
23
24
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs, Martin Del Agua and Julie Del Agua hereby demand trial by jury of all claims
in the above-captioned action.
25
26
27
28
CASE NO.
pa-1661160
18

1
2
Dated: January 23, 2015
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP &

ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE
ASIAN LAW CAUCUS
3
4
5
6
7
By:
/s/ Alan Cope Johnston

ALAN COPE JOHNSTON
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MARTIN DEL AGUA AND
JULIE DEL AGUA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO.
pa-1661160
19

Del Agua Federal Complaint

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Del Agua Federal Complaint

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Case 2:15-at-00115 Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 1 of 19

ALAN COPE JOHNSTON (CA SBN 66334)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

SCOTT R. JONES, in his official capacity,

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 2:15-at-00115 Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 2 of 19

Agua and his family.

Case 2:15-at-00115 Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 3 of 19

constitutional rights and a further false imprisonment of Mr. Del Agua.

Defendant Scott R. Jones is the elected Sheriff of Sacramento County, California.

He is also a resident of the Eastern District of California. Defendant is responsible, in whole or

behalf. Defendant is being sued in his official capacity.

Defendant County of Sacramento is a political subdivision of the State of

California with the capacity to sue and be sued.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

ICE Holds and Defendants Policy of Honoring Them Despite A State

An immigration hold, also known as an immigration detainer or ICE hold, is a

Case 2:15-at-00115 Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 4 of 19

impose no legal obligations on local law enforcement agencies.

of the subsequent detention by a local law enforcement agency.

As one government attorney explained, ICE uses detainers as a stop gap

In December 2012, the California Attorney General circulated legal guidance to

Case 2:15-at-00115 Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 5 of 19

no obligation for Defendants to hold people in response to them.

On January 1, 2014, Californias Transparency and Responsibility Using State

do not include detention based on noise complaints or allegations of public drunkenness.

Detentions of individuals based solely on ICE Holds have been challenged in

Court, and such detentions have been found unlawful.

Case 2:15-at-00115 Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 6 of 19

detention. Defendants policy of detaining individuals based solely on receipt of an ICE-issued

The Del Aguas Obtain a Restraining Order Against Their Neighbor.

The Sheriff Departments Misconduct Toward Martin Del Agua and

respond to a noise complaint by Mr. Thrasher regarding Mr. Del Agua.

Case 2:15-at-00115 Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 7 of 19

abusing her husband.

Protective Services about her family.

Case 2:15-at-00115 Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 8 of 19

Agua apprised of his rights or given a Miranda-warning.

during Mr. Del Aguas arrest.

California Penal Code section 647(f) provides that it is a misdemeanor to be found in

Case 2:15-at-00115 Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 9 of 19

be released and could return home later that evening.

any review by any judicial officer.

based solely on the ICE Hold.

Case 2:15-at-00115 Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 10 of 19

any federal, state, or local law.

Julie Del Aguas Efforts to Have Martin Del Agua Released.

get Mr. Del Agua released from custody.

destroyed during the arrest.

Case 2:15-at-00115 Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 11 of 19

The Del Aguas Unsuccessfully Pursue Administrative Remedies

the County acknowledged receipt of the Complaint on June 18, 2014.

The complaintwhich the County has neither accepted not deniedsought a

Deputies, an apology from the Defendant, and compensation.

Defendants Adopt a Temporary Policy Limiting Compliance with

Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas Co. (D.Or. April 11, 2014, No. 3:12-cv-02317-ST).

Case 2:15-at-00115 Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 12 of 19

The Del Aguas Are Entitled To An Injunction.

of February 7, 2014 will recur.

again at the county jail.

explicitly on Sacramento Sheriffs Departments unresolved determination whether compliance

with ICE Holds violate the Fourth Amendment or other laws.

likely to be held due to another ICE Hold.

with the County of Sacramento on June 11, 2014.

Case 2:15-at-00115 Document 1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 13 of 19

unsuccessfully to negotiate a resolution with the County.

Tort Claims Act prior to initiating this action.