Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
Transcript of Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
1/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 1
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
CASE NO.:
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF
CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First, Fourth, and
Fourteenth Amendments)
42 U.S.C. § 1231(2) (Title II of the
ADA)
29 U.S.C. § 794 (RA)
20 U.S.C. § 1400 (IDEA)
California Constitution Article 1,
§§ 1, 13
California Civil Code § 52.1
California Civil Code § 51.7
Assault and Battery
Negligence
False Arrest or Imprisonment
Abuse of Process
Intentional Infliction of EmotionalDistress
Intrusion into Private Affairs
Public Disclosure of Private Facts
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
RONALD CRUZ, State Bar No. 267038
United for Equality and Affirmative Action Legal Defense Fund (UEAALDF)1985 Linden Street
Oakland, CA 94607
(510) 384-8859 [email protected] (313) 586-0089
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
JONATHAN RODRIGUEZ, by his next friendIGNACIO RODRIGUEZ;
Plaintiff,
vs.
OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, a public entity, OAKLANDUNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICE
DEPARTMENT, a public entity, NOILANGELO, CARLTON JOHNSON, ERICDUBOIS, ANA VASQUEZ, EMILIANO
SANCHEZ, JAMES WILLIAMS, GARY
YEE, JEFF GODOWN, ANTWAN
WILSON, and DOES 1-10, in theirindividual and official capacities,
Defendants. ______________________________________
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
2/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 2
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff, by and through his
attorneys, UNITED FOR EQUALITY AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION LEGAL
DEFENSE FUND, states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This case arises out of the unprovoked and discriminatory targeting and beating of
a Latino special-education high school student by school security officers of the Oakland
School Police Department (OSPD) and a vice principal of Oakland Unified School
District (“OUSD”), under OUSD’s supervision and control, and the cover-up by OSPD
and OUSD of the incident.
2. This incident arises out of OUSD’s policy of providing repression instead of equal
educational opportunities to Oakland’s special-education students and the city’s
predominantly Latina/o, black, other minority, and immigrant student population.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This is a civil rights action arising from the Defendants’ unreasonable seizure of
and use of excessive force against Plaintiff Jonathan RODRIGUEZ (“Plaintiff”), on or
about January 22, 2014 at Fremont High School, 4610 Foothill Boulevard, Oakland,
California 94601. This action is brought pursuant to: 42 USC §§1983 and 1988; the First,
Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; the American
with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) Title II (42 USC §§ 12131 et seq.); the Rehabilitation Act
(“RA”) (29 USC § 794 et seq.); the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”)
(20 USC § 1400 et seq.); the California Constitution; California Civil Code §§ 51.7 and
52.1, state common law, and related state law statutes, codes, and regulations.
4. Plaintiff resides in Oakland, California. All of the Defendants herein reside and/or
work in Oakland, California. The events, acts, and/or omissions complained of herein
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
3/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 3
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
occurred in Alameda County, California, and this action is properly assigned to the U.S.
District Court of California, Northern District.
5. This complaint includes claims made under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution under 42 USC §1983, the ADA, the RA, and the
IDEA. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 USC §1331 and 28 USC
§1343(3). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction of related state claims from the same
case or controversy under 28 USC §1367(a).
6. This action is timely filed within all applicable statutes of limitation.
INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
7. A substantial part of the events which give rise to this claim occurred in Alameda
County, making assignment to the Oakland Division appropriate under Civil L.R. 3-2(d).
PARTIES
8. At all material times, Plaintiff Jonathan RODRIGUEZ, by his next friend Ignacio
Rodriguez, was and is a resident of the State of California, County of Alameda. He brings
these claims on his own behalf and as a Private Attorney General to vindicate
constitutional rights of the highest importance.
9. Defendant Oakland Unified School District (“OUSD”) is a public entity and an
educational service agency established and maintained by the laws and constitution of the
State of California, and owns, operates, manages, directs, and controls the Defendant
Oakland School Police Department (OSPD), and employs and/or is responsible for other
Defendants in this action. Pursuant to California Government Code § 815.2, Defendant
OUSD is vicariously liable for state law torts of its employees and agents, including but
not limited to those named as Defendants herein.
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 3 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
4/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 4
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
10. Defendant Noil ANGELO was, at all material times up through at least Spring
2014, employed as a school security officer by Defendants OUSD and OSPD, and was
acting within the course and scope of that employment. Defendant ANGELO is being
sued in his individual capacity.
11. Defendant Carlton JOHNSON was, at all material times up through at least
Spring 2014, employed as a school security officer by Defendants OUSD and OSPD, and
was acting within the course and scope of that employment. Defendant JOHNSON is
being sued in his individual capacity.
12. Defendant Eric DUBOIS was, at all material times up through at least Spring
2014, employed by Defendant OUSD, and he was acting within the course and scope of
his employment as a Vice Principal of Fremont High School (“FHS”). As Vice Principal,
on information and belief, he was a policy-making official for FHS, responsible for all
policies, procedures, and training at FHS. Defendant DUBOIS is being sued in his
individual capacity.
13.
Defendant Ana VASQUEZ was, at all material times up through at least Spring
2014, employed by Defendant OUSD, and she was acting within the course and scope of
her employment as a Vice Principal of FHS. As Vice Principal, on information and
belief, she was a policy-making official for FHS, responsible for all policies, procedures,
and training at FHS. Defendant VASQUEZ is being sued in her individual capacity.
14. Defendant Emiliano SANCHEZ was, at all material times up through at least
Spring 2014, employed by Defendant OUSD, and he was acting within the course and
scope of his employment as Principal of FHS. As Principal, on information and belief, he
was a final policy-making official for FHS, ultimately responsible for all policies,
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 4 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
5/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 5
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
procedures, and training at FHS. Defendant SANCHEZ is being sued in his individual
capacity.
15. Defendant Gary YEE was, at all material times up through at least Spring 2014,
employed by OUSD as Superintendent, and he was acting within the course and scope of
his employment as Superintendent. As Superintendent, he was a final policy-making
official for OUSD, ultimately responsible for all policies, procedures, and training within
the OUSD and OSPD. He is being sued in his individual capacity.
16. Defendant Jeff GODOWN was, as of February 2015 and at all subsequent
material times, acting within the course and scope of his employment as Chief of OSPD.
He is the current Chief of OSPD. As Chief of OSPD, Defendant GODOWN is a policy-
making official for OUSD, and he is the final policy-making official for OSPD,
ultimately responsible for policies, procedures, and training within OSPD. Defendant
GODOWN is being sued in his individual and official capacities.
17. Defendant Antwan WILSON was, beginning July 1, 2014 and at all subsequent
material times, employed by OUSD as Superintendent, and he was acting within the
course and scope of his employment as Superintendent. He is the current OUSD
Superintendent. As Superintendent, he is a final policy-making official for OUSD,
ultimately responsible for all policies, procedures, and training within the OUSD and
OSPD. He is being sued in his individual and official capacities.
18. The true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1-10 (“DOE
Defendants”) are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues these Defendants by such
fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to show these
Defendants’ true names and capacities when they are ascertained. At all material times,
each of the DOE Defendants was an employee and/or agent of Defendants OUSD and/or
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 5 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
6/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 6
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
OSPD, and at all material times acted within the course and scope of that relationship.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each Defendant so named was
negligently, wrongfully, or otherwise responsible in some manner for the injuries and
damages sustained by Plaintiff as set forth herein. Further, one or more DOE Defendants
was at all material times responsible for the hiring, training, supervision, and discipline of
other Defendants, including DOE Defendants. Each DOE Defendant is being sued in his
or her individual capacity.
19. The acts and omissions of all DOE Defendants as set forth herein were at all
material times pursuant to the actual customs, policies, practices, and procedures of the
OUSD and/or OSPD.
20. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants
sued herein was negligently, intentionally, recklessly, wrongfully, and otherwise
responsible in some manner for the events and happenings as hereinafter described, and
proximately caused injuries and damages to Plaintiff.
21.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants
was at all material times, an agent, servant, employee, partner, joint venturer, co-
conspirator, and/or alter ego of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the things herein
alleged, was acting within the course and scope of that relationship. Plaintiff is further
informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants herein gave
consent, aid, and assistance to each of the remaining Defendants, and ratified and/or
authorized the acts or omissions of each Defendant as alleged herein, except as may be
hereinafter otherwise specifically alleged. At all material times, each Defendant was both
jointly engaged in tortious activity and an integral participant in the conduct described
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 6 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
7/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 7
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
herein, resulting in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional and statutory rights and
other harm.
22. At all material times, each Defendant acted under color of the laws, statutes,
ordinances, policies, practices, customs, and usages of the State of California and the
OUSD and OSPD.
23. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all material times,
Defendants, and each of them, were and are persons and entities whose conduct is
governed and regulated by all California laws and statutes, including the common law,
the California Constitution, and the public policy of the State of California.
24. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the unlawful actions
complained of herein, as a result of which Plaintiff sustained the injuries and damages
enumerated below, were and are violations of the laws of the State of California and the
United States.
25. Plaintiff has complied with the claim filing requirements of California’s
Government Code Claims Act, Cal. Gov’t. Code § 910 et seq., and this action is timely
filed within all applicable statutes of limitation.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
26. Plaintiff realleges each and every paragraph in this Complaint as if fully set forth
here.
27. On or about January 22, 2014, at Fremont High School, 4610 Foothill Boulevard,
Oakland, California 94601, officers of the OUSD and/or OSPD, including Defendants
ANGELO and JOHNSON, wrongfully arrested and detained, assaulted and battered, and
used excessive and unjustified force against Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, causing injuries.
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 7 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
8/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 8
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
28. At all material times, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ was a 14-year-old boy, who suffered
from disabilities including, but not limited to, Emotional Disturbance. His Individual
Education Plan (“IEP”) gave notice to school staff of his disability, the \need for positive
engagement and de-escalation, and his vulnerability to emotional trauma.
29. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants ANGELO,
JOHNSON, and Defendant Vice Principal DUBOIS had previously abused, used
excessive force against, and/or falsely arrested or directly supervised such actions against
other special-education and Latina/o students at Fremont High School (“FHS”), and they
were never terminated, disciplined, or retrained as a result of these violations.
30. On or about January 22, 2014, Plaintiff was in the hallway during passing period
at Fremont High School (“FHS”). Defendant Vice Principal DUBOIS saw him and
instructed him to go the office and wait there for him. Plaintiff complied and went to the
office to wait for DUBOIS. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ stood in the doorway to the office,
talking to other students.
31.
Defendant DUBOIS approached Plaintiff and ordered him to go inside the office.
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ asked him why he was in trouble, and Defendant DUBOIS said
something to the effect of, “I don’t need to tell you, you need to do what I say.”
32. Defendant DUBOIS then called Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON to
confront Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.
33. Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON approached Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ and
assaulted Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ without warrant, probable cause, reasonable suspicion,
or legal justification. Defendant ANGELO forcefully shoved Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ
from behind into Defendant JOHNSON. Defendant JOHNSON forcibly gripped Plaintiff
RODRIGUEZ’s head under his arm in a headlock.
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 8 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
9/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 9
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
34. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ was a freshman at Fremont High School and weighed
about 110 pounds at the time. Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON were both over six
feet tall and weighed much more than Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.
35.
Both Defendants JOHNSON and ANGELO proceeded to drag Plaintiff
RODRIGUEZ in a choking headlock into and across the length of the main office,
without warrant, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or legal justification.
36. As Defendants JOHNSON and ANGELO dragged him across the office in a
choking headlock, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ could not breathe and he began crying. He was
in searing pain and at times came close to blacking out. He thought they were going to
choke him to death.
37. As Defendants JOHNSON and ANGELO forcefully dragged Plaintiff
RODRIGUEZ across the office, they hit his head on the counter in the office and swung
him around between the two of them. They continued to choke Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ by
his neck and crush his face with their hands.
38.
They deliberately shoved him into a part of the office, behind a wall that blocked
the view of the office’s security camera. At times, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ blacked out
and lost consciousness during the choking and beating.
39. Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON continued to use excessive and
unreasonable force, and without probable cause or legal justification. Defendant
JOHNSON gripped and choked Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, while Defendant ANGELO
punched Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ in the face several times.
40. Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON, on the orders of Defendants DUBOIS and
VASQUEZ, told Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ that he could not leave and held him in a room
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 9 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
10/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 10
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
for over an hour, without a warrant, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or legal
justification.
41. Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON, unlawfully and without legal justification,
searched Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, patting him down and searching his belongings.
42. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ had a laceration above his eye, bruises, sore muscles, and
back and head pain. But Defendants ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, and VASQUEZ
did nothing to provide RODRIGUEZ medical attention.
43. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Principal
SANCHEZ was notified immediately about the incident and had access to the security
camera footage showing the assault on Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.
44. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ was forced to stay in the room over an hour, as
Defendants ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, and Defendant Principal
SANCHEZ consulted outside. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ was in the room over an hour
alone with two different school security officers.
45.
Defendant SANCHEZ entered the room and suspended Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ
from school for five days, depriving him of his right to an education without due process
and without reasonable cause. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
Defendants DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, ANGELO, and JOHNSON had consulted with
Defendant PRINCIPAL SANCHEZ to deprive Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ of his rights and
to cover-up for their illegal actions.
46. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff
RODRIGUEZ’s status as a special-education student with a disability, and his status
being a Latino, were substantial motivating factors in Defendants’ refusal to respect his
rights, refusal to conduct a subsequent investigation of the incident.
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 10 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
11/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 11
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
47. Defendant DUBOIS was the direct supervisor of the attack and arrest. He set into
motion and watched the assault and arrest by Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON
against Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.
48.
Defendants JOHNSON and ANGELO attacked Jonathan in public view of
students who were inside and outside the main office and other office staff and
administrators, including Defendant DUBOIS and Defendant Vice Principal VASQUEZ,
who were present and watched and took no action to stop the unreasonable seizure and
false arrest of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.
49. Defendant DUBOIS and Defendant VASQUEZ directed the immediate cover-up
of the attack, ordering students to leave the office and minimizing the number of
independent witnesses.
50. Defendants ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ and SANCHEZ were
integral participants in violating Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s rights. At no time did any of
these Defendants stop any other from using excessive force, falsely arresting and/or
imprisoning Plaintiff; or otherwise violating Plaintiff’s rights.
51. Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON were never terminated, disciplined, or
retrained for their excessive force and false arrest against Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.
52. Defendant SANCHEZ called Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s uncle and told him that an
incident had occurred but something to the effect that Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ was “all
right.” Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s cousin drove to Fremont High School to pick him up.
53. When Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s cousin came to pick him up, he was alarmed by
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s injuries and took pictures of him with his cell phone.
54. At home, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s mother saw her son’s injuries and was
distraught and worried.
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 11 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
12/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 12
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
55. When Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s father came home that same day, he took his son
to Children’s Hospital of Oakland for treatment for his injuries and emotional distress.
56. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s mother visited the school to complain about the school
staff’s actions against her son. She asked to see the video from the security camera.
Defendant SANCHEZ showed her the video, but stopped it before the entire attack was
completed, claiming that there was something wrong with the video.
57. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant OSPD Chief
James WILLIAMS and his subordinates, including DOES 1-10, and that Defendant
OUSD Superintendent GARY YEE, and his subordinates, including Defendant
WILLIAMS and DOES 1-10, received the report of the assault on Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ
that included a DVD of the video footage taken from the Fremont High School main
office security camera.
58. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant WILLIAMS
and Defendant YEE and their subordinates conducted no investigation of Defendants
ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, and/or SANCHEZ, thus failing to
investigate, discipline, and conduct training of OUSD and OSPD staff and exercising
deliberately indifference to the rights of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ and other students of
OUSD.
59. After the incident, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ exacerbated his depression and
difficulty engaging with school. Not only did none of the Defendants offer counseling or
aid of any sort to Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, but Defendant DUBOIS deliberately targeted
him for further abuse in a later incident described below.
60. The January 22, 2014 beating exacerbated Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s Emotional
Disturbance. School officials had been aware of this detrimental impact given
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 12 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
13/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 13
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
RODRIGUEZ’s history of Emotional Disturbance and qualification for counseling
services as determined by the Educationally Related Mental Health Services (ERMHS)
evaluator and his IEP team.
61.
On March 7, 2014, Defendant DUBOIS, with knowledge of Plaintiff’s disability,
deliberately and unlawfully took Plaintiff’s cell phone and unlawfully effected his arrest.
As Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ stood in a school hallway at FHS listening to music on his cell
phone, Defendant DUBOIS walked up to RODRIGUEZ and forcefully took away
RODRIGUEZ’s cell phone without any explanation. DUBOIS accused RODRIGUEZ of
stealing the phone, even though DUBOIS had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion
to believe the phone did not belong to Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.
62. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ explained that the cell phone was his and demanded it
back. Defendant DUBOIS refused to return Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ his property. When
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ continued to demand his cell phone, Defendant DUBOIS called
for police.
63.
Defendant DUBOIS lied to police officers, claiming that Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ
had wrongfully assaulted him. DUBOIS had Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ arrested, even
though Defendant DUBOIS continued to unlawfully hold Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s
property.
64. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s mother had to go to the police station with the box
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s phone was purchased in and the sales receipt, before the police
would release Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.
65. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ had to go to juvenile court and spend a week in juvenile
hall on the basis of Defendant DUBOIS’s false and misleading statements to police,
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 13 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
14/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 14
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
further exacerbating his disability of emotional disturbance, difficulty engaging with the
school environment, and the trauma he suffered from the January 22, 2014.
66. This second incident again exacerbated Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s diagnosed
Emotional Disturbance and violated RODRIGUEZ’s rights under his IEP and Behavior
Support Plan.
67. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s family made repeated requests to Defendant SANCHEZ
and other OUSD staff to have a copy of the security video. But their requests were
ignored.
68. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff
RODRIGUEZ’s status as a special-education student with a disability, and his status
being a Latino, were substantial motivating factors in Defendants’ refusal produce the
video to Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ and his parents despite their repeated efforts.
69. On February 23, 2015, this law firm sent formal requests to OUSD and OSPD that
they produce a copy of the security camera footage of the incident on behalf of Plaintiff
RODRIGUEZ.
70. Plaintiff is informed and believes thereon alleges that Defendant OSPD Chief Jeff
GODOWN and his subordinates including DOES 1-10, responded to this request by
obtaining their report of the January 22, 2014 incident and DVD video. Defendant OUSD
Superintendent WILSON, Defendant GODOWN and their subordinates including DOES
1-10, withheld this video. Instead of releasing it to Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ per the request
of his attorney, they released it to the news media on March 6, 2015: footage of Plaintiff
RODRIGUEZ, a minor, being traumatized and beaten by OSPD officers under the
direction and supervision of OUSD officials. Defendants released the video on March 6,
2015 without Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s or his parents’ knowledge or consent, in violation
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 14 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
15/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 15
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
of minors’ right to privacy under the United States and California Constitutions and state
and federal laws.
71. Also on March 6, 2015, Defendants WILSON, GODOWN and their subordinates
coupled their release of the video with prepared statements to media and an email to all
OUSD employees and parents of OUSD children that were specially prepared for the
occasion. These statements named Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, a minor, by his full name.
72. Footage of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ being brutalized were seen by thousands on
major TV news stations, and the video of the attack on YouTube was viewed by
thousands more.
73. At the age of 14, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s privacy and anonymity were stripped
away without his or his parents’ knowledge or consent.
74. As a result of the excessive force, false arrest, cover-up, and violation of his
privacy by Defendants, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ has suffered ongoing pain and severe
emotional distress, anxiety, humiliation, mortification, and depression.
75.
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ suffered a loss of appetite, sleeplessness, and weight loss,
and increased emotional distress resulting from attacks by Defendants in this case.
Because of the exacerbation of Plaintiff’s emotional disturbance caused by Defendants,
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ had to live in a restricted group home from February to December
2015.
76. On information and belief, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s disabilities, including his
emotional disturbance, were among the motivating factors for Defendants DUBOIS’,
ANGELO’s, JOHNSON’s, VASQUEZ’S, and SANCHEZ’S unlawful treatment of
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 15 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
16/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 16
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
77. On information and belief, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ being a Latino was among the
motivating factors for Defendants DUBOIS’, ANGELO’s, JOHNSON’s, VASQUEZ’S,
and SANCHEZ’S unlawful treatment of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.
78.
On information and belief, Defendants DUBOIS, ANGELO, JOHNSON,
VASQUEZ, and SANCHEZ also targeted Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ for this violation of his
rights based, in part, on his Latino race, national origin, ancestry, and/or assertion of his
Constitutional rights to free speech and to be free from unreasonable seizure.
79. Defendants DUBOIS, ANGELO, JOHNSON, VASQUEZ, and SANCHEZ also
denied Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ his right to participation in public accommodations and
services and his right to an education.
80. On information and belief, Defendants OUSD and OSPD, their policymakers and
managing agents and employees, including, but not limited to, former Defendant OSPD
Chief of Police WILLIAMS; former OUSD Superintendent Defendant YEE; Defendant
SANCHEZ, Defendant DUBOIS, Defendant VASQUEZ, and other as-yet unknown
employees and agents of Defendants OUSD and OSPD, negligently, recklessly,
otherwise wrongfully and with deliberate indifference to the rights and safety of OUSD
students, including Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, failed to properly screen, investigate, hire,
train, supervise, and/or discipline Defendants ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS,
VASQUEZ, and/or SANCHEZ.
81. At all times, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ had committed no crime, was unarmed, and
did not pose any threat to Defendants or to others. No force was justified at any time, and
there was never probable cause to arrest him.
82. Additionally, Defendants subjected Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ to an unreasonable
and unlawful search of his person, false arrest and imprisonment, violation of state and
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 16 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
17/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 17
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
federal constitutional rights, violation of privacy, and interference with his rights by
threats, intimidation, and/or coercion.
83. Defendants’ actions and omissions were objectively unreasonable under the
circumstances, were without probable cause or other legal right, were done under color of
law and within the course and scope of their employment, and were done pursuant to
unconstitutional customs, policies, and procedures of Defendants OUSD and OSPD.
84. Defendants OUSD and OSPD are also responsible for Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s
injuries through their own acts and omissions, negligent or otherwise, by failing to
properly and adequately investigate, train, supervise, monitor, instruct, and discipline
their employees, officers, and other personnel, including the officers identified herein.
85. At all material times, and alternatively, the actions and omissions of each
Defendant were intentional, knowing, wanton and/or willful, reckless, malicious,
deliberately indifferent to and with conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and
others, done with oppression, fraud, malice, actual malice, grossly negligent, negligent,
and objectively unreasonable.
86. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ has required, and will require, significant medical care as
a result of Defendants’ misconduct.
87. As a direct and proximate result of each Defendant’s acts and/or omissions as set
forth above, Plaintiff sustained the following injuries and damages, past and future,
among others:
a. Wrongful seizure and imprisonment;
b. Facial cuts and bruises;
c. Physical and emotional pain and suffering, including severe emotional
distress;
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 17 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
18/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 18
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
d. Medical expenses;
e. Invasion of privacy;
f. Invasion of bodily integrity;
g.
Lost educational time exacerbation of his disability and unjust disciplinary
action;
h. Violation of federal and California constitutional rights; and
i. All compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and
penalties recoverable under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988, and 12205; 29 U.S.C. §
794a; the ADA; the RA; the IDEA; California Civil Code §§ 51.7, 52, 52.1, and
3294; California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5; and as otherwise allowed
under California and United States statutes, codes, and common law.
COUNT ONE
-––42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment)––
AGAINST DEFENDANTS ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, AND DOES 2-10
88. Plaintiff realleges each and every paragraph in this Complaint as if fully set forth
here.
89. Defendants ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, and DOES 2-10, acting under the
color of state law in their personal capacities, deprived Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ of the
following clearly established and well-settled constitutional rights protected by the First,
Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution:
a. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as secured by
the Fourth Amendment;
b. The right to be free from excessive and unreasonable force as secured by
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;
c. The right to be free from invasion of privacy as secured by the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments;
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 18 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
19/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 19
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
d. The right to be free from deprivation of life, liberty, and property without
due process of law, including the right to be free from invasion of privacyand violation of bodily integrity, as secured by the Fourteenth
Amendment.
e. The right to Equal Protection of the Laws, and to be free fromdiscrimination based upon his race and/or national origin, as secured by
the Fourteenth Amendment.
90. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ acts and/or omissions as set
forth above, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ sustained injuries and damages as set forth at ¶¶ 86-
87, above.
91. Defendants ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, and DOES 2-10 subjected Plaintiff
RODRIGUEZ to their wrongful conduct and deprived him of rights described herein
knowingly, maliciously, and with conscious and reckless disregard for whether the rights
and safety of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ and others would be violated by their acts and/or
omissions.
92. The conduct of Defendants ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, and DOES 2-10
entitles Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ to exemplary and punitive damages and penalties
allowable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California law.
93. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ is also entitled to reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees
under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51.7, 52 and 52.1, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §
1021.5, and other applicable California codes and law.
COUNT TWO
-––42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Supervisory and Municipal Liability)––
AGAINST DEFENDANTS YEE, WILLIAMS, SANCHEZ, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ,WILSON, GODOWN, AND DOES 2-10
94. Plaintiff realleges each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth
here.
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 19 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
20/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 20
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
95. The unconstitutional actions and/or omissions of Defendants ANGELO,
JOHNSON, DUBOIS, and DOES 2-10 were, on information and belief, pursuant to the
following customs, policies, practices and/or procedures of Defendants YEE,
WILLIAMS, SANCHEZ, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, WILSON, GODOWN, and DOES 2-
10, which were directed, encouraged, allowed and/or ratified by policy-making officers
for the OUSD and/or OSPD, including but not limited to DOES 1–10:
a. To engage in or tolerate unreasonable searches and seizures of minors, as
described above, or to fail to investigate and review the basis for the arrest
against minors to ensure that minors are properly and legally arrested;
b. To engage in or tolerate uses of excessive force against minors, as
described above;
c. To engage in or tolerate serious invasions of minors’ rights to privacy and bodily integrity, as described above;
d. To allow racial profiling and discrimination by security officers;
e. To fail to properly screen, conduct background searches on, train, monitor,supervise, and discipline security officers, including but not limited to
Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON;
f. To fail to properly screen, conduct background searches on, train, monitor,
supervise, and discipline school administrators, including but not limited
to Defendant DUBOIS;
g. To fail to institute and require proper and adequate training, supervision,
policies, and procedures concerning searches and seizures of minors; and
h. To cover up violations of constitutional rights by any or all of the
following:
i. by failing to properly investigate and/or evaluate complaints or
incidents related to the claimed customs, policies, practices, and
procedures describe above in subparagraphs (a)–(f);
ii. by ignoring and/or failing to properly and adequately investigate
and/or discipline unconstitutional or unlawful activity by
employees/agents of the OUSD and/or OSPD as described above
in subparagraphs (a)–(f);
iii. by allowing, tolerating, and/or encouraging OUSD and/or OSPDemployees and/or agents to: fail to file complete and accurate
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 20 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
21/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 21
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
police reports; file false police reports; make false statements;
intimidate, bias, and/or “coach” witnesses to give false informationand/or to attempt to bolster officers’ stories; and obstruct and/or
interfere with investigations of unconstitutional or unlawful police
conduct, by withholding and/or concealing material information;
iv.
to allow, tolerate, and/or encourage a “code of silence” amongOUSD and/or OSPD employees/agents whereby an officer ormember of the OSPD does not provide adverse information against
a fellow officer or member of the organization or hold another
member accountable for official misconduct, and fails to intervenewhen another officer commits misconduct; and
v. to use or tolerate inadequate, deficient, and improper proceduresfor handling, investigating, and reviewing complaints of OUSD
and/or OSPD employee and/or agent misconduct, including claims
made under California Government code § 910 et seq.
96. Defendants YEE, WILLIAMS, SANCHEZ, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, WILSON,
GODOWN, and DOES 2-10 failed to properly screen, hire, train, instruct, monitor,
supervise, evaluate, manage, investigate, and discipline Defendants ANGELO,
JOHNSON, DUBOIS, and DOES 2-10, with deliberate indifference to the constitutional
rights of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, which were thereby violated as described above.
97.
The unconstitutional actions and/or omissions of Defendants ANGELO,
JOHNSON, DUBOIS, and DOES 2-10, as described above, were approved, tolerated
and/or ratified by policy making officers for Defendants OUSD and/or OSPD, including
Defendants YEE, WILLIAMS, SANCHEZ, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, WILSON,
GODOWN, or DOE 1, and DOES 2-10. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ is informed and believes,
and thereupon alleges, that the details of this incident have been revealed to the
authorized policy makers within Defendants OUSD and/or OSPD, and that such policy
makers have direct knowledge of the facts of this incident. Notwithstanding this
knowledge, the authorized policy makers within Defendants OUSD and/or the OSPD
have approved of the conduct of Defendants ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, and
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 21 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
22/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 22
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DOES 2-10, and have made a deliberate choice to endorse the decisions of those
Defendant OUSD and/or OSPD employees and/or agents, and the basis for those
decisions. By doing so, the authorized policy makers within Defendants OUSD and/or
OSPD have shown affirmative agreement with the actions of Defendants ANGELO,
JOHNSON, DUBOIS, and DOES 2-10, and have ratified the unconstitutional actions of
these Defendants.
98. The aforementioned customs, policies, practices, and procedures; the failures to
properly and adequately screen, hire, train, instruct, monitor, supervise, evaluate,
investigate, and discipline; as well as the unconstitutional orders, approvals, ratification,
and toleration of wrongful conduct of Defendants YEE, WILLIAMS, SANCHEZ,
DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, WILSON, GODOWN or DOE 1, and DOES 2-10, were a moving
force and/or proximate cause of the deprivations of the clearly established and well-
settled constitutional rights of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as
more fully set forth in ¶ 60 above.
99.
Defendants subjected Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ to their wrongful conduct, depriving
Plaintiff of rights described herein, knowingly, maliciously, and with conscious and
reckless disregard for whether the rights and safety of Plaintiff and others would be
violated by their acts and/or omissions.
100. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional actions, omissions,
customs, policies, practices, and procedures of Defendants YEE, WILLIAMS,
SANCHEZ, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, WILSON, GODOWN, and DOES 2-10, as described
above, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ sustained injuries and damages, and is entitled to relief as
described above at ¶¶ 86-87, including compensatory and punitive damages and
penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 22 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
23/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 23
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
COUNT THREE
––VIOLATION OF TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
(ADA) AND THE REHABILITATION ACT (RA)––
AGAINST DEFENDANTS OUSD and OSPD
101.
Plaintiff realleges each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth
here.
102. Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) upon a finding,
among other things, that “society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with
disabilities,” and that such forms of discrimination continue to be a “serious and
pervasive social problem.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(2).
103. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ is a “qualified individual” suffering from disabilities
including, but not limited to, emotional disturbance, a disability that substantially limits
his ability to perform major life activities, including but not limited to, learning, reading,
concentrating, thinking, and communicating. 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2); Section 504 of the
RA of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794; 28 C.F.R. 42.540(k).
104.
Defendants OUSD and OSPD are public entities under Title II of the ADA. 42
U.S.C. § 12131(1)(A). Title II of the ADA applies generally to a public entity’s “services,
programs, or activities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Specifically, Title II of the ADA applies to
the services of Defendants OUSD and OSPD, including detentions and arrests.
Furthermore, respondeat superior liability applies to Title II claims.
105. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ is informed, and believes, and thereon alleges, that
Defendants OUSD and OSPD receive federal assistance and funds, and are therefore
subject to the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. Defendants OUSD and OSPD are
within the mandate of the RA that no person with a disability may be “excluded from
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 23 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
24/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 24
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity. 29 U.S.C. § 794.
106. As described herein, Defendants arrested Plaintiff because of his disabilities and
characteristics related to his disabilities. Defendants also failed to reasonably
accommodate Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s disabilities in the course of detaining and
arresting him, causing him to suffer greater injury in the process than other detainees or
arrestees who are not disabled like him. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants
OUSD’s and OSPD’s violations of the ADA and RA, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ sustained
serious injuries and is entitled to damages, penalties, costs, and attorneys’ fees as set forth
in ¶¶ 86-87, above.
COUNT FOUR
––VIOLATION OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION
ACT (IDEA)––
AGAINST DEFENDANT OUSD and OSPD
107. Plaintiff realleges each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth
here.
108. Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) upon a finding
that schools must “provid[e] incentives for whole-school approaches… [and] positive
behavioral interventions and supports” to students with disabilities and that “[g]reater
efforts are needed to prevent the intensification of problems connected with mislabeling
and high dropout rates among minority children with disabilities. 20 U.S.C. § 1400.
109. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ suffers from disabilities including, but not limited to,
emotional disturbance and is protected under the IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A)(i).
110. Defendant OUSD is an educational service agency under 20 U.S.C. § 1401(5).
Defendant OUSD owns, operates, manages, directs, and controls the Defendant OSPD,
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 24 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
25/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 25
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
and employs and/or is responsible for other Defendants in this action. Furthermore,
respondeat superior liability applies to IDEA claims.
111. As described herein, Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed under his
Individual Education Plan (IEP), and abused, used excessive force, and arrested Plaintiff
because of his disabilities and characteristics related to his disabilities. Defendants also
failed to accommodate Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s disabilities in the course of detaining
and arresting him, causing him to suffer emotional trauma in the process than other
detainees or arrestees who are not disabled like him. As a direct and proximate result of
Defendants OUSD’s and OSPD’s violations of the IDEA, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ
sustained serious injuries and is entitled to damages, penalties, costs, and attorneys’ fees
as set forth in ¶¶ 86-87, above.
COUNT FIVE
––DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION––
ALL DEFENDANTS
112.
Plaintiff realleges each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth
here.
113. Through their actions, omissions, customs, and policies as described above, each
Defendant, acting in concert/conspiracy as described above, violated the rights, protected
by the California Constitution, of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, including but not limited to the
following:
a. The right to enjoy and defend life and liberty; acquire, possess, and protect
property; and pursue and obtain happiness and privacy, as secured by theCalifornia Constitution, Article 1, § 1;
b. The right to be free from unlawful and/or unreasonable seizure of one’s
person as secured by the California Constitution, Article 1, § 13.
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 25 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
26/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 26
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
114. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of the rights under the
California Constitution of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff sustained injuries and
damages, and is entitled to relief as described above at ¶¶ 86-87, including compensatory
and punitive damages and penalties, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
COUNT SIX
––CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 52.1 (BANE ACT)––
DEFENDANTS ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, OUSD, AND OSPD
115. Plaintiff realleges each and every paragraph in this Complaint as if fully set forth
here.
116. By their acts, omissions, customs, and policies, each Defendant, acting in
concert/conspiracy, as described above, violated Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s rights under
California Civil Code § 52.1, and the following clearly established rights under the
United States Constitution and California Constitution:
a. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as secured by
the Fourth Amendment;
b.
The right to be free from excessive and unreasonable force in the course ofarrest or detention as secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;
c. The right to be free from invasion of privacy as secured by the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments;
d. The right to be free from the deprivation of life, liberty, and property
without due process of law, including the right to be free from invasion of
privacy as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment;
e. The right to be free from retaliation and denial of equal protection forexercise of rights, speech, and expression, as secured by the First and
Fourteenth Amendments;
f. The right to Equal Protection of Laws, and to be free from discrimination,
as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment;
g. The right to reasonable accommodation for his disabilities as secured by
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act;
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 26 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
27/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 27
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
h. The right to enjoy and defend life and liberty; acquire, possess, and protect
property; and pursue and obtain safety, happiness, and privacy, as secured by the California Constitution, Article 1, § 1;
i. The right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of one’s personas secured by the California Constitution, Article 1, § 13;
j. The right to be free from unreasonable or excessive force, as secured by
the California Constitution, Article 1, § 13;
k. The right to be free from unlawful searches as secured by California Penal
Code § 4030 and 15 California Code of Regulations § 1360;
l. The right to protection from bodily restraint, harm, or personal insult, as
secured by California Civil Code § 43.
117. Separate from, and above and beyond, Defendants’ attempted interference,
interference with, and violation of, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s rights, Defendants violated
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s rights by the following conduct constituting threats,
intimidation, or coercion:
a. striking, punching, restraining, choking, and using force against Plaintiff
RODRIGUEZ in the absence of any threat or justification whatsoever;
b. threatening violence against Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ in violation of
California Civil Code § 52.1(j), i.e., speech that “threatens violenceagainst a specific person . . . and the person . . . against whom the threat is
directed reasonably fears that, because of his speech, violence will becommitted against them or their property and that the person threatening
violence had the apparent ability to carry out the threat,” e.g. Defendant
JOHNSON telling Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ to “sit your ass down” andforcing him to sit back down in his wheelchair;
c. detaining Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ without reasonable suspicion;
d. arresting Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ without probable cause;
e. continuing Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s arrest and custody after any probable
cause that Defendants may have erroneously believed existed to justify
arresting Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ had eroded, such that the officers’
conduct became intentionally coercive and wrongful; and
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 27 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
28/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 28
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
f. violating Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s rights to be free, under Cal. Const. Art.
1, § 13, from unlawful seizures by both wrongful arrest and excessiveforce.
118. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of California Civil Code
§ 52.1 and of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s rights under the United States and California
Constitutions and statutes, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ sustained injuries and damages and is
entitled to relief as set forth above at ¶¶ 86-87 and all damages allowed by California
Civil Code §§ 52, 52.1 and California law, including but not limited to costs, attorneys’
fees, treble damages, and civil penalties.
COUNT SEVEN
––CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 51.7––DEFENDANTS ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, OUSD AND OSPD
119. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ realleges each and every paragraph in this Complaint as if
fully set forth here.
120. By their acts, omissions, customs, and policies, each Defendant acting in
concert/conspiracy, as described above, violated Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s rights secured
by California Civil Code § 51.7 to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of
violence, committed against his person or property because of his disability, race, color,
or national origin.
121. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of California Civil Code
§ 51.7. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ sustained injuries and damages, and is entitled to relief as
set forth above at ¶¶ 86-87 and all damages allowed by California Civil Code §§ 51.7, 52,
52.1, and California law, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees, costs, treble
damages, and civil penalties.
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 28 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
29/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 29
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
COUNT EIGHT
––ASSAULT AND BATTERY––
DEFENDANTS ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, OUSD AND OSPD
122. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ realleges each and every paragraph of this complaint as if
fully set forth here.
123. The actions, omissions, customs, and policies of Defendants, as described above,
were intentional and/or reckless, harmful, threatening, and/or offensive, and a proximate
cause of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s damages.
124. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ assault and battery, Plaintiff
RODRIGUEZ sustained injuries and damages, and is entitled to relief as set forth above
at ¶¶ 86-87.
COUNT NINE
––NEGLIGENCE; PERSONAL INJURIES––
ALL DEFENDANTS
125. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ realleges each and every paragraph in this complaint as if
fully set forth here.
126.
At all times, each Defendant owed Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ the duty to act with
due care in the execution and enforcement of any right, law, or legal obligation.
127. At all times, each Defendant owed Plaintiff the duty to act with reasonable care.
128. These general duties of reasonable care and due care owed to Plaintiff
RODRIGUEZ by all Defendants include but are not limited to the following specific
obligations:
a. To properly and adequately screen, investigate, background-check, hire,
train, monitor, supervise, discipline and terminate school security officers;
b. To refrain from releasing Plaintiff’s identity, private information, medicalcondition, and video recordings of Plaintiff to the public and the media;
c. To refrain from violating Plaintiff’s privacy;
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 29 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
30/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 30
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
d. To prohibit racial profiling by school security officers, and to refrain from
engaging in racial profiling;
e. To refrain from treating Plaintiff differently because of his race, national
origin, ancestry, and/or disabilities;
f.
To refrain from using, or causing to be used, excessive and/orunreasonable force against Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, or tolerating such
conduct by others;
g. To refrain from causing Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ to be wrongfully
searched; arrested, and/or detained, or tolerating such conduct by others;
h. To refrain from conduct that constitutes a substantial factor causing the
violation of Plaintiff’s rights;
i. To use generally accepted procedures and tactics that are reasonable and
necessary under the circumstances;
j. To refrain from tactics and conduct that led to the otherwise unnecessary
seizure of and use of force against Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ;
k. To refrain from abusing their authority granted them by law; and
l. To refrain from violating Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s rights guaranteed bythe United States and California Constitutions, as set forth above, and as
otherwise protected by law.
129.
Additionally, these general duties of reasonable care and due care owed to
Plaintiffs by Defendants OUSD, OSPD, YEE, WILLIAMS, SANCHEZ, DUBOIS,
VASQUEZ, WILSON, GODOWN, and DOES 2-10, include but are not limited to the
following specific obligations:
a. to use reasonable care to discover whether a potential employee is unfit orincompetent; or who possesses qualities that make him or her likely to
cause harm to other persons or property in view of the work or other
instrumentalities entrusted to him or her; or who may be incompetent because of a reckless, vicious, or predatory disposition;
b. to exercise reasonable care in screening, hiring and employing persons to
perform work or other activities on behalf of the OUSD and/or OSPD;
c. to avoid hiring, or proposing or recommending for hiring, a person known,
or who reasonably should have been known, to be incompetent or unfit
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 30 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
31/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 31
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
and likely to cause harm to students in view of the work entrusted to him
or her; or who possesses qualities that make him or her likely to causeharm to other persons or property in view of the work or other
instrumentalities entrusted to him or her; or who may be incompetent
because of a reckless, vicious, or predatory disposition;
d.
to exercise reasonable care in supervising persons to perform work orother activities on behalf of Defendants OUSD and/or OSPD;
e. to avoid assigning tasks to an employee known, or who reasonably should
have been known, to be incompetent or unfit and likely to harm other
persons or property in view of the work to be entrusted to him or her; orwho possesses qualities that make him or her likely to cause harm to other
persons or property in view of the work or other instrumentalities
entrusted to him or her; or who may be incompetent because of a reckless,vicious, or predatory disposition;
f.
to exercise reasonable care in determining whether to take appropriatecorrective action, or to suspend or terminate an incompetent or unfitemployee likely to cause harm to a student while performing tasks
activities assigned to him or her; or who possesses qualities that make him
or her likely to cause harm to other persons or property in view of thework or other instrumentalities entrusted to him or her; or who may be
incompetent because of a reckless, vicious, or predatory disposition; and
g. to make, enforce, and at all times act in conformance with policies and
customs that are lawful and protective of individual rights, includingPlaintiff’s.
130. Defendants, through their acts and omissions, breached each and every one of the
aforementioned duties owed to Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.
131. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff
RODRIGUEZ sustained injuries and damages, and is entitled to relief as set forth above
at ¶¶ 86-87.
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 31 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
32/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 32
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
COUNT TEN
––False Arrest or Imprisonment––
DEFENDANTS ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, SANCHEZ, 2-10,
OUSD, AND OSPD
132.
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ realleges each and every paragraph in this complaint as if
fully set forth here.
133. At no time during the events described above, or at all other pertinent times, did
Defendants have a warrant for the arrest of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, nor did Defendants
have any facts or information that constituted probable cause that Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ
had committed or was about to commit a crime. Defendants also lacked reasonable
suspicion to detain Plaintiff at any time, and Defendants were not engaged in a lawful
investigative detention of Plaintiff.
134. Defendants, and each of them, intentionally and unlawfully exercised force to
restrain, detain, and confine Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, putting restraint on Plaintiff
RODRIGUEZ’s freedom of movement, and compelled Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ to remain
and/or move against his will. Defendants authorized, directed, and assisted in procuring,
without process, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s unlawful arrest and imprisonment.
135. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and/or omissions as set forth
above, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ sustained injuries and damages and is entitled to relief as
set forth at ¶¶ 86-87, above.
COUNT ELEVEN
––Abuse of Process––DEFENDANT DUBOIS, DOES 2-10, AND OUSD
136. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ realleges each and every paragraph in this complaint as if
fully set forth here.
137. Knowing about Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s disability, Defendant DUBOIS
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 32 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
33/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 33
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
unlawfully took Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s cell phone, called police against Plaintiff
RODRIGUEZ, and made false and misleading statements to police officers to effect
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s arrest. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ was arrested and taken to the
police station. The juvenile proceedings based on Defendant DUBOIS’ false complaint
resulted in Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ being kept in juvenile hall for one week.
138. Defendant DUBOIS had the ulterior purpose and motive of acting on his personal
animus toward Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, based on Plaintiff’s disability and his race.
139. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ suffered severe emotional distress from this unjust abuse
of Defendant DUBOIS’ authority and power, including the exacerbation of Plaintiff’s
emotional disturbance and difficulty engaging with his education.
140. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and/or omissions as set forth
above, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ sustained injuries and damages and is entitled to relief as
set forth at ¶¶ 86-87, above.
COUNT TWELVE
––Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress––
DEFENDANTS ANGELO,JOHNSON, DUBOIS, DOES 2-10, OUSD AND OSPD
141. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ realleges each and every paragraph in this complaint as if
fully set forth here.
142. Defendants’ conduct was outrageous, and it was so extreme that it went beyond
all possible bounds of decency. Defendants abused their positions of authority that gave
them real or apparent power to affect Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s interests. Defendants
knew or must have known that Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ had emotional disturbance was
particularly vulnerable to emotional distress. Defendants further knew or must have
known that their conduct would likely result in harm due to mental distress. Defendants
intended to cause Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ emotional distress.
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 33 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
34/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 34
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
143. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ suffered severe emotional distress, including, but not
limited to, substantial and long-lasting suffering, anguish, fright, horror, nervousness,
grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, mortification, embarrassment, depression, and
shame.
144. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s
severe emotional distress.
145. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and/or omissions as set forth
above, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ sustained injuries and damages and is entitled to relief as
set forth at ¶¶ 86-87, above.
COUNT THIRTEEN
––Intrusion into Private Affairs––
DEFENDANTS WILSON, GODOWN, OUSD, OSPD, AND DOES 1-10
146. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ realleges each and every paragraph in this complaint as if
fully set forth here.
147. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the events that occurred on or
about January 22, 2014 because only those students, faculty and other employees/agents
of the OUSD and/or OSPD who were present during the events, or who would later
investigate the events, would see or hear about them. Further, Plaintiff had a reasonable
expectation that Defendants would not disseminate to anyone outside of Defendants
OUSD and OSPD information about the events, including but not limited to: Plaintiff’s
name, his beating at the hands of OUSD and OSPD staff, and the surveillance video that
captured portions of these events.
148. Defendants intentionally intruded upon this expectation of privacy in the events
that occurred on or about January 22, 2014 by releasing information about the events—
including but not limited to Plaintiff’s name; his beating at the hands of OUSD and
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 34 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
35/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 35
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
OSPD staff, and the surveillance video that captured portions of these events—to various
local, national and international news media outlets and to all staff, students, and parents
of students in OUSD.
149.
Defendants’ intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, because a
reasonable person would find it highly offensive that his name and video footage
showing his beating would be released to local, national and international news media.
150. As a result of Defendants’ intrusion, Plaintiff has suffered serious emotional
distress including, but not limited to, substantial and long-lasting suffering, anguish,
fright, horror, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, mortification,
embarrassment, depression, and shame, and Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor
in causing his harm.
151. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and/or omissions as set forth
above, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ sustained injuries and damages and is entitled to relief as
set forth at ¶¶ 86-87, above.
COUNT FOURTEEN––Public Disclosure of Private Facts––
DEFENDANTS WILSON, GODOWN, OUSD, OSPD, AND DOES 1-10
152. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ realleges each and every paragraph in this complaint as if
fully set forth here.
153. Defendants publicized private information about Plaintiff, a minor, including but
not limited to: his name, his beating at the hands of , and the video . This private
information was not of legitimate public concern, nor did it have a substantial connection
to a matter of public concern; rather, the publicity was a morbid and sensational prying
into Plaintiff’s private life for its own sake. Further, Defendants made this information
public both by communicating it to the public at large and by communicating it to local
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 35 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
36/37
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 36
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
and international news media, as well as to all staff, students, and parents of students at
OUSD, such that the information was substantially certain to become public knowledge.
154. A reasonable person in Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s position would consider this
publicity highly offensive. Neither Plaintiff nor his parents consented to the publicity
explicitly by voluntarily seeking public attention.
155. Defendants knew, or acted with reckless disregard of the fact, that a reasonable
person in Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s position would consider the publicity highly
offensive.
156. As a result of Defendants’ intrusion, Plaintiff has suffered serious emotional
distress including, but not limited to, substantial and long-lasting suffering, anguish,
fright, horror, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, mortification,
embarrassment, depression, and shame, and Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor
in causing his harm.
157. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and/or omissions as set forth
above, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ sustained injuries and damages and is entitled to relief as
set forth at ¶¶ 86-87, above.
JURY DEMAND
158. Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial in this action.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief against each
and every Defendant herein, jointly and severally:
1. Compensatory and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof
and which is fair, just, and reasonable;
2. Punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California law in an amount
according to proof and which is fair, just, and reasonable;
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 36 of 37
-
8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.
37/37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3. All other damages, treble damages, penalties, costs, interest, andattorneys’ fees as allowed by 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and 12205; 29
U.S.C. § 794a; the ADA; the RA; California Civil Code §§ 51.7, 52, 52.1,
and 3294; California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5; and as otherwisemay be allowed by California and/or federal law;
4. Injunctive relief, including but not limited to the following:
a. an order prohibiting Defendants and their employees/agents,
officers and security guards from unlawfully interfering with the
rights of Plaintiff and others to be free from unreasonable searchesand seizures and excessive and unreasonable force;
b. an order requiring Defendants to institute and enforce appropriateand lawful policies, procedures, and supervision concerning
detentions, arrests, and the use of force;
c. an order prohibiting Defendants and their officers and securityguards from engaging in the “code of silence” as may be supported
by the evidence in this case;
d. an order prohibiting Defendants from unlawfully interfering with
the rights of Plaintiff and other OUSD students, and students, to
freedom of speech, association, beliefs and conscience; and
e. An order requiring Defendants to train all OSPD officersconcerning the Court’s orders in this matter, including the issues
raised in injunctive relief requests (a)–(d), above.
5. Such other and further relief as supported by the evidence in
his case and as this Court and/or the jury may deem
appropriate.
By Plaintiff’s Attorneys,UNITED FOR EQUALITY AND AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION LEGAL DEFENSE FUND (UEAALDF)
BY: _/s/ Ronald Cruz_____________________ Ronald Cruz (State Bar No. 267038)
1985 Linden Street
Oakland, California 94607(510) 384-8859 (Ronald Cruz)
Dated: January 22 2016
Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 37 of 37