Black Lives Matter-Stockton Class Action

Case 2:18-cv-00591-KJM-AC Document 1 Filed 03/20/18 Page 1 of 13
LAW OFFICES OF YOLANDA HUANG

1
YOLANDA HUANG, SBN 104543
2 475 14th Street, Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612
3 Telephone: (510) 329-2140
Facsimile: (510) 580-9410
4
Email: yhuang.law@gmail.com
5
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
BLACK LIVES MATTER-STOCKTON
11 CHAPTER, an unincorporated association; and
No. ___________
DIONNE SMITH-DOWNS, individually and on
12 behalf of others similarly situated.
CIVIL RIGHTS CLASS ACTION
13 Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND
COMPENSATORY RELIEF
14 vs.
15 1. Discrimination Against Plaintiffs Based
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF’S Upon Speech, Association and Racial Animus:
16 Violations of the 1st, and 14th Amendments of
OFFICE, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, STEVE
17 MOORE, DAVE OLIVER (OLIVR), JOE the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, §§ 1, 2, 3
PETRINO, DOES 1-50. California Constitution.
18 Defendants. 2. Denying Plaintiffs’ Access To A Public
Courthouse: Violations of the 1st, and 14th
19 Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and
20 Article 1, §§ 2; 3 California Constitution.
3. Denying Plaintiffs’ Right to Public Trial:
21 Violation of 6th and 14th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution, and Article 1, §29 California
22 Constitution, Cal. Penal Code §686
23
(Demand for Jury Trials)
24
25
26 INTRODUCTION
27 1. This is an action to enforce the rights of BLACK LIVES MATTER – STOCKTON

CHAPTER, its members and supporters to exercise their constitutional rights under the First and
28
Page 1 of 13
Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter v. San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office – Civil Rights Class Action Complaint
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, §§ 2; 3 of the California
1
Constitution rights to protest and speak out regarding wrongful police shootings of civilians,
2
police harassment of residents of Stockton, and police use of excessive force against black and
3
brown people, and in so doing, to be free from government harassment and discrimination
4
resulting from Defendants’ unconstitutional animosity and prejudice against Plaintiffs.
5 2. This is an action to enforce the constitutional rights of BLACK LIVES MATTER –
6 STOCKTON CHAPTER, its members and supporters under the First and Fourteenth Amendments
7 to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, §§ 1,2, 3 of the California Constitution to have full
8 and complete access, to the San Joaquin County Courthouse Stockton Division, to be able to
9 attend court hearings, free from government harassment and discrimination resulting from
10 Defendants’ unconstitutional animosity and prejudice against Plaintiffs.

3. This is an action for the right of members of BLACK LIVES MATTER – STOCKTON
11
CHAPTER to have a public trial pursuant to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
12
Constitution, article 1, § 15 of the California Constitution, and California Penal Code, § 686,
13
subd. 1.
14
4. On October 30, 2017, sheriff deputies physically prevented plaintiff BLACK LIVES
15 MATTER – STOCKTON CHAPTER, its chapter president Dionne Smith-Downs, its members
16 and supporters from entering the courthouse and physically prevented said plaintiffs from
17 attending a court hearing on calendar in Department 8A, before Judge Bernard Garber. On
18 January 29, 2018, sheriff deputies physically intimidated, threatened and harassed members of
19 Black Lives Matter – Stockton Chapter while these members were inside the San Joaquin County
20 Courthouse – Stockton Branch attending a court hearing, on calendar in Department 8A before

Judge Bernard Garber.
21
5. The San Joaquin County Courthouse located in Stockton, California, is the largest
22
courthouse and the primary courthouse for San Joaquin County.
23
JURISDICTION & VENUE
24
6. The Jurisdiction of this honorable Court derives from the provisions of the First, Fourth,
25 Fifth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United State Constitution, by way of the Civil
26 Rights Acts, 42 U.S.C. §§1981 (as to certain plaintiffs), 1983 et seq. and 1988; 28 U.S.C. §1331
27 (claims arising under the United States Constitution) and §1343 (claims brought to address
28 deprivations, under color of state authority, of rights privileges, and immunities secured by the
Page 2 of 13
United States Constitution), and, by pendent jurisdiction, Secs. 52.1, and 50, of the California
1
Civil Code. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391 because the events took and take place in
2
this District, and the parties generally reside here.
3
INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
4
7. The claims alleged herein arose in San Joaquin County, State of California. Therefore,
5 venue and assignment, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), lies in the United States District Court for the
6 Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.
7 PARTIES
8 8. Plaintiff BLACK LIVES MATTER-Stockton Chapter is an unincorporated association,
9 and an affiliate of Black Lives Matter Global Network, engaged in San Joaquin County and the
10 County Seat, City of Stockton to address police violence against black and brown people,
including the shooting and killing of unarmed black and brown civilians, police harassment and
11
the routine violation of the constitutional rights of black and brown people; and the economic and
12
opportunity inequality that black and brown people experience on a daily basis. As of 2016, there
13
were 47 chapters of Black Lives Matter within the United States, and the number of Chapters
14
continue to grow. These chapters are develop and grow in response to the ongoing police
15 violence against black and brown people, including the shooting deaths of black and brown
16 people. Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter has members and supporters in excess of 100,
17 participates in regional events and planning events in Stockton, California for regional
18 participation. BLACK LIVES MATTER-Stockton Chapter is engaged throughout the year in
19 disseminating information on and protesting police violence. BLACK LIVES MATTER-
20 Stockton Chapter is engaged throughout the year in community events including grocery give-
aways in November, toys for tots in December, backpacks for back to school in August, as well
21
as other regular community events.
22
9. Plaintiff Dionne-Smith Downs is the president of BLACK LIVES MATTER-Stockton
23
Chapter and long time Stockton community activist.
24
10. Defendant SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE is a “public entity” within the
25 definition of Cal. Gov. Code § 811.2. Defendant Sheriff STEVE MOORE is the elected Sheriff
26 of the County of San Joaquin. The SHERIFF’S OFFICE is responsible for the day-to-day
27 operations of the peace keeping duties of the Sheriff’s Office, whose jurisdiction includes the
28 County Courthouses. The Sheriff’s Office’s duties, responsibilities and powers include
Page 3 of 13
promulgating policies and procedures for the conduct of the Sheriff’s deputies. As such, the
1
Sheriff’s Office and the Sheriff have caused, created, authorized, condoned, ratified, approved or
2
knowingly acquiesced in the illegal, unconstitutional and discriminatory actions, policies,
3
customs and practices that prevailed at San Joaquin County courthouses, as described below.
4
They have therefore, directly and proximately caused, and will continue to cause in the future, the
5 injuries and violations of rights set forth below.
6 11. Defendant SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY is a “public entity” within the definition of Cal.
7 Gov. Code §811.2.
8 12. Defendant JOE PETRINO is an officer of San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office, and was an
9 officer in charge on the day that sheriff’s deputies physically prevented plaintiffs from entering
10 the Stockton Courthouse

13. Defendant David Oliver (Olivr) is an officer with the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office,
11
and was an officer in charge on the day that sheriff’s deputies physically prevented plaintiffs from
12
entering the Stockton Courthouse.
13
14. Defendants PETRINO and OLIVER (Olivr) ordered, caused, created, authorized,
14
condoned, ratified, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the illegal, unconstitutional and
15 discriminatory conduct that prevailed at San Joaquin County courthouses, as described below.
16 15. At all times relevant herein, all of the above individual Defendants MOORE, PETRINO
17 and OLIVER were officers and employees acting under the color of law, under color of authority
18 and in the scope of their employment as Command and Supervisory Personnel of the San Joaquin
19 County Sheriff’s Office. Additionally, upon information and belief, one or more of these
20 Defendants failed, with deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ and class members’ rights, to
adequately train and supervise SJCSO sheriff’s deputies and staff who were involved in violating
21
the rights of the Plaintiffs and class members.
22
16. Plaintiff is informed and believe and therefore allege that each of said defendants DOES 1
23
through 50, are and/or were agents or employees of Defendants COUNTY OF ALAMEDA and
24
ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, and acted within the scope of that agency or
25 employment or under color of state law. DOE 1-50 are defendants who caused, and are responsible
26 for, the below-described unlawful conduct and resulting injuries by, among other things, personally
27 participating in the unlawful conduct or acting jointly or conspiring with others who did so; by
28 authorizing, acquiescing in or setting in motion policies, plans or actions that led to the unlawful
Page 4 of 13
conduct; by failing to take action to prevent the unlawful conduct; by failing and refusing with
1
deliberate indifference to plaintiffs' rights to initiate and maintain adequate training and supervision;
2
and by ratifying the unlawful conduct that occurred by agents and officers under their direction and
3
control, including failing to take remedial or disciplinary action. Plaintiff alleges that DOE 1 through
4
50 proximately caused said incidents, injuries, violation of constitutional and legal rights, and
5 damages by reason of their negligence, breach of duty, negligent supervision, management or
6 control, or by reason of other personal, vicarious or imputed negligence, fault, or breach of duty,
7 whether severally or jointly, or whether based upon agency, employment, or control or upon any
8 other act or omission. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and/or capacities of defendants sued
9 herein as DOE 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names.
10 Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained and
will ask leave to amend this complaint to insert further charging allegations when such facts are
11
ascertained. DOE 1 through 50 are sued in their individual and official capacities.
12
FACTS
13
17. On October 30, 2017, members of plaintiff Black Lives Matter – Stockton Chapter, who were
14
being prosecuted for participating in a Black Lives Matter – Stockton Chapter sponsored protest
15 earlier in the year, had on calendar, in Department 8A of the San Joaquin County Superior Court,
16 before Judge Bernard J. Garber, a hearing on their motions to compel discovery or information from
17 the District Attorney regarding the District Attorney’s office skit on Halloween, 2016. [CR 2017-
18 0003904 (Brown); CR-2017-0003900 (Dominique Johnson); CR-2017-0003903 (Trevor Johnson);
19 CR-2017-0003902 (Kenneth Marbley; CR-2017-0003898 (Mendez)] This discovery motion was in
20 support of these members’ efforts to recuse the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s office due to
21 the obvious and displayed racism and animosity by the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s
Office towards Black Lives Matter – Stockton Chapter, when the District Attorney staff members,
22
including attorneys, presented a skit at a department party, held in the department offices, on
23
Halloween, 2016, where staff, including attorneys, dressed as Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.
24
Snow White snorted cocaine and the Dwarves held up signs stating “Dwarf Lives Matter”.
25
18. The hearing on October 30, 2017 before Judge Garber was to provide an opportunity for
26 counsel for said defendants/ members of Black Lives Matter – Stockton Chapter to present oral
27 argument. Prior to the hearing, a large number of defendant Sheriff’s deputies, more than usual in
28 the courthouse, in full uniform and armed with weapons, formed a line across the front of the San
Page 5 of 13
Joaquin County Superior Courthouse-Stockton Division, blocking all entrance and access to the
1
courthouse.
2
19. As individuals presented themselves to the entrance of the Superior Court, all white people
3
were admitted into the courthouse. Individuals who appeared to be Black or non-white were
4
examined and questioned, and those whom the Sheriff’s deputies determined to be Black, or
5 members of Black Lives Matter were summarily denied access. Those denied access included
6 plaintiff Dionne Smith-Downs and members of Black Lives Matter– Stockton Chapter who were
7 named defendants and had been required to attend court in Department 8A that day.
8 20. At the time that the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s deputies barred Claimants’ entry into the
9 building, Claimants were doing nothing more than walking toward the courthouse and seeking
10 entry, in the same manner as every other individual who approached the building.
21. On January 29, 2018, members of Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter had another court
11
hearing on the 8th floor, in which they had a motion on calendar. [CR 2017-0003904 (Brown);
12
CR-2017-0003903 (Trevor Johnson); CR-2017-0003898 (Mendez)] The hearing was also set for
13
Judge Garber’s courtroom, 8A, for oral argument. Following the conclusion of the hearing, five
14
or six sheriff’s deputies, appeared at the conclusion of the hearing, and followed members of
15 Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter as they walked in the courthouse. These Sheriff deputies
16 engaged in menacing and threatening conduct, and verbally insulted these members of Black Lives
17 Matter-Stockton Chapter. Knowing that unarmed, black and brown young men have been shot
18 and killed by Sheriff’s deputies, knowing that these sheriff’s deputies were armed, these members
19 of Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter felt fearful and anxious and concerned for their personal
20 safety. These unknown and unnamed Sheriffs’ deputies made it clear and apparent that these
claimants had lesser rights than other members of the public, were not welcome, would not be
21
permitted to be inside a public building, and that if they did not leave, these Sheriff’s Deputies
22
would subject these members of Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter to violence, harassment and
23
arrest.
24
22. On both October 30, 2017 and January 29, 2018, the Sheriff’s deputies actions towards
25 plaintiffs are a reflection and result of the conscious and institutional racial bias that exists within
26 the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office.
27 23. On both October 30, 2017 and January 29, 2018, Judge Garber denied the
28 defendants/members of Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter’s motions. The denials of the
Page 6 of 13
motion was based upon a misstatement of facts, partly urged by the San Joaquin County District
1
Attorney. In addition, Judge Garber stated that he did not consider the discovery to be relevant to
2
the case, meaning that Judge Garber did not consider the racist and animus displayed by the San
3
Joaquin County district attorney’s office toward Black Lives Matter – Stockton Chapter to be
4
relevant in plaintiff members’ right to a fair and impartial prosecution. Inasmuch as the Sheriff’s
5 deputies were assembled prior to the hearing, in numbers far greater than normal, in order for them
6 to exercise their police authority to deny plaintiffs’ access (on October 30, 2017) and to harass and
7 coercively force plaintiffs to exit (on January 29, 2018), it appears, and plaintiff so plead based
8 upon information and belief that the court, in advance of its ruling, had already known prior to
9 oral argument that he would rule negatively and against said defendants/members of Black Lives
10 Matter-Stockton Chapter, and had therefore requested the additional numbers of Sheriffs’ deputies
in anticipation of the court’s prepared negative rulings.
11
24. The spokesperson for the Sheriff’s Office made a public statement that the Sheriff’s Office is
12
responsible for making security decisions at the courthouse, and on October 30, 2017, decided to
13
exclude individuals in advance of any possible protest.
14
25. At no time on either October 30, 2017 or January 29, 2018 did any members of Black Lives
15 Matter-Stockton Chapter engage in any disruptive conduct or speech, not even loud speech while
16 at the San Joaquin County Courthouse-Stockton Division.
17
18 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
19 Plaintiff Class – Members and Supporters of Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter
20 26. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and, pursuant to Rule 23 (a), (b)(1) and
(b)(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a class of men and women who who are now,
21
or will in the future seek admittance to the San Joaquin County Courthouse, or who wish to attend,
22
witness and observe what transpires inside Courtrooms of this Courthouse, and to support by being
23
physically present during court hearings, any members of Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter
24
who may be prosecuted for their participation in protests and activities sponsored by Black Lives
25 Matter-Stockton Chapter.
26 27. All members and supporters, present and future, of Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter
27 are at a genuine and substantial risk of having their constitutional rights violated because of the
28 policies and practices of Defendants SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, and SAN
Page 7 of 13
JOAQUIN COUNTY based upon hostility and racial animus towards Black Lives Matter-Stockton
1
Chapter including:
2
a. Denial of access to public buildings, including the San Joaquin County Courthouse;
3
b. Denial of a right to a public trial;
4
c. Harassment and discrimination by defendants due to plaintiffs’ membership and
5 participation in Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter;
6 d. Harassment and discrimination due to plaintiffs’ exercise of the first amendment rights
7 to protest police violence against unarmed civilians; and,
8 e. Harassment and discrimination as a result of the racial animus within the San Joaquin
9 County Sheriff’s Office toward black and brown people.
10 24. The proposed class as defined is sufficiently numerous that joinder of all members of the
class is impracticable and unfeasible. All of these individuals who participate in Black Lives
11
Matter-Stockton Chapter events, whether members or supporters are at risk of being harmed, or
12
having their constitutional rights violated by defendants San Joaquin County Sheriff’s office,
13
either during arrest, or in court dates following arrest, or in court support for those who are
14
arrested. Further, the pending criminal prosecutions are not yet resolved . Trial in those matters
15 appear likely, and plaintiffs intend to, and desire to attend future court hearings, and the trial itself
16 in support of those defendant/members of Black Lives Matter-Stockton Chapter.
17 COMMONALITY: FED. R. CIV. P. 23(A)(2)
18 25. There are questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiff Class, including, but not
19 limited to:
20 a. Whether Defendants should be enjoined from preventing members of the Plaintiff

class from entering public buildings, in particular County Courthouses;
21
b. Whether Defendants’ conduct in preventing and blocking members of the Plaintiff
22
class from entering the San Joaquin County Courthouse-Stockton division violates the
23
1st, 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution, Article 1, §§ 2; 3 California
24
Constitution and California Penal Code §686.
25 c. Whether Defendants’ conduct in preventing and blocking members of the Plaintiff
26 class from entering the San Joaquin County Courthouse-Stockton division violates the
27 rights of members to a public trial in violation of the 6th and 14th Amendment of the
28 U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, §29 California Constitution, and Cal. Penal Code
Page 8 of 13
§686.
1
d. Whether Defendants should be enjoined from harassing members of the Plaintiff class
2
when members of the Plaintiff class are in public buildings, in particular County
3
Courthouses; and,
4
e. Whether Defendants’ conduct in following, harassing, threatening members of the
5 Plaintiff class when they are inside the San Joaquin County Courthouse-Stockton
6 violates the 1st and 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, §§1,2,3;
7 California Constitution.
8 26. Defendants are expected to raise common defenses to these claims, including denying that
9 their actions violate the law.
10 TYPICALITY: FED. R. CIV. P. 23(A)(3)

27. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the members of the proposed
11
class. Plaintiffs and all other members of the class have sustained similar injuries arising out of and
12
caused by Defendants’ common course of conduct and policies in violation of the law as alleged
13
herein.
14
ADEQUACY: FED. R. CIV. P. 23(A)(4)
15 28. Plaintiffs are members of the class and will fairly and adequately represent and protect the
16 interests of the putative class members because they have no disabling conflict(s) of interest that
17 would be antagonistic to those of the other class members.
18 29. Plaintiffs, as well as plaintiff class members, seek to enjoin the unlawful acts and
19 omissions of Defendants. Plaintiffs have retained counsel who are competent and experienced in
20 complex class action litigation and prisoner’s rights litigation.

FED. R. CIV. P. 23(B)(1)(A) AND (B)
21
30. Since the number of class members is more than 100, separate actions by individuals could
22
result in inconsistent and varying decisions, which in turn would result in conflicting and
23
incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants.
24
FED. R. CIV. P. 23(B)(2)
25 31. This action is also maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
26 Procedure 23(b)(2) because Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds that apply
27 generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is
28 appropriate respecting the class and will apply to all members of the class.
Page 9 of 13
REQUISITES FOR RELIEF

1
32. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the violations of the plaintiffs’ constitutional and lawful
2
rights complained of herein were caused by customs, policies, directives, practices, acts and
3
omissions of authorized policy makers of the defendants SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF’S
4
OFFICE and SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, including defendants MOORE, PETRINO, OLIVER
5 (Olivr) and other supervisory officials of the San Joaquin County Sheriff’s office, who encouraged,
6 authorized, directed, condoned, and ratified the unconstitutional and unlawful conduct complained of
7 herein. Said customs, policies and practices include, but are not limited to discriminatory conduct
8 against individuals and organizations that protest police violence against civilians; black and brown
9 people who engage in First Amendment protected activity; the failure to maintain adequate policies,
10 and to adequately train, supervise and control Sheriff’s deputies concerning the policing of
individuals who engage in protests and other expressive activities with respect to insuring that these
11
individuals’ constitutional rights are not violated.
12
33. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants described herein, the named
13
individual plaintiffs have been denied their constitutional, statutory and legal rights as stated below,
14
and have suffered general and special damages, including but not limited to, mental and emotional
15 distress, physical injuries and bodily harm, pain, fear, humiliation, embarrassment, discomfort, and
16 anxiety and other damages in an amount according to proof.
17 34. Defendants’ acts were willful, wanton, malicious and oppressive and done with conscious
18 disregard and deliberate indifference for plaintiffs’ rights.
19 35. Defendants’ policies, practices, customs, conduct and acts alleged herein have resulted and will
20 continue to result in irreparable injury to plaintiffs, including but not limited to violations of their
constitutional and statutory rights. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to
21
address the wrongs described herein. The plaintiffs and class members intend in the future to exercise
22
their constitutional rights of freedom of speech and association by engaging in demonstrations and
23
expressive activities in the City of Stockton and San Joaquin County. Defendants’ conduct described
24
herein has created fear, anxiety and uncertainty among plaintiffs with respect to their exercise now
25 and in the future of these constitutional rights. Plaintiffs therefore seek injunctive relief from this
26 court, to ensure that plaintiffs and persons similarly situated will not suffer violations of their rights
27 from defendants’ illegal and unconstitutional policies, customs and practices as described herein.
28
Page 10 of 13
36. An actual controversy exists between plaintiffs and defendants in that plaintiffs contend that the
1
policies, practices and conduct of defendants alleged herein are unlawful and unconstitutional,
2
whereas plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendants contend that said policies, practices and
3
conduct are lawful and constitutional. Plaintiffs seek a declaration of rights with respect to this
4
controversy.
5 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
6
7 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
8 (First and Fourteen Amendment United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §1983)
9 37. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein all allegations previously made in
10 paragraphs 1 through 36 above.

38. Defendants above-described conduct violated plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech and
11
association under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution …
12
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
13
(Sixth Amendment United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §1983)
14
39. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein all allegations previously made in
15 paragraphs 1 through 36 above.
16 40. Defendants above-described conduct violated plaintiffs’ rights to public trial under the
17 Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution …
18 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
19 (Fourteen Amendment United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §1983)
20 41. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein all allegations previously made in
paragraphs 1 through 36 above.
21
42. Defendants above-described conduct violated plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection under
22
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
23
24
FOURTH CLAIM OF ACTION
25 (Violation of California Civil Code § 51.7)
26 43. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 36 of this complaint.
27
28
Page 11 of 13
44. Defendants’ above-described conduct violated plaintiffs’ right to be free from violence and
1
intimidation by threat of violence because of their actual or perceived political affiliation and/or
2
viewpoint, in violation of California Civil Code section 51.7.
3
FIFTH CLAIM OF ACTION
4
(Violation of California Civil Code § 52.1)
5 45. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 36 of this complaint.
6 46. Defendants’ above-described conduct constituted interference, and attempted interference,
7 by threats, intimidation and coercion, with plaintiffs’ peaceable exercise and enjoyment of rights
8 secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of California, in violation
9 of California Civil Code section 52.1.
10 SIXTH CLAIM OF ACTION

Negligence
11
47. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 36 of this complaint.
12
48. Defendants have a duty of care to plaintiffs to ensure that defendants did not cause
13
unnecessary or unjustified harm to plaintiffs, and a duty of care to hire, train, supervise and
14
discipline OPD and ACSD officers so as to not cause harm to plaintiffs and to prevent violations
15 of plaintiffs’ constitutional, statutory and common law rights.
16 49. The above-described acts and omissions of defendants breached the duty of care
17 defendants owed to the named individual plaintiffs.
18
19 PRAYER
20 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendants, and each of them, as follows:
1. For an order certifying the class defined herein pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
21
Rule 23(b)(2) and (3);
22
2. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief restraining defendants from engaging in the
23
unlawful and unconstitutional actions complained of above;
24
3. For general and compensatory damages for violation of plaintiffs’ federal and state
25 constitutional and statutory rights, pain and suffering, all to be determined according to proof;
26 8. For punitive and exemplary damages in amounts to be determined according to proof as to the
27 individual defendants;
28
Page 12 of 13
9. For an award of statutory damages and penalties pursuant to Cal. Civil Code section 52(b) to be
1
determined according to proof;
2
10. For attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and California Civil Code section 52(b) and
3
section 52.1(h), and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5;
4
11. For costs of suit;
5 12. For pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law;
6 13. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
7
Dated: March 19, 2018
8
9 ____/s/ Yolanda Huang________
10 By: YOLANDA HUANG
Attorney for Plaintiffs
11
12
13
14
15 JURY TRIAL DEMAND
16
17 Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial.
18
Dated: March 19, 2018
19
20 ____/s/ Yolanda Huang___________
21 By: YOLANDA HUANG
Attorney for Plaintiffs
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 13 of 13
JS 44 (Rev. 08/16) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet Case 2:18-cv-00591-KJM-AC
and the information contained herein neither replaceDocument 1-1
nor supplement the filing Filed 03/20/18
and service of pleadings orPage 1 of
other papers 2
as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
BLACK LIVES MATTER-STOCKTON CHAPTER, an unincorporated SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY,
association; and DIONNE SMITH-DOWNS, individually and on behalf of STEVE MOORE, DAVE OLIVER (OLIVR), JOE PETRINO, DOES 1-50.
others similarly situated.
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff San Joaquin County County of Residence of First Listed Defendant San Joaquin County
(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)
LAW OFFICES OF YOLANDA HUANG J. Mark Myles, San Joaquin County Counsel
YOLANDA HUANG, SBN 104543 44 San Joaquin Street, Suite 679
475 14th Street, Suite 500 Stockton, CA 95202
Oakland, CA 94612; Telephone: (510) 329-2140; Facsimile: (510) 580-9410
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 - Other Immigration
465
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):
42 USC 1983
Brief description of cause:
1. Discrimination Against Plaintiffs Based Upon Speech, Association and Racial Animus: Violations of the 1st, and 14th Amendments of the
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, §§ 1, 2, 3 California Constitution.2.Denying Plaintiffs’ Access To A Public Courthouse: Violations of the
1st, and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, §§ 2; 3 California Constitution. 3. Denying Plaintiffs’ Right to Public Trial:
Violation of 6th and 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, §29 California Constitution, Cal. Penal Code §686
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ Excess of $100,000 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
03/19/2018
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Case 2:18-cv-00591-KJM-AC Document 1-1 Filed 03/20/18 Page 2 of 2
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 08/16)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
(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
(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"
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Black Lives Matter-Stockton Class Action

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Black Lives Matter-Stockton Class Action

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

LAW OFFICES OF YOLANDA HUANG

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

10 Defendants’ unconstitutional animosity and prejudice against Plaintiffs.

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

10 the Stockton Courthouse

20 a. Whether Defendants should be enjoined from preventing members of the Plaintiff

10 TYPICALITY: FED. R. CIV. P. 23(A)(3)

20 complex class action litigation and prisoner’s rights litigation.

REQUISITES FOR RELIEF

10 paragraphs 1 through 36 above.

10 SIXTH CLAIM OF ACTION

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

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

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

You might also like