Case 1:18-cv-00314-AWI-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 1 of 22

1 MICHAEL J. HADDAD (State Bar No. 189114)

JULIA SHERWIN (State Bar No. 189268)
2 MAYA SORENSEN (State Bar No. 250722)
TERESA ALLEN (State Bar No. 264865)
3
HADDAD & SHERWIN LLP
4 505 Seventeenth Street
Oakland, California 94612
5 Telephone: (510) 452-5500
Facsimile: (510) 452-5510
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff
7
CHRISTINA PAULINE LOPEZ
8

9
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
ISIAH MURRIETTA-GOLDING, )
13 ) No:
Deceased, THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR
IN INTEREST CHRISTINA PAULINE )
14 )
LOPEZ; and CHRISTINA PAULINE
) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES,
15 LOPEZ, Individually, ) INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY
) RELIEF, AND DEMAND FOR JURY
16 Plaintiff, ) TRIAL
vs. )
17 )
CITY OF FRESNO, a public entity, CITY )
18 )
OF FRESNO POLICE CHIEF JERRY )
19 DYER, FRESNO POLICE SERGEANT )
RAY VILLALVAZO, and DOES 1 )
20 through 10, individually, Jointly and )
Severally, )
21 )
Defendants. )
22 )
)
23 )
)
24 )
)
25 )
26

27

28

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 1

 Case 1:18-cv-00314-AWI-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 2 of 22

1 Plaintiff CHRISTINA PAULINE LOPEZ, by and through her attorneys, HADDAD &

2 SHERWIN LLP, for her Complaint against Defendants, states as follows:

3
JURISDICTION
4
1. This is a civil rights wrongful death/survival action arising from Defendants’
5
wrongful shooting, use of excessive force and other wrongful acts on April 15, 2017 resulting in the
6
death of ISIAH MURRIETTA GOLDING, a sixteen-year-old boy, on April 18, 2017 in the CITY
7

8 OF FRESNO, Fresno County, California. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and

9 1988, and the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well
10 as the laws and Constitution of the State of California. Jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. §§
11
1331 and 1343(a)(3) and (4), and the aforementioned statutory and constitutional provisions.
12
Plaintiff further invokes the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367 to
13
hear and decide claims arising under state law.
14

15 INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

16 2. A substantial part of the events and/or omissions complained of herein occurred in

17 the CITY OF FRESNO, Fresno County, California, and this action is properly assigned to the
18 Fresno Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, pursuant to
19
Civil Local Rule 120(d).
20
PARTIES AND PROCEDURE
21
3. Plaintiff CHRISTINA PAULINE LOPEZ is the mother of decedent ISIAH
22

23 MURRIETTA-GOLDING. Plaintiff CHRISTINA PAULINE LOPEZ brings these claims

24 individually and as a Successor in Interest for her son, ISIAH MURRIETTA-GOLDING, deceased,

25 pursuant to C.C.P. §§ 377.60, 377.30, and federal civil rights law. CHRISTINA PAULINE LOPEZ
26
is a resident of the State of California.
27

28

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 2

 Case 1:18-cv-00314-AWI-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 3 of 22

1 4. Plaintiff CHRISTINA PAULINE LOPEZ brings these claims individually and on

2 behalf of Decedent ISIAH MURRIETTA-GOLDING pursuant to California Code of Civil

3
Procedure §§ 377.20 et seq. and 377.60 et seq. which provide for survival and wrongful death
4
actions. Both the wrongful death and survival claims survive the death of ISIAH MURRIETTA-
5
GOLDING; both arise from the same wrongful act or neglect of another; and such claims are
6
properly joined pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.62. Plaintiff also brings her
7

8 claims on the basis of 42 USC §§ 1983 and 1988, the United States Constitution, and federal civil

9 rights law. Plaintiff also brings these claims as Private Attorney General, to vindicate not only her
10 rights, but others’ civil rights of great importance.
11
5. Defendant CITY OF FRESNO is a public entity established by the laws and
12
Constitution of the State of California, and owns, operates, manages, directs, and controls the
13
Fresno Police Department (“FPD”) which employs other defendants in this action.
14

15 6. Defendant Chief of Police JERRY DYER (“DYER”) at all material times was

16 employed as Chief of Police by Defendant CITY OF FRESNO, and was acting within the course

17 and scope of that employment. As Chief of Police, Defendant DYER was a policy-making official
18
for the CITY OF FRESNO with the power to make official and final policy for the Fresno Police
19
Department. Defendant DYER is being sued in his individual capacity.
20
7. Defendant SERGEANT RAY VILLALVAZO (“Sgt. VILLALVAZO”) at all
21
material times was employed as a law enforcement officer by Defendant CITY OF FRESNO and
22

23 was acting within the course and scope of that employment. Sgt. VILLALVAZO, at the time of the

24 shooting, had over twenty years of experience as a FPD officer. Defendant Sgt. VILLALVAZO is

25 being sued in his individual capacity.

26

27

28

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 3

 Case 1:18-cv-00314-AWI-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 4 of 22

1 8. Defendant DOES 1-10 ("Doe Defendants") at all material times were employed as

2 law enforcement officers by Defendant CITY OF FRESNO, and were acting within the course and
3
scope of that employment. Doe Defendants are being sued in their individual capacities.
4
9. Defendant CITY OF FRESNO has refused to produce or show Plaintiff or her
5
counsel any records or videos of this incident, its investigations of it, or the names of involved
6
officers other than Sgt. VILLALVAZO, despite Plaintiff’s repeated and lawful requests for such
7

8 information. Therefore, the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1-10

9 (“DOE defendants”) are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious
10 names, and Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this complaint to show their true names and capacities
11
when the same are ascertained. Each DOE defendant was an employee/agent of the CITY OF
12
FRESNO, and at all material times acted within the course and scope of that relationship.
13
10. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants
14

15 sued herein was negligently, wrongfully, and otherwise responsible in some manner for the events

16 and happenings as hereinafter described, and proximately caused injuries and damages to Plaintiff.

17 Further, one or more DOE defendants was at all material times responsible for the hiring, training,
18
supervision, and discipline of other defendants, including Doe Defendants.
19
11. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants
20
was at all material times an agent, servant, employee, partner, joint venturer, co-conspirator, and/or
21
alter ego of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the things herein alleged, was acting within the
22

23 course and scope of that relationship. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges,

24 that each of the Defendants herein gave consent, aid, and assistance to each of the remaining

25 Defendants, and ratified and/or authorized the acts or omissions of each Defendant as alleged
26
herein, except as may be hereinafter otherwise specifically alleged.
27

28

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 4

 Case 1:18-cv-00314-AWI-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 5 of 22

1 12. At all material times, each Defendant was jointly engaged in tortious activity, and

2 had fundamental involvement and was an integral participant to the events and violations of rights
3
described herein, resulting in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s and Decedent’s constitutional rights and
4
other harm.
5
13. The acts and omissions of all Defendants as set forth herein were at all material times
6
pursuant to the actual customs, policies, practices, training, and procedures of the Fresno Police
7

8 Department.

9 14. At all material times, each Defendant acted under color of the laws, statutes,
10 ordinances, and regulations of the State of California.
11
15. Plaintiff herein timely and properly filed a government code claim pursuant to Cal.
12
Gov. Code § 910 et seq., and this action is timely filed within all applicable statutes of limitation.
13
16. This Complaint may be pled in the alternative pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
14

15 Procedure 8(d)(2).

16 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

17 17. Plaintiff realleges each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth
18 here.
19
18. On information made public by the FPD, the following incident took place. On
20
April 14, 2017, four young men got into an argument with two teens at or near a pizza take-out at
21
First & Gettysburg in Fresno, California. The confrontation occurred at about midday. The four
22

23 young men all got into a car and drove away. The two teens, one of whom allegedly was armed

24 with a handgun, stood at some distance from the car. One of these two teens allegedly fired shots

25 from a handgun at the car as it drove southbound on North First Street, just south of Gettysburg
26 Avenue. According to the FPD, none of the shots struck either the driver or the three other
27
passengers, but gunshots did hit the car. The car crashed into a tree in the median of First Street,
28

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 5

 Case 1:18-cv-00314-AWI-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 6 of 22

1 killing the driver, 19-year-old Eugenio Ybarra, of Fresno. The three passengers were taken to the

2 hospital. 1
3
19. According to the FPD, the next day, Saturday, April15, 2017, FPD officers staked
4
out a home on the 500 block of East San Bruno Avenue in Fresno where it was believed the teens
5
lived. One of the officers was Sgt. VILLALVAZO, belonging to the FPD’s “Street Violence
6
Bureau” (SVB). On information and belief, the SVB is a plain-clothed, tactical unit that engages in
7

8 aggressive, “pro-active” policing. These FPD-SVB officers did not try to enter the home in the 500

9 block of East San Bruno Avenue because they did not have an arrest or search warrant. And
10 because the alleged crime had occurred a day before, they could not have invoked the “hot-pursuit”
11
exception, or any other exception, to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. On
12
information and belief, these FPD-SVB officers only wanted to detain teens from the home to
13
question them about the shooting in which Mr. Ybarra died.
14

15 20. At about 3:30 p.m., the car pulled away from the East San Bruno Avenue home, and

16 the FPD-SVB officers, including Defendant VILLALVAZO, made a “high-risk” traffic stop on the

17 car in the parking lot of the Gallery Plaza at Shaw Avenue and Fresno Street. There were three
18
teens in the car, including ISIAH MURRIETTA-GOLDING, who was riding in the right front seat.
19
ISIAH was a small boy, about 5’4” and 109 lbs., and visibly Latino. On information and belief,
20
Defendant VILLALVAZO and the FPD-SVB officers believed that some other teen had fired the
21
shot toward the other car on the day before, and they lacked reasonable suspicion to detain, or
22

23 probable cause to arrest, ISIAH MURRIETTA-GOLDING in connection with that shooting. The

24 teens in the pulled-over car initially complied with the FPD-SVB officers, including to walk

25 backwards towards the officers with their hands raised, while Defendant VILLALVAZO and the
26
FPD-SVB officers (including Doe Defendants) held them at gunpoint. But then ISIAH took off
27

28 1
http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/crime/article144685709.html

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 6

 Case 1:18-cv-00314-AWI-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 7 of 22

1 running. He ran north through the parking lot and then east across Fresno Street. ISIAH was

2 unarmed and holding a hat in his right hand. The two other teens did not flee. At the time that
3
ISIAH fled on foot, Defendant VILLALVAZO and DOE Defendants had no legal justification to
4
point guns at ISIAH, and no legal justification to seize ISIAH at gun point. ISIAH exercised his
5
right to self-defense and to non-violently resist Defendants’ attempts to unlawfully seize him.
6
21. Defendant VILLALVAZO began a foot pursuit of ISIAH. Other DOE Defendants
7

8 also accompanied Sgt. VILLALVAZO on the foot pursuit. Throughout this foot pursuit, ISIAH

9 never threatened any officer or person, nor did he ever display any weapon or make any threatening
10 gestures. Defendant VILLALVAZO and the other officers pursuing ISIAH had no objective facts
11
specific to ISIAH to believe that ISIAH was armed or any threat to them. Without legal
12
justification or cause, the officers pursued ISIAH through a shopping center, and ISIAH ran towards
13
the New Life Discovery Preschool at Fresno Street and Keats Avenue. The preschool’s hours are 10
14

15 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Because it was a Saturday, the preschool was closed, with

16 no one there, and the parking lot was empty. On information and belief, as he ran after ISIAH, Sgt.

17 VILLALVAZO and the other DOE Defendants were aware that the preschool was closed, and that
18
no one was on the preschool grounds.
19
22. ISIAH jumped a fence surrounding the preschool, and continued running towards the
20
back of the New Life Discovery Preschool. Sgt. VILLALVAZO pursued him to the fence, but did
21
not jump over it. ISIAH was wearing loose-fitting trousers or shorts, which, on information and
22

23 belief, were starting to fall down because he was running. Isiah may have reached with his left

24 hand to pull up his loose-fitting trousers or shorts, or he may have glanced backwards towards Sgt.

25 VILLALVAZO. No reasonable officer would have interpreted either movement as posing an

26
immediate threat to anyone’s safety. Sgt. VILLALVAZO drew his duty pistol, and while ISIAH
27
ran away from Sgt. VILLALVAZO, with ISIAH’s back towards him, and while ISIAH was up to
28

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 7

 Case 1:18-cv-00314-AWI-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 8 of 22

1 100’ away, Sgt. VILLALVAZO aimed his duty weapon at the back of ISIAH’s head. Sgt.

2 VILLALVAZO fired a single shot, which tore through ISIAH’s occipital lobe. Afterwards, Sgt.
3
VILLALVAZO would claim that ISIAH was “reaching for his waistband” and was afraid that
4
ISIAH was going to shoot him. As any reasonable officer under these circumstances would know,
5
Defendant VILLALVAZO’s subjective fear was not objectively reasonable, because he had no
6
objective facts to believe that ISIAH was armed or reaching for any weapon.
7

8 23. Defendant DOES present during the shooting had the opportunity to intervene both

9 verbally and physically to stop this use of excessive force by Defendant Sgt. VILLALVAZO and/or
10 others, and did not intervene.
11
24. When he was shot and laying on the ground, ISIAH was in need of urgent medical
12
care and in the custody of Defendant VILLALVAZO and DOES. Despite the life-threatening
13
injury ISIAH had sustained, Defendant VILLALVAZO and DOES did not provide ISIAH with any
14

15 medical assistance, but rather approached him to frisk and then handcuff him as he lay, shot in the

16 head, and obviously severely wounded on the ground. Several minutes elapsed before Defendant

17 VILLALVAZO and DOES took any steps to provide, request, seek, or secure first aid for ISIAH.
18
Upon information and belief, at least eight minutes went by before paramedics arrived to take
19
ISIAH to the hospital. Once on scene, they assessed ISIAH at a Glascow Coma Scale of 6. He was
20
unconscious. His breathing was weak. Although he was in critical need of emergency medical care
21
and posed zero risk of escape and zero threat to anyone, VILLALVAZO and DOE officers refused
22

23 the request of ambulance personnel to remove the handcuffs. Instead, VLLALVAZO and DOE

24 officers told ambulance personnel that the handcuffs would be removed by FPD only after ISIAH

25 was at the hospital.

26
25. ISIAH was taken to Fresno Community Medical Center, where after he and his
27
mother, Plaintiff LOPEZ, suffered for three days, ISIAH died on April 18, 2017.
28

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 8

 Case 1:18-cv-00314-AWI-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 9 of 22

1 26. Defendant Sgt. VILLALVAZO failed to give any warning to ISIAH before using

2 deadly force, even though a warning would have been feasible and proper.
3
27. At the time that Defendant Sgt. VILLALVAZO fired a gunshot at ISIAH, the
4
teenager did not pose a significant and immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to
5
Defendants or to anyone else, because he was running away from Defendants, including Sgt.
6
VILLALVAZO, with his back towards them. Defendant VILLALVAZO had no facts to believe
7

8 that ISIAH was armed or had any intent to harm anyone. ISIAH was unarmed. No reasonable

9 officer would have believed that anything ISIAH might have done under the circumstances –
10 including pulling up his pants, or allegedly moving one hand toward his pants waistband, or briefly
11
looking back – justified the use of deadly force. Further, ISIAH was not engaged in, or wanted for,
12
any crime. And, ISIAH’s flight from Defendants was lawful due to Defendants’ unlawful
13
precipitating acts. The use of deadly force, including Defendant VILLALVAZO’s gunshot
14

15 described herein, was not justified or lawful under the circumstances.

16 28. Alternatively, or concurrently, Defendant Sgt. VILLALVAZO and DOES’ own

17 excessive and unreasonable actions created a risk of harm to ISIAH, created the situation in which
18
Defendant Sgt. VILLALVAZO decided to use deadly force, and under the totality of circumstances
19
caused an escalation of events leading to the shooting death of ISIAH.
20
29. Alternatively, or concurrently, Defendant Sgt. VILLALVAZO and DOES were
21
integral participants in the use of deadly force, including the gunshot described herein, against
22

23 ISIAH. Further, each of these Defendant Officers failed to intervene to stop, prevent, or report the

24 use of excessive and unreasonable force and tactics by other officers.

25 30. Defendant Sgt. VILLALVAZO’s and DOES’ conduct herein, including but not
26
limited to their decision(s) to stop and seize ISIAH, the manner in which they conducted that stop
27
and seizure; Defendants’ gun points at ISIAH; Sgt. VILLALVAZO’s use of deadly force;
28

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 9

 Case 1:18-cv-00314-AWI-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 10 of 22

1 Defendants’ failure to provide care for the serious medical needs of their detainee; and their other

2 conduct, was contrary to generally accepted reasonable police procedures and tactics, and caused
3
the wrongful death of ISIAH.
4
31. At all material times, and alternatively, the actions and omissions of each defendant
5
were intentional, wanton and/or willful, conscience shocking, reckless, malicious, deliberately
6
indifferent to Plaintiff’s and Decedent’s rights, done with actual malice, grossly negligent,
7

8 negligent, and objectively unreasonable.

9 32. As a direct and proximate result of each Defendant’s acts and/or omissions as set
10 forth above, Plaintiff sustained the following injuries and damages, past and future, among others:
11
a. Wrongful death of ISIAH MURRIETTA GOLDING;
12
b. Hospital and medical expenses (Survival claims);
13
c. Coroner’s fees, funeral and burial expenses (Survival claims);
14

15 d. Loss of familial relationships, including loss of love, companionship,

comfort, affection, society, services, solace, and moral support (wrongful
16 death and loss of familial association);

17 e. Pain and Suffering, including emotional distress (Plaintiff CHRISTINA

PAULINE LOPEZ, based on individual § 1983 claim for loss of familial
18 association);
19
f. ISIAH MURRIETTA GOLDING's loss of life, pursuant to federal civil rights
20 law (Survival claims); and

21 g. ISIAH MURRIETTA GOLDING’s conscious pain and suffering, pursuant to

federal civil rights law (Survival claims);
22
h. Violation of constitutional rights;
23

24 i. All damages, penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs recoverable under 42
U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988; California Civil Code §§ 52, 52.1, California Code of
25 Civil Procedure § 1021.5, and as otherwise allowed under California and
United States statutes, codes, and common law.
26

27

28

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 10

 Case 1:18-cv-00314-AWI-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 11 of 22

1 COUNT ONE
-- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 --
2 PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANT SGT. VILLALVAZO, AND DOES 1–10
3 33. Plaintiff realleges each and every paragraph in this Complaint as if fully set forth
4
here.
5
34. By the actions and omissions described above, Defendant Sgt. VILLALVAZO and
6
DOES 1-10 violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983, depriving decedent ISIAH MURRIETTA GOLDING of the
7

8 following clearly-established and well-settled constitutional rights protected by the Fourth and

9 Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution:

10 a. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, including unlawful
detention and arrest, as secured by the Fourth Amendment;
11

12 b. The right to be free from excessive and unreasonable force, including deadly
force, in the course of arrest or detention as secured by the Fourth Amendment;
13
c. The right to be free from unlawful, reckless, deliberately indifferent, and
14 conscience shocking deadly force as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment (as
the predicate for CHRISTINA PAULINE LOPEZ’s familial association claim,
15
described in the next paragraph).
16
35. By the actions and omissions described above, Defendant Sgt. VILLALVAZO and
17
DOES 1-10 violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983, depriving Plaintiff CHRISTINA PAULINE LOPEZ of the
18
following clearly-established and well-settled constitutional rights protected by the First and
19

20 Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution:

21 a. The right to be free from wrongful government interference with familial

relationships, and Plaintiff’s right to companionship, society and support of
22 her son, ISIAH MURRIETTA GOLDING, as secured by the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
23

24 36. Defendants subjected Plaintiff and Decedent to their wrongful conduct, depriving

25 Plaintiff and Decedent of rights described herein, knowingly, maliciously, and with conscious and

26 reckless disregard for whether the rights and safety of Plaintiff (individually and on behalf of ISIAH
27
MURRIETTA GOLDING, Deceased) and others would be violated by their acts and/or omissions.
28

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 11

 Case 1:18-cv-00314-AWI-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 12 of 22

1 37. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' acts and/or omissions as set forth

2 above, Plaintiff sustained injuries and damages as set forth at ¶ 32, above.
3
38. The conduct of Defendant Sgt. VILLALVAZO and DOES 1-10 entitles Plaintiff to
4
punitive damages and penalties allowable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Cal. Code of Civil Procedure
5
§ 377.20 et seq. Plaintiff does not seek punitive damages against Defendant CITY OF FRESNO.
6
39. Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. §
7

8 1988 and applicable California codes and laws.

9 COUNT TWO
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 –
10 PLAINTIFF AGAINST DEFENDANTS CITY OF FRESNO,
11 CHIEF OF POLICE JERRY DYER, AND DOES 1-10

12 40. Plaintiff realleges each and every paragraph in this Complaint as if fully set forth

13 here.

14 41. The unconstitutional actions and/or omissions of Defendant Sgt. VILLALVAZO,

15
and DOES 1-10, as well as other officers employed by or acting on behalf of Defendant CITY OF
16
FRESNO, on information and belief, were pursuant to the following customs, policies, practices,
17
and/or procedures of the FPD, stated in the alternative, which were directed, encouraged, allowed,
18

19 and/or ratified by policy making officers for CITY OF FRESNO and the FPD, including Chief of

20 Police Jerry DYER:

21 a. To use or tolerate the use of unlawful deadly force including permitting and
affirmatively training officers (i) to use deadly force when faced with less
22 than an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury; (ii) to use deadly
23 force prematurely, or as a “first resort,” or when facing a mere potential
threat; and (iii) to use deadly force without giving a proper warning when one
24 would be feasible;

25 b. To tolerate a pattern of deadly force by FPD officers based largely on

officers’ claims that the person they shot had reached for their waistband;
26

27 c. To cover-up violations of constitutional rights by any or all of the following:

28

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 12

 Case 1:18-cv-00314-AWI-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 13 of 22

1 i. by failing to properly investigate and/or evaluate complaints or incidents

of excessive and unreasonable force, officer-involved shootings, law
2 enforcement related deaths, and unlawful seizures;
3
ii. by failing to promptly, independently, thoroughly, and properly
4 investigate and address officer involved shootings and other law
enforcement related deaths;
5
iii. by ignoring and/or failing to properly and adequately investigate and
6 discipline unconstitutional or unlawful police activity; and
7
iv. by allowing, tolerating, and/or encouraging police officers to: fail to file
8 complete and accurate police reports; file false police reports; make false
statements; intimidate, bias and/or “coach” witnesses to give false
9 information and/or to attempt to bolster officers’ stories; and/or obstruct
or interfere with investigations of unconstitutional or unlawful police
10 conduct, by withholding and/or concealing material information;
11
d. To allow, tolerate, and/or encourage a “code of silence” among law
12 enforcement officers and police department personnel, whereby an officer or
member of the department does not provide adverse information against a
13 fellow officer or member of the department; and,
14 e. To use or tolerate inadequate, deficient, and improper procedures for
15 handling, investigating, and reviewing complaints of officer misconduct
made under California Government Code § 910 et seq.;
16
f. To fail to have and enforce necessary, appropriate, and lawful policies,
17 procedures, and training programs to prevent or correct the unconstitutional
conduct, customs, and procedures described in this Complaint and in
18 subparagraphs (a) through (e) above, with deliberate indifference to the rights
and safety of Plaintiff and the public, and in the face of an obvious need for
19
such policies, procedures, and training programs to prevent recurring and
20 foreseeable violations of rights of the type described herein.

21 42. Defendants CITY OF FRESNO, Chief DYER, and Does 1-10 failed to properly

22 train, instruct, monitor, supervise, evaluate, investigate, and discipline Defendant Sgt.
23
VILLALVAZO, and DOES 1-10, and other FPD personnel, with deliberate indifference to
24
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, which were thereby violated as described above.
25
43. The unconstitutional actions and/or omissions of Defendants Sgt. VILLALVAZO,
26
DOES 1-10, and other FPD personnel, as described above, were approved, tolerated and/or ratified
27

28 by policy-making officers for the FPD, including Chief DYER. Plaintiff is informed and believe,

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 13

 Case 1:18-cv-00314-AWI-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 14 of 22

1 and thereupon alleges, the details of this incident have been revealed to the authorized policy

2 makers within CITY OF FRESNO and the FPD, and that such policy makers have direct knowledge
3
of the fact that the ISIAH MURRIETTA GOLDING shooting was not justified, but rather
4
represented an unconstitutional use of unreasonable, excessive and deadly force. Notwithstanding
5
this knowledge, the authorized policy makers within CITY OF FRESNO and the FPD have
6
approved Defendant Sgt. VILLALVAZO’s shooting of ISIAH MURRIETTA GOLDING, and have
7

8 made a deliberate choice to endorse Defendant Sgt. VILLALVAZO’s shooting of ISIAH

9 MURRIETTA GOLDING and the basis for that shooting. By so doing, the authorized policy
10 makers within CITY OF FRESNO and the FPD, and Chief DYER, have shown affirmative
11
agreement with Defendant Sgt. VILLALVAZO’s actions, and have ratified the unconstitutional acts
12
of Defendant Sgt. VILLALVAZO.
13
44. The prior supervisory failures and deliberate indifference of Chief DYER and DOES
14

15 1–10 were also a proximate cause of and moving force behind the violations of ISIAH

16 MURRIETTA GOLDING’s and Plaintiff’s rights by Defendants VILLALVAZO and DOES 1–10.

17 Defendants Chief DYER and DOES 1–10 were responsible for creating, approving, and enforcing
18
the unconstitutional customs and policies described in paragraph 41, above, that were a proximate
19
cause and moving force of the individual Defendants’ violations of rights and Plaintiff’s and
20
Decedent’s injuries; (2) Chief DYER and DOES 1–10 were responsible to properly hire, train,
21
instruct, monitor, supervise, evaluate, investigate, and discipline Defendants VILLALVAZO and
22

23 DOES 1–10, but due to their deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of harm to the public,

24 including people situated like Plaintiff and Decedent, Chief DYER and DOES 1–10 failed to

25 reasonably, adequately, and appropriately hire, train, instruct, monitor, supervise, evaluate,
26
investigate, and discipline Defendants VILLALVAZO and DOES 1–10; and (3) Chief DYER and
27
DOES 1–10 ratified the Defendant officers’ conduct and decisions in this matter as described in
28

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 14

 Case 1:18-cv-00314-AWI-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 15 of 22

1 paragraph 43, above, after being fully informed of such and the basis for them, and after viewing

2 the videos of the shooting, thereby affirming Defendant officers’ choices, unconstitutional
3
decisions, and the bases for those unconstitutional decisions.
4
45. The aforementioned customs, policies, practices, and procedures, the failures to
5
properly and adequately train, instruct, monitor, supervise, evaluate, investigate, and discipline, as
6
well as the unconstitutional orders, approvals, ratification and toleration of wrongful conduct of
7

8 Defendants CITY OF FRESNO, Chief DYER, and Does 1-10, were a moving force and/or a

9 proximate cause of the deprivations of Plaintiff’s clearly-established and well-settled constitutional

10 rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as more fully set forth in ¶¶ 34-35, above.
11
46. Defendants subjected Plaintiff to their wrongful conduct, depriving Plaintiff and
12
decedent of rights described herein, knowingly, maliciously, and with conscious and reckless
13
disregard for whether the rights and safety of Plaintiff and others would be violated by their acts
14

15 and/or omissions.

16 47. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional actions, omissions, customs,

17 policies, practices and procedures of Defendants CITY OF FRESNO, Chief DYER, and Does 1-10
18
as described above, Plaintiff sustained serious and permanent injuries and is entitled to damages,
19
penalties, costs and attorneys’ fees as set forth in ¶¶ 37-39, above, including punitive damages
20
against Chief DYER. Plaintiff does not seek punitive damages against the CITY OF FRESNO
21
COUNT THREE
22
-- VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE §52.1 --
23 PLAINTIFF AGAINST DEFENDANT SGT. VILLALVAZO AND CITY OF FRESNO

24 48. Plaintiff realleges each and every paragraph in this Complaint as if fully set forth

25 here.

26 49. Plaintiff CHRISTINA PAULINE LOPEZ brings this “Bane Act” claim individually
27
for direct violation of her own rights (her familial association claim based on Defendants intentional
28

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 15

 Case 1:18-cv-00314-AWI-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 16 of 22

1 shooting of her son without a legitimate law enforcement purpose in a manner that shocks the

2 conscience), and as a survival claim pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.20 et seq.
3
for violation of ISIAH MURRIETTA GOLDING’s and her own rights.
4
50. By his conduct described herein, Defendant Sgt. VILLALVAZO, acting in
5
concert/conspiracy, as described above, violated Plaintiff’s and Decedent’s rights under California
6
Civil Code §52.1, and the following clearly-established rights under the United States Constitution
7

8 and the California Constitution:

9 a. ISIAH MURRIETTA GOLDING’s right to be free from unreasonable

searches and seizures as secured by the Fourth Amendment to the United
10 States Constitution and by Article I, § 13 of the California Constitution
11 (Survival claim only of Plaintiff CHRISTINA PAULINE LOPEZ);

12 b. ISIAH MURRIETTA GOLDING’s right to be free from excessive and

unreasonable force in the course of arrest or detention, as secured by the
13 Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Article 1, §
13 of the California Constitution (Survival claims only of Plaintiff
14 CHRISTINA PAULINE LOPEZ);
15
c. ISIAH MURRIETTA GOLDING’s right to be free from the unreasonable
16 use of deadly force as secured by the Fourth Amendment to the United
States Constitution and by Article 1, § 13 of the California Constitution
17 (Survival claim of Plaintiff CHRISTINA PAULINE LOPEZ);
18 d. Plaintiff CHRISTINA PAULINE LOPEZ’s and ISIAH MURRIETTA
19 GOLDING’s right to be free from wrongful government interference with
familial relationships, and Plaintiff’s and Decedent’s right to
20 companionship and society with each other, as secured by the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution (Plaintiff
21 CHRISTINA PAULINE LOPEZ’s individual and survival claims); and
22
e. The right to protection from bodily restraint, harm, or personal insult, as
23 secured by Cal. Civil Code § 43 (Plaintiff CHRISTINA PAULINE
LOPEZ’s individual and survival claims).
24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 16

 Case 1:18-cv-00314-AWI-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 17 of 22

1 51. Unlawful deadly force which violates the Fourth Amendment violates the Bane Act. 2

2 Defendants’ use of unlawful deadly force against ISIAH MURRIETTA GOLDING, in and of itself,
3
satisfies the “by threat, intimidation, or coercion” requirement of the Bane Act.
4
52. Further, any volitional, intentional violation of rights also satisfies the “by threat,
5
intimidation, or coercion” requirement of the Bane Act. 3 All of Defendants’ violations of duties
6
and rights were volitional, intentional acts; none was accidental or merely negligent.
7

8 53. Alternatively, Defendants violated Plaintiff CHRISTINA PAULINE LOPEZ’s and

9 ISIAH MURRIETTA GOLDING’s rights by the following conduct constituting threat,

10 intimidation, or coercion that was above and beyond any lawful seizure or use of force:
11
a. Threatening ISIAH MURRIETTA GOLDING in the absence of any threat presented
12 by ISIAH MURRIETTA GOLDING, or any justification whatsoever;

13 b. Using deliberately reckless and provocative tactics to apprehend ISIAH

MURRIETTA GOLDING in violation of generally accepted law enforcement
14 training and standards, and in violation of ISIAH MURRIETTA GOLDING’s rights;
15
c. Defendant Sgt. VILLALVAZO and DOES 1-10 pointing their guns at ISIAH
16 MURRIETTA GOLDING in the absence of any threat or justification whatsoever;

17 d. Threatening violence against ISIAH MURRIETTA GOLDING, with the apparent

ability to carry out such threats, in violation of Civ. Code § 52.1(j);
18
e. Using excessive, unreasonable and unjustified force against ISIAH MURRIETTA
19
GOLDING by firing a gunshot at ISIAH MURRIETTA GOLDING, with specific
20 intent to kill, in the absence of any immediate threat;

21 f. Denying ISIAH MURRIETTA GOLDING prompt and necessary medical care after
Defendant Sgt. VILLALVAZO shot ISIAH MURRIETTA GOLDING while ISIAH
22 MUIRRIETTA GOLDING was his arrestee, in desperate need of such care, and
23 unable to provide or obtain such care for himself;

24 g. Failing to intervene to stop, prevent, or report the unlawful seizure and use of
excessive and unreasonable force by other officers;
25

26
2
See Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles, 751 F.3d 1096, 1105 (9th Cir. May 19, 2014) (citing
27 Cameron v. Craig, 713 F.3d 1012, 1022 (9th Cir. 2013)).
3
28 Cornell v. City and County of San Francisco, 17 Cal.App.5th 766, 801-02 (2017) (review denied).

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 17

 Case 1:18-cv-00314-AWI-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 18 of 22

1 h. Creating, through their own excessive and unreasonable actions, a risk of harm to
ISIAH MURRIETTA GOLDING, by Defendants Sgt. VILLALVAZO and DOES 2-
2 10s’ decision to use deadly force, and officers’ wrongful conduct causing an
escalation of events that led to the shooting death of ISIAH MURRIETTA
3
GOLDING;
4
i. Violating Plaintiff CHRISTINA PAULINE LOPEZ’s and ISIAH MURRIETTA
5 GOLDING’s rights to familial association by their use of conscience-shocking
excessive force and provocative tactics without any legitimate law enforcement
6 purpose.
7 54. Defendant CITY OF FRESNO is vicariously liable, pursuant to California
8
Government Code § 815.2, for the violation of rights by its employees and agents.
9
55. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violation of California Civil Code
10
§52.1 and of Plaintiff’s and Decedent’s rights under the United States and California Constitutions,
11

12 Plaintiff (individually and as Successor in Interest) sustained injuries and damages, and against

13 Defendant Sgt. VILLALVAZO and CITY OF FRESNO is entitled to relief as set forth above at ¶¶
14 35–38, including punitive damages against Defendant Sgt. VILLALVAZO, and including all
15
damages allowed by California Civil Code §§ 52, 52.1, and California law, not limited to costs,
16
attorneys fees, treble damages, and civil penalties.
17
COUNT FOUR
18 -- NEGLIGENCE; PERSONAL INJURIES --
PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANTS SGT. VILLALVAZO, DOES 1-10
19
AND CITY OF FRESNO
20
56. Plaintiff realleges each and every paragraph in this Complaint as if fully set forth
21
here.
22
57. At all times, Defendant Sgt. VILLALVAZO, and DOES 1-10 owed Plaintiff the duty
23

24 to act with due care in the execution and enforcement of any right, law, or legal obligation.

25 58. At all times, Defendant Sgt. VILLALVAZO, DOES 1-10 owed Plaintiff the duty to
26 act with reasonable care.
27

28

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 18

 Case 1:18-cv-00314-AWI-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 19 of 22

1 59. These general duties of reasonable care and due care owed to Plaintiff by Defendants

2 include but are not limited to the following specific obligations:

3
a. to refrain from using excessive and/or unreasonable force against ISIAH
4 MURRIETTA GOLDING;

5 b. to refrain from unreasonably creating the situation where force, including but
not limited to deadly force, is used;
6
c. to refrain from abusing their authority granted them by law;
7

8 d. to refrain from violating Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed by the United States and
California Constitutions, as set forth above, and as otherwise protected by
9 law.
10 60. Additionally, these general duties of reasonable care and due care owed to Plaintiff
11
by Defendant CHIEF DYER and Does 1-10, include but are not limited to the following specific
12
obligations:
13
a. to properly and adequately hire, investigate, train, supervise, monitor,
14 evaluate, and discipline their employees, agents, and/or law enforcement
15 officers to ensure that those employees/agents/officers act at all times in the
public interest and in conformance with law;
16
b. to make, enforce, and at all times act in conformance with policies and
17 customs that are lawful and protective of individual rights, including
Plaintiff’s and Decedent’s.
18

19 c. to refrain from making, enforcing, and/or tolerating the wrongful policies and
customs set forth at paragraph 41, above.
20
61. Defendants, through their acts and omissions, breached each and every one of the
21
aforementioned duties owed to Plaintiff.
22

23 62. Defendant CITY OF FRESNO is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts and

24 omissions of its employees and agents pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code section 815.2.

25 63. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff sustained

26
injuries and damages, and against each and every Defendant is entitled to relief as set forth above at
27

28

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 19

 Case 1:18-cv-00314-AWI-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 20 of 22

1 ¶¶ 35–38, including punitive damages against Defendants Sgt. VILLALVAZO, DOES 1-10, and

2 Chief DYER, in their individual capacities.

3
COUNT FIVE
4 -- ASSAULT AND BATTERY --
PLAINTIFF AGAINST DEFENDANT SGT. VILLALVAZO
5 AND CITY OF FRESNO

6 64. Plaintiff realleges each and every paragraph in this Complaint as if fully set forth
7 here.
8
65. The actions and omissions of Defendant Sgt. VILLALVAZO as set forth above
9
constitute assault and battery.
10
59. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' assault and battery of ISIAH
11

12 MURRIETTA GOLDING, Plaintiff sustained injuries and damages, and is entitled to relief as set

13 forth above at ¶ 35-38, including punitive damages against Defendant Sgt. VILLALVAZO.

14

15 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request the following relief:

16
a. against each and every Defendant herein, jointly and severally, compensatory
17 and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof and which is fair,
just and reasonable;
18
b. against Defendants Sgt. VILLALVAZO, DOES 1-10, and Chief DYER, in
19 their individual capacities, punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
20 California law in an amount according to proof and which is fair, just, and
reasonable;
21
c. against each and every Defendant, jointly and severally, all other damages,
22 penalties, costs, interest, and attorney fees as allowed by 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983
and 1988, Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 377.20 et seq., 377.60 et seq., 1021.5,
23
Cal. Civil Code §§ 52 et seq., 52.1, and as otherwise may be allowed by
24 California and/or federal law;

25 d. Injunctive relief, including but not limited to the following:

26 i. an order prohibiting Defendants CITY OF FRESNO from engaging in

the unconstitutional customs, policies, practices, procedures, training
27
and supervision as may be determined and/or adjudged by this case;
28

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 20

 Case 1:18-cv-00314-AWI-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 21 of 22

1 ii. an order requiring Defendant CITY OF FRESNO to institute and

enforce appropriate and lawful policies and procedures for the use of
2 deadly force;
3
iii. an order prohibiting Defendants and their deputies and police officers
4 from engaging in the “code of silence” as may be supported by the
evidence in this case;
5
iv. an order requiring Defendant CITY OF FRESNO to train all law
6 enforcement officers concerning generally accepted and proper tactics
and procedures and this Court’s orders concerning the issues raised in
7
injunctive relief requests i-iii, above;
8
e. Declaratory relief; and
9
f. such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.
10

11

12
DATED: March 6, 2018 HADDAD & SHERWIN LLP
13

14 /s/ Michael J. Haddad_______

MICHAEL J. HADDAD
15
Attorneys for Plaintiff
16 CHRISTINA PAULINE LOPEZ

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 21

 Case 1:18-cv-00314-AWI-SKO Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 22 of 22

1
JURY DEMAND
2
Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury.
3

4
DATED: March 6, 2018 HADDAD & SHERWIN LLP
5

6 /s/ Michael J. Haddad_______

MICHAEL J. HADDAD
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff
8 CHRISTINA PAULINE LOPEZ

9
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 22

JS 44 (Rev. 08/16) CIVIL COVER SHEET
Case 1:18-cv-00314-AWI-SKO Document 1-1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 1 of 2
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings 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. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

ISIAH MURRIETTA-GOLDING; CHRISTINA PAULINE LOPEZ CITY OF FRESNO; CITY OF FRESNO POLICE CHIEF JERRY
DYER; FRESNO POLICE SERGEANT RAY VILLALVAZO

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Fresno
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Haddad & Sherwin LLP
505 17th Street
Oakland, CA 94612

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4
of Business In This State

’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act
’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment
’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking
’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce
’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 840 Trademark ’ 460 Deportation
Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations
’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange
’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions
’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 891 Agricultural Acts
’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act ’ 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation ’ 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 896 Arbitration
’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) ’ 899 Administrative Procedure
’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of
’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General ’ 950 Constitutionality of
’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application
’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration
Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions
’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1 Original ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict ’ 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
U.S. Const. 1, 4, 14; 42 USC §1983, 1988
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Defendants purposely harmed Decedent in conscious shocking manner that resulted in his wrongful death.
VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
03/06/2018 /s/ Teresa Allen
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Print Save As... Reset

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 08/16)

Case 1:18-cv-00314-AWI-SKO Document 1-1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 2 of 2

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) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) 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
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) 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"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
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
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
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.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
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
date.
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.
Section 1407.
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.