Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

Case 3:15-cv-02235-LAB-DHB Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 16

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

KEITH H. RUTMAN (CSB #144175)


501 West Broadway Ste 1650
San Diego, California 92101-3541
Telephone: (619) 237-9072
Facsimile: (760) 454-4372
email: krutman@krutmanlaw.com
GERALD B. SINGLETON (CSB #208783)
BRODY AUSTIN MCBRIDE (CSB #270852)
Singleton Law Firm
115 West Plaza Street
Solana Beach, CA 92075
Telephone: (760) 697-1330
Facsimile: (760) 697-1329
Email: gerald@geraldsingleton.com
Email: brody@geraldsingleton.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DEMETRICE SIGHTLER

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

DEMETRICE SIGHTLER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF SAN DIEGO,
)
SDPD OFFICER DAVE NISLEIT,
)
SDPD OFFICER BENJAMIN MCCURRY, )
and DOES 1-30,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES;


DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMES NOW Plaintiff DEMETRICE SIGHTLER, by and through his

22
23

Case No. '15CV2235 LAB DHB

attorneys of record, and hereby alleges:

24

This lawsuit for money damages is brought pursuant to the provisions of 42

25

U.S.C. 1983 due to violations by Defendants of Mr. SIGHTLERs constitutional

26

rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

27

///

28

///

Case 3:15-cv-02235-LAB-DHB Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 2 of 16

JURISDICTION

1
2

Federal jurisdiction is founded upon the existence of a federal question, the Civil

Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983 and lies under 28 U.S.C. 1331.


VENUE

4
5

Venue in the Southern District of California is proper because the injuries to Mr.

SIGHTLER occurred herein and further because the Defendants are believed to reside

in said district.
PARTIES

8
9

Plaintiff DEMETRICE SIGHTLER (hereinafter SIGHTLER) was at all

10

material times mentioned herein was a resident of the City of San Diego, in the State of

11

California.

12

13

herein a political sub-division of the State of California and is the employer of

14

Defendants SDPD OFFICERS DAVE NISLEIT, BENJAMIN MCCURRY and DOES

15

1-30, who performed all of the herein alleged acts for, and in the name of, the CITY.

16

17

NISLEIT, BENJAMIN MCCURRY and DOES 1-30 (collectively referred to as the

18

Officer Defendants) were duly constituted law enforcement officers employed by the

19

SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT and are charged with administering and

20

maintaining laws in the jurisdiction of the CITY OF SAN DIEGO and STATE OF

21

CALIFORNIA. Thus, they were the agents, servants, and/or employees of the CITY

22

OF SAN DIEGO and in doing the acts herein alleged, were acting within the course

23

and scope of their agency and/or employment, and with the permission, consent and

24

authority of the CITY OF SAN DIEGO. The acts of the Defendants were also done

25

under the color and pretense of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and

26

usages of the State of California.

27

28

complained of in their individual and official capacities, in the course and scope of

The CITY OF SAN DIEGO ("the CITY"), is and was at all times mentioned

At all material times mentioned herein, Defendants SDPD OFFICERS DAVE

Plaintiff alleges that all the individual Defendants carried out the acts

Case 3:15-cv-02235-LAB-DHB Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 3 of 16

their employment, and under color of law. All individuals Defendants are sued both in

their individual and in their official capacities.

governmental defendants (including all DOE defendants) violated rights held by

Plaintiff which were clearly established and which they had a mandatory duty to

uphold. No reasonable official similarly situated to any of the Defendants could have

believed that his/her conduct was lawful or within the bounds of reasonable discretion.

All individual Defendants, including all individual DOE defendants, thus lack

immunity from suit or liability. This extends both to statutorily created immunity and

Regarding all actions and causes of action herein alleged and stated, all

10

to the judicially created doctrine of "qualified immunity".

11

12

constitutional rights brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 based upon Plaintiff's Monell

13

cause(s) of action. The bases for the CITY's liability in this context include, but are not

14

limited to, the SDPD's supervisors' ratification of the illegal and unconstitutional

15

conduct of their subordinate SDPD officers, and the fact that the violation of Plaintiff's

16

rights was the result of an actual or de facto policy that tolerated the violations of

17

citizens' rights by SDPD officers. This liability is both direct and is based on the

18

causes of action brought against any policy-making DOE Defendants who may be

19

named later, (to wit, the current SDPD Chief, Assistant Chief, or any other DOE

20

policy-making defendants) in said Defendants' official capacities.

21

22

followed as a prerequisite to bringing suit as to these claims brought under 42 U.S.C.

23

1983. Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496 (1982); Heath v. Cleary, 708 F.2d

24

1376, 1378 (9th Cir. 1983).

Defendant CITY is also liable for the violations of Plaintiff's federal

Any administrative claims process set forth in California state law need not be

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

25
26

10

Outfitting sheriff's deputies in hooded combat fatigues, arming them with

27

laser-sighted weapons and ordering them to conduct, or prepare to conduct, the

28

dynamic entry of a private home does not exempt their conduct from Fourth
3

Case 3:15-cv-02235-LAB-DHB Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 4 of 16

Amendment standards of reasonableness. Nor does a SWAT designation grant

license to law enforcement officers to abuse citizens, suspects or innocent bystanders,

or to vent in an unprofessional manner any of their own pent-up aggression, personal

frustration or animosity toward others. Trailing a frightened person with a

laser-sighted firearm is, on its face, needlessly dangerous.

11

SIGHTLER resided at 3659 Lemona Avenue, San Diego California 92105. 3659

Lemona Avenue is a multi-unit apartment building containing at least 5 apartments.

On and prior to September 9, 2014, Mr. SIGHTLER, who is African-American, is

At all times material to this Complaint, including September 9, 2014, Mr.

10

heavy set, has long hair typically worn in a ponytail and has a beard, resided in

11

Apartment #3 with his girlfriend, Kristina Baca. Apartment # 3 is located in the front

12

of the building. Apartment # 5, whose occupants include an lanky, African-American

13

man with short hair and a goatee, is at the back of the building.

14

12

15

Lemona Avenue no less than five (5) times prior to September 9, 2015 and responded

16

to the scene each time, leading to an officer involved contact.

17

12.1 These calls included 3 noise complaints (California Penal Code 415) regarding

18

Mr. SIGHTLERs apartment #3 on 8/3/14 @ 17:15; 8/7/14 @ 14:45, and again on

19

8/7/14 @ 19:11. He was never arrested or cited during these contacts, which all

20

centered around the paying of loud miusic and nothing more.

21

12.2 On 8/4/14 @ 20:21, the SDPD received a call from Apartment #2 regarding a

22

child molestation allegation.

23

12.3 On 8/21/14 @ 18:44, the SDPD received a call from Apartment #5 regarding a

24

domestic violence incident.

25

12.4 Finally, on 9/9/14 @ 15:40, the SDPD received another call regarding

26

Apartment #5 regarding a domestic violence incident. Kristina Baca, Mr.

27

SIGHTLERs girlfriend, had in fact placed this 911 call, leading to a police response to

28

Apartment #5. As such, the names of the occupants of Apartment #5 and Ms.

According to official records, the SDPD has received calls for service to 3659

Case 3:15-cv-02235-LAB-DHB Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 5 of 16

SIGHTLERs girlfriend were known to the SDPD by this time.

12.5 Plaintiff is informed and beleives and therefore alleges all these calls were

digitally recorded by the SDPD as a matter of policy and practice.

13

the SDPD was told by an as yet unidentified third party that a man was holding a gun

to a womans head. Lt. Kevin Mayer, an SDPD spokesperson, later told a reporter that

the SDPD was indeed responding to a such a call. He would not discuss the source of

the information.

14

On information and belief, Mr. SIGHTLER alleges that on September 9, 2014,

The SDPD responded with a full scale SWAT response, dispatching an unknown

10

number of officers responded to the scene. According to the SDPD official website, its

11

Armory - SWAT unit:

12

14.1 Performs hostage rescues and responds to special weapons and tactics

13

emergencies.

14

14.2 Serves high-risk warrants and does dignitary protection.

15

14.3 Provides fire control support.

16

14.4 Removes barricaded individuals.

17

14.5 Provides the counter-sniper capability.

18

14.6 Provides chemical agent support and special events

19

15

20

NISLEIT, an SDPD Captain who is beleived to be the Watch Commander of the Mid

21

City substation, was in command, and Defendant BENJAMIN MCCURRY, an SDPD

22

Sergeant, was also in command, albeit subordinate to NISLEIT. A video of the

23

incident, taken by a neighbor, shows several police cars parked and/or pulling up to the

24

building, officers equipped with tactical gear, holding semi-automatic weapons, and a

25

canine unit. A police helicopter can also be observed circling overhead.

26

16

27

military rifle. In 2008, the San Diego Police Department acquired 75 M16s from the

28

U.S. Department of Defense under the DODs Excess Property Program, also known as

Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that Defendant DAVE

In the video, two officers run up the street, brandishing what look like M16s, a

Case 3:15-cv-02235-LAB-DHB Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 6 of 16

the 1033 program, which has received scrutiny after reports that vehicles and weapons

police used to respond to protestors in Ferguson, Missouri, were purchased through the

program.

17

with groceries, he witnessed the foregoing. He was ordered by a loud voice to step

onto his balconywhich faces the street and overlooks the apartments parking

lotand put his hands in the air. He complied.

18

guns pointed at him. He also observed dancing red dots on his chest, which he

When Mr. SIGHTLER poked his head outside to see if his girlfriend needed help

From the balcony Mr. SIGHTLER counted at least four police officers with

10

recognized from movies as coming from laser rifle scopes, suggesting to him that there

11

were more officers that he couldnt see. He quickly came to the conclusion that he

12

could be killed in an instant.

13

19

14

holds his hands in the air as he tries to explain to officers that they have the wrong

15

man. An officer tells him that they are responding to a report of domestic violence. He

16

responded My girlfriend called, Who is my girlfriend? The officer tells him a

17

name. Mr. SIGHTLER yells You have the wrong house! You are looking for

18

Apartment 5. Thats the unit in the back.

19

20

20

finally acknowledged that Mr. SIGHTLER was not the person they are looking for. At

21

that point, Mr. SIGHTLER becomes irate, swearing at officers who still had not

22

lowered their weapons. When he looked down at the officer positioned closest to him,

23

whose rifles red dot was still on his chest, he saw him laughing. Mr. SIGHTLER

24

was eventually free to go back inside his apartment. Mr. SIGHTLER thought he was

25

going to die, and never see his kids again. He thought I was going to get killed on my

26

balcony.

27

21

28

may be weapons and a victim in danger, their response was to employ heavy-duty

As noted, a neighbor recorded the incident on video. In it, Mr. SIGHTLER

After more than 10 minutes of being held at gunpoint, afraid to move, the police

While it may be true that the police responded to a scene where they think there

Case 3:15-cv-02235-LAB-DHB Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 7 of 16

weaponry suitable for a war zone and engage an innocent person based on very little

information.

22

commanding officer on the scene, Defendant NISLEIT. Mr. SIGHTLER tried to get

more information and state his intention to lodge a Complaint. Defendant NISLEIT

instead asked whether he had a criminal history and the details thereof, but otherwise

ignored him. Mr. SIGHTLER felt intimidated by the questioning, and did not provide

that information. Defendant NISLEIT stated to him that I hope my officers dont

come into further contact with you.

Mr. SIGHTLER went outside and almost immediately was contacted by the

10

23

The alleged abuser in #5 was never arrested nor even questioned that day as far

11

as Mr. SIGHTLER knows. He might not have even been home. Mr. SIGHTLER

12

knows for sure the girlfriend/victim was not in the apartment, because she (Patricia

13

LNU) drove up shortly after Mr. SIGHTLER had left his balcony and was talking to

14

officers on the scene.

15

24

16

Police Station to file a complaint. They were told that Mr. SIGHTLER first needed to

17

speak to a sergeant; that sergeant happened to be Defendant MCCURRY, one of the

18

responders on Sept. 9 and a supervising officer on the scene. Defendant MCCURRY

19

Mr. SIGHTLER and Ms. Baca that the call they received that day was like a game of

20

telephone, where information had been passed along to the point of being vague. In

21

other words They got a call from someone who got a call from someone. Mr.

22

SIGHTLER did not feel comfortable lodging a complaint with one of the officers he

23

was complaining about. Defendant NISLEIT, the stations Captain, tried to convince

24

him that he did not have a valid complaint, either. Mr. SIGHTLER left the station

25

without filing a complaint.

26

25

27

obstruct or delay an officer in the performance of their official duties, disturb the

28

peace, or refuse to cooperate in a manner which was not lawfully within his

Shortly after the incident, Mr. SIGHTLER and Ms. Baca went to the Mid-City

At no point in time did Mr. SIGHTLER act suspicious, give elusive answers,

Case 3:15-cv-02235-LAB-DHB Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 8 of 16

constitutional rights. He did not strike, attempt to strike, resist, or take flight or

commit any illegal acts or otherwise engage in conduct which in any way justified the

actions of the Defendants.

26

suspicion to do so. By virtue of the extreme manner in which he was held, he was in

fact and law arrested without any probable cause to believe he was subject to arrest.

No reasonable officer in the possession of the information known to Defendants would

have believed that Mr. SIGHTLER was subject to either arrest or a prolonged

detention.

Mr. SIGHTLERs detention was unreasonably prolonged without any reasonable

10

27

Mr. SIGHTLER was subjected to excessive and unreasonable force, as there

11

was no reason to use any force at all.

12

28

13

would have believed that they were entitled to train firearms on Mr. SIGHTLER for

14

any, let alone such an extended, period of time.

No reasonable officer in the possession of the information known to Defendants

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF


42 U.S.C. 1983
UNREASONABLE SEIZURE (DETENTION/ARREST)
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

15
16
17
18

29

Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 28 as

19

though fully set forth herein.

20

30

21

warrant to be seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment: A seizure

22

occurs even when an unintended person or thing is the object of the detention or taking,

23

... but the detention or taking itself must be willful. A plaintiff is seized if there is

24

a governmental termination of [plaintiff's] freedom of movement through means

25

intentionally applied, regardless of whether he or she was the subject of an arrest

26

warrant or was ultimately placed under arrest. Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S.

27

593, 596-597 (1989).

28

31

One need not be the target of a search or be the person named in an arrest

Both the decision to deploy a SWAT team as well as the manner in which the
8

Case 3:15-cv-02235-LAB-DHB Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 9 of 16

SWAT team carries out its duties may each violate the Fourth Amendment. Holland ex

rel. Overdorff v. Harrington, 268 F.3d 1179, 1192-1193 (2001)

32

inescapably involves the immediate threat of deadly force. Such a show of force should

be predicated on at least a perceived risk of injury or danger to the officers or others,

based upon what the officers know at that time. Where a person has submitted to the

officers' show of force without resistance, and where an officer has no reasonable cause

to believe that person poses a danger to the officer or to others, it is excessive and

unreasonable to continue to aim a loaded firearm directly at that person, in contrast to

The display of weapons, and the pointing of firearms directly at persons

10

simply holding the weapon in a fashion ready for immediate use. Holland ex rel.

11

Overdorff v. Harrington, 268 F.3d 1179, 1192-1193 (2001)

12

33

13

cause, reasonable suspicion, consent, exigent circumstances or other defense, Mr.

14

SIGHTLER clearly established constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment to

15

the United States Constitution to be secure in his person from unreasonable

16

government intrusion, including false arrest/unreasonable detention. These rights were

17

clearly established at the time.

18

34

19

subject to arrest or a prolonged detention. For these reasons, Mr. SIGHTLER is

20

entitled to seek damages pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. 1983, et seq.

21

35

22

the scene, they are liable for the alleged unconstitutional acts of their subordinates

23

because Mr. SIGHTLER will be able to prove an affirmative link through facts

24

showing that they actively participated or acquiesced in the constitutional violation.

25

See Winters v. Board of County Comm'rs, 4 F.3d 848, 855 (10th Cir.1993) (citing

26

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976)). Such facts exist in this case.

27

36

28

distress and shock and injury to his person and nervous system, all to his damages in an

In committing the acts alleged herein, the Defendants violated, without probable

A reasonably prudent officer would have known that Mr. SIGHTLER was not

As to named Defendants NISLEIT and MCCURRY, each supervisors present at

By reason of the acts alleged above, Mr. SIGHTLER did sustain great emotional

Case 3:15-cv-02235-LAB-DHB Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 10 of 16

amount to be proven at trial.

37

SIGHTLER is entitled to general and special damages from the Defendants in an

amount to be proven at trial.

38

reckless and callous disregard for the rights and feelings of Mr. SIGHTLER and by

reason thereof Mr. SIGHTLER demands exemplary and punitive damages in an

amount to be proven at trial.

As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions alleged herein, Mr.

In doing the acts alleged herein the Defendants acted maliciously and with

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF


42 U.S.C. 1983
UNREASONABLE SEIZURE (EXCESSIVE FORCE)
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

9
10
11
12

39

Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 28 as

13

though fully set forth herein.

14

40

15

unreasonable." Headwaters Forest Def. v. County of Humboldt, 240 F.3d 1185, 1199

16

(9th Cir.2000), vacated on other grounds, 534 U.S. 801 (2001). A reasonably prudent

17

officer would have known that Mr. SIGHTLER was not subject to any, let alone

18

excessive, force.

19

41

20

of that civilian's face may not cause physical injury, but he has certainly laid the

21

building blocks for a section 1983 claim against him. Robinson v. Solano County,

22

278 F.3d 1007, 1015 (9th Cir. 2002)

23

42

24

defense, Mr. SIGHTLER clearly established constitutional right under the Fourth

25

Amendment to the United States Constitution to be secure in his person from the use of

26

unreasonable and excessive force, in that the force applied to arrest/detain Mr.

27

SIGHTLER was in contravention of constitutional and statutory duty, was in excess of

28

any force required to address the circumstances, was grossly out of proportion to any

"[W]here there is no need for force, any force used is constitutionally

A police officer who terrorizes a civilian by brandishing a cocked gun in front

In committing the acts alleged herein, the Defendants violated, without any

10

Case 3:15-cv-02235-LAB-DHB Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 11 of 16

need for force, was not employed in good faith, and was intended and substantially

certain to cause serious bodily injury. These rights were clearly established at the

time. For these reasons, Mr. SIGHTLER is entitled to recover damages pursuant to

Title 42 U.S.C. 1983, et seq.

43

distress and shock and injury to his person and nervous system, all to Mr. SIGHTLER

damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

44

SIGHTLER is entitled to general and special damages from the Defendants in an

By reason of the acts alleged above, Mr. SIGHTLER did sustain great emotional

As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions alleged herein, Mr.

10

amount to be proven at trial.

11

45

12

reckless and callous disregard for the rights and feelings of Mr. SIGHTLER and by

13

reason thereof Mr. SIGHTLER demands exemplary and punitive damages in an

14

amount to be proven at trial.

In doing the acts alleged herein the Defendants acted maliciously and with

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF


42 U.S.C. 1983
MONELL CLAIM
AGAINST CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND ALL DOE POLICY-MAKERS

15
16
17
18

46

Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 28 as

19

though fully set forth herein.

20

47

21

constitutional rights. These included violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth

22

Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The actions of Defendants were

23

part of a wider pattern and practice that was approved and encouraged by the SAN

24

DIEGO Police Department.

25

48

26

custom and practice endorsed, promulgated, and/or tolerated by the supervisory DOE

27

defendants with final policy-making authority. This custom and practice, and the

28

ratification by the supervisory Defendants with final policy-making authority,

As set forth herein above, Defendants violated a number of Plaintiff's

The violation of rights as experienced by SIGHTLER was consistent with the

11

Case 3:15-cv-02235-LAB-DHB Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 12 of 16

performed by rank-and-file SDPD Officers pursuant to this policy, was the moving

force behind the violation of Plaintiff's rights that occurred on September 9, 2014.

49

rights by the Defendants under Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of

New York (1978) 436 U.S. 658, and its progeny, which hold that a municipal entity

may be held liable for violations of Constitutional rights committed by its law

enforcement officers if the violation was based on either (1) a widespread practice that,

although not authorized by written law or express municipal policy, is "so permanent

and well settled as to constitute a custom or usage" with the force of law, (2) the

Accordingly, the CITY is liable for the deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional

10

decision of a person with "final policymaking authority", or (3) that the illegal and

11

unconstitutional conduct was ratified by an individual with final policy-making

12

authority.

13

50

Here all bases for municipal liability are present.

14

51

First, the police department had a departmental policy, custom, or practice

15

(which was promulgated, encouraged, and/or tolerated by the Defendants named

16

herein, to wit, SDPD supervisors and those with policy-making authority) of

17

responding to reports of hostage situations with overwhelming force without

18

conducting any rudimentary investigation to determined the scope of the appropriate

19

response, in violation of an individual's civil rights.

20

52

21

of the illegal behavior encouraged by supervisory DOE defendants with final

22

policy-making authority.

23

53

24

NISLEIT, MCCURRY and/or other supervisory DOE Defendants with final

25

policymaking authority, not only failed to take corrective action, but ratified the illegal

26

conduct of the officers and other DOE Defendants.

27

54

28

policymaking authority within it (including, but not limited to, the DOE Defendants

The violation of SIGHTLERs rights on September 9, 2014 was part and parcel

When confronted with the Plaintiffs violation of his civil rights, Defendants

Overall, the pattern and practice of the SDPD and of the individuals with final

12

Case 3:15-cv-02235-LAB-DHB Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 13 of 16

with final policy-making authority) was such that there was a permanent and settled

culture, policy, and/or practice, which encouraged the use of excessive force against,

citizens like Plaintiff.

55

distress and shock and injury to his person and nervous system, all to Mr. SIGHTLER

damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

56

SIGHTLER is entitled to general and special damages from the Defendants in an

amount to be proven at trial.

By reason of the acts alleged above, Mr. SIGHTLER did sustain great emotional

As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions alleged herein, Mr.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF


42 U.S.C. 1983
FAILURE TO PROPERLY TRAIN
AGAINST CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND ALL DOE POLICY-MAKERS

10
11
12
13

57

Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 28 as

14

though fully set forth herein.

15

58

16

practice and policy, failed to maintain adequate and proper training as to the

17

Constitutional rights of citizens and arrestees, to prevent the consistent and systematic

18

arrests without probable cause, the use of excessive force, or the appropriate manner of

19

investigating and responding to citizen complaints regarding constitutional violations

20

committed by law enforcement officers.

21

59

22

adequate training to their officers on the requirement that citizens not be confronted

23

with deadly force when not constitutionally permissible to do so.

24

60

25

adequate training to their officers on the appropriate, reasonable, and/or legally

26

permissible amount of force that may be used when effectuating a detention or an

27

arrest.

28

61

Defendant CITY and the DOE Policy Making Defendants, as a matter of custom,

Defendant CITY and the DOE Policy Making Defendants failed to provide

Defendant CITY and the DOE Policy Making Defendants failed to provide

Defendant CITY and the DOE Policy Making Defendants failed to provide
13

Case 3:15-cv-02235-LAB-DHB Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 14 of 16

adequate training to their officers on the subject of police reports: to wit, they failed to

properly train their offices in the SDPD that officers must file truthful and complete

reports that did not contain false statements and/or omissions of material facts.

62

adequate training to their officers on the need to avoid any conflicts of interest

(including, but not limited to, taking complaints about actions in which the officer had

actually participated or trying to dissuade a citizen from making a complaint).

63

deliberate indifference, disregarded a duty to protect the public from official

Defendant CITY and the DOE Policy Making Defendants failed to provide

Therefore, Defendant CITY and the DOE Policy Making Defendants, with

10

misconduct.

11

64

12

promulgate or maintain constitutionally adequate training was done with deliberate

13

indifference to the rights of Plaintiff and others in his position.

14

65

15

caused Plaintiff to suffer the damages alleged herein.

16

66

17

distress and shock and injury to his person and nervous system, all to Mr. SIGHTLER

18

damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

19

67

20

SIGHTLER is entitled to general and special damages from the Defendants in an

21

amount to be proven at trial.

The failure by Defendant CITY and the DOE Policy Making Defendants to

The constitutionally infirm lack of adequate training as to Defendant Officers


By reason of the acts alleged above, Mr. SIGHTLER did sustain great emotional

As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions alleged herein, Mr.

22

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF


42 U.S.C. 1983
FAILURE TO SUPERVISE AND DISCIPLINE
AGAINST CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND ALL DOE POLICY-MAKERS

23
24
25
26

68

Plaintiff refers to and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 28 as

27

though fully set forth herein.

28

69

Defendant CITY and the DOE Policy Making Defendants, as a matter of custom,
14

Case 3:15-cv-02235-LAB-DHB Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 15 of 16

practice and policy, failed to supervise their officers to prevent, deter and punish the

unconstitutional and excessive use of force.

70

officers on the scene who pointed loaded, high powered rifles, at SIGHTLER.

71

known of the Constitutional violations committed by any officers on the scene but

failed to correct their officers' abuse of authority, or discourage their unlawful use of

authority.

72

No supervising officer from the SDPD took appropriate steps to supervise any
Defendant CITY and the DOE Policy Making Defendants, knew or should have

Upon information and belief, Defendant CITY and the DOE Policy Making

10

Defendants, witnessed or learned of the violations committed against Plaintiff but

11

failed to supervise or discipline any officers on the scene for their misconduct with

12

respect to Plaintiff.

13

73

14

condoned and acquiesced in the abusive behavior of their officers by refusing to retrain

15

them, discipline them, or correct their abusive behavior. Upon information and belief,

16

none of the officers on the scene were ever disciplined for their unconstitutional

17

treatment of Plaintiff on September 9, 2014.

18

74

19

been, aware that the policy regarding supervision and discipline of officers who

20

violated the civil rights of the citizens and commit assault and battery was so

21

inadequate that it was obvious that a failure to correct it would result in further

22

incidents of dangerous and conduct perpetrated by their officers.

23

75

24

deliberate indifference to the rights of Plaintiff.

25

76

26

Policy Making Defendants, caused Plaintiff's damages.

27

77

28

distress and shock and injury to his person and nervous system, all to Mr. SIGHTLER

To the contrary, Defendant CITY and the DOE Policy Making Defendants,

Defendant CITY and the DOE Policy Making Defendants, were, or should have

The constitutionally deficient investigation and lack of discipline was done with
The lack of adequate supervision and discipline Defendant CITY and the DOE
By reason of the acts alleged above, Mr. SIGHTLER did sustain great emotional

15

Case 3:15-cv-02235-LAB-DHB Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 16 of 16

damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

78

SIGHTLER is entitled to general and special damages from the Defendants in an

amount to be proven at trial.

As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions alleged herein, Mr.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:

1.

8
9
10
11
12
13

For general and compensatory damages against Defendants in an amount

to be proven at trial;
2.

For exemplary and punitive damages against the Defendants in an amount

to be proven at trial;
3.

For costs of suit herein, including reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to 42

U.S.C. 1988; and


4.

For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

14
15

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all claims for relief.


Respectfully Submitted,

16
17

Dated: October 7, 2015

s/ Keith H. Rutman
KEITH H. RUTMAN
Attorney for Plaintiff
Email: krutman@krutmanlaw.com

Dated: October 7, 2015

s/ Gerald B. Singleton
GERALD B. SINGLETON
Attorney for Plaintiff
Email: gerald@geraldsingleton.com

Dated: October 7, 2015

s/ Brody A. McBride
BRODY AUSTIN MCBRIDE
Attorney for Plaintiff
Email: brody@geraldsingleton.com

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

16