San Antonio Express-News lawsuit.pdf · Case 5:14-cv-00590 Document 1 Filed 07/02/14 Page 2 of 13...

Case 5:14-cv-00590 Document 1 Filed 07/02/14 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

DESTINY ANNMARIE RIOS,

Plaintiff

vs. CASE NO. 5: 14-CV-590

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS;OFFICER TRAVIS REICH, Individually;§OFFICER DELGADO, Individually;OFFICER VALENZUELA, Individually;WILLIAM McMANUS, Individually;

Defendants

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:

COMES NOW Plaintiff, Destiny Annemarie Rios, and files this Plaintiff's Original

Complaint, and brings this action against the City of San Antonio, Texas, Officer Travis Reich,

Individually, Officer Delgado, Individually, Officer Valenzuela, Individually; and William

McManus, Individually, as said Defendants, jointly and severally, have denied Plaintiff's rights

guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America and the State of

Texas, and •or cause of action would respectfully show this Honorable Court the following:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 (federal

question) and 28 U.S.C. §1343(3)(civil rights) and statutory provisions as hereinafter more fully

appear. This court also has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367 to hear the

state claims that will be set forth in this complaint because they arise out of the same

controversy. Venue is proper in the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, as this is

the district where the claim arose in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, Destiny Annemarie Rios, (hereinafter referred to as "Destiny Rios"

and/or "Plaintiff") is a resident of San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas.

1


2. Defendant, the City of San Antonio, Texas, (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant

City of San Antonio" and/or "Defendant City"), is a political subdivision of the State of Texas,

and may be served with summons upon City of San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, 3111 Floor,

City Hall, 100 S. Flores Street, San Antonio, Texas 78205.

3. Defendant, Officer Travis Reich, (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Reich"),

was at all times material to this suit, an officer employed by the San Antonio Police Department.

Each of the acts complained of herein arises from the conduct of this Defendant while acting

under of color of state law, and was committed within the scope of his employment and authority

with the San Antonio Police Department. Defendant Reich may be served with summons at his

place of employment San Antonio Police Department, 214 E. Nueva Street, San Antonio, Texas

78217.

4. Defendant, Officer Delgado, (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Delgado"), was

at all times material to this suit, an officer employed by the San Antonio Police Department. Each

of the acts complained of herein arises from the conduct of this Defendant while acting under of

color of state law, and was committed within the scope of his employment and authority with the

San Antonio Police Department. Defendant Delgado may be served with summons at his place of

employment San Antonio Police Department, 214 E. Nueva Street, San Antonio, Texas 78217.

5. Defendant, Officer Valenzuela, (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant

Valenzuela"), was, at all times material to this suit, an officer employed by the San Antonio

Police Department. Each of the acts complained of herein arises from the conduct of this

Defendant while acting under of color of state law, and was committed within the scope of his

employment and authority with the San Antonio Police Department. Defendant Valenzuela may

be served with summons at his place of employment San Antonio Police Department, 214 E.

Nueva Street, San Antonio, Texas 78217.

6. Defendant, William McManus, (hereinafter referred to as "McManus"), was, at

all times material to this suit, the Chief of Police employed by the San Antonio Police

Department. Each of the acts complained of herein arises from the conduct of this Defendant

while acting under color of state law and was committed within the scope of his employment and

2


authority with the San Antonio Police Department. Defendant McManus may be served with

summons at his place of employment San Antonio Police Department, 214 E. Nueva Street, San

Antonio, Texas 78217.

FACTS

7. Whenever, in this complaint it is alleged that any Defendant did any act, thing

and/or omission, it is meant that Defendant and/or Defendant's officers, agents, servants

employees or representatives did such act, thing and/or omission and that at the time it was done

with full authorization and/or ratification of Defendant or done in the normal and routine course

and scope of employment of Defendant and/or Defendant's officers, agents, servants, employeesor representatives.

8. On July 4, 2012, at approximately 5:50 p.m. in the afternoon, Destiny Rios

was walking home where she lived with her grandmother when she was initially approached byDefendant Reich, a uniformed San Antonio police Officer on Culebra Road near 27th Street, in

San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. Destiny Rios asked why she was being stopped. Defendant

Reich advised her that he was authorized to stop anyone found in the West Side neighborhood.On this occasion, Defendant Reich did not observe Destiny committing a crime. At the time of

the stop, Defendant Reich unlawfully detained Destiny Rios for investigation without

reasonable suspicion to believe Destiny Rios had committed a crime or was about to commit a

crime.

9. After the stop, Destiny Rios was cooperative and provided Defendant Reich with

her identification. Defendant Reich ran a background check on his computer. No criminal

records were found. Defendant Reich then asked Destiny Rios for her social security number.

Destiny Rios again was cooperative, and provided Defendant Reich with the requestedinformation. Defendant Reich then accused Destiny Rios of using heroin, and demanded to look

inside her purse. Destiny Rios was again cooperative, and complied with Defendant Reich's

demand to search her purse. No illegal drugs or weapons were found inside the purse.

Defendant Reich then told Destiny Rios she was free to leave and returned to his patrol car.

3


10. Shortly thereafter, Defendant Reich returned and arrested Destiny Rios after

learning that she had an outstanding warrant for alleged prostitution. Destiny Rios was

walking away when Defendant Reich suddenly approached her from behind and immediatelygrabbed her by the back of her neck. Officer Reich forcibly grabbed and twisted her arm(s), and

handcuffed both hands behind her back. When Destiny Rios turned her head to ask Defendant

Reich about the reason for her arrest, Defendant Reich violently threw Destiny Rios face down to

the ground. Defendant Reich positioned himself on top of Destiny Rios, with his hand(s)

gripping the back of her neck and his knee(s) planted on her back in the middle of her shoulders

forcing her face and body down into the asphalt surface. Defendant Reich then yelled out that

Destiny Rios was resisting arrest, and called for assistance from other officers parked in the area.

Destiny Rios, a 5'1" pregnant female weighing approximately 126 pounds was incapacitated, and

she could not get back up. At no time during this incident was Destiny Rios resisting arrest.

11. Defendant Reich had Destiny Rios in custody face down on the asphalt surface

with both of her hands restrained in handcuffs behind her back before Defendants Delgado and

Valenzuela, also uniformed San Antonio police officers, arrived at the scene in their patrol cars.

Defendants Reich, Delgado and Valenzuela decided to punish Destiny Rios, and began to

brutally and savagely beat her while she lay there helplessly in handcuffs face down on the

ground. Defendants Reich, Delgado and/or Valenzuela savagely and brutally beat, punched and

kicked Destiny Rios in her head, face and body as a whole with a boot planted in the middle of

her shoulder blades forcing her body into the asphalt surface. Destiny Rios began screaming in

agony immediately. Destiny Rios yelled out she was pregnant and begged Defendants Reich,

Delgado and Valenzuela to stop beating her. Defendants Reich, Delgado and Valenzuela

continued to brutally beat, punch and kick Destiny Rios while she lay defenseless and semi-

conscious on the asphalt surface. Destiny Rios sustained numerous severe and painful bodily

injuries as a result of the excessive and unnecessary force used by Defendants Reich, Delgadoand Valenzuela. The incident described herein and the reaction of Defendant McManus to the

assault of Destiny Rios by Defendants Reich, Delgado and Valenzuela is captured on video

recording.

4


11. As a result of Defendants' actions and/or inactions, Plaintiff sustained numerous

emotional and physical injuries to her back and body as a whole, in addition to pain and

suffering, including, but not limited to, multiple lacerations, abrasions and bruising on her face,

back, chest, arms, shoulders, headaches and loss of consciousness, severe abdominal crampingand pain, intense bleeding from her uterus and discharge of tissue resulting in a miscarriage,mental anguish and emotional distress, among other things.

12. On the occasion in question, Defendants Reich, Delgado and/or Valenzuela

intentionally refused to allow the ambulance to transport Destiny Rios to the hospital for medical

treatment of the numerous and painful bodily injuries she sustained from the brutal and savage

beating while in police custody. Destiny Rios was loaded into the patrol car, and transported her

to the Magistrate's Office at the Bexar County Jail. Destiny Rios was charged with resisting

arrest and prostitution. Both charges were later dismissed.

13. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that in committing said

acts and/or omissions, each Defendant was the agent and employee of Defendant City of San

Antonio and/or each other Defendant and was acting within such agency and employment, and

that each Defendant was acting under color of state law.

14. The Defendants' acts amount to an unreasonable search and seizure of Destiny

Rios without reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause.

15. The Defendants' acts amount to an excessive and/or unnecessary use of force.

Said excessive/unnecessary use of force is objectively unreasonable as no reasonable police

officer and/or law enforcement officer given the same or similar circumstances would have

initiated such a brutal and savage attack on any person seized and in the position of Destiny Rios,

and who was in custody and/or under the control of law enforcement.

16. Said excessive force committed against Destiny Rios by the individual

Defendants was not performed in a good faith manner to maintain or restore discipline, but was

committed intentionally, maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of punishing and

causing injury and/or serious bodily harm to Destiny Rios.

5


17. At all times pertinent and material hereto, Defendants City of San Antonio and/or

San Antonio Police Department authorized and/or ratified the wrongful and tortious acts and/or

omissions described herein.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF—§1983

18. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 8 through 17 are herein incorporated by

reference, the same as fully set forth verbatim for any and all purposes of this pleading.

19. Section 1983. The Civil Rights Act of 1871 (Klu Klux Klan Act), now codified

as 42 U.S.C. §1983 as federal law provides: "Every person who, under color of any statute,

ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any state or territory or the District of Columbia,

subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or any other person within the

jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any laws privileges or immunities secured by the

Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or

other proper proceeding for redress." 42 U.S.C. §1983.

20. The state action requirement for standing under 42 U.S.C. §1983 has more

commonly been referred to as "color of state law", from the statute itself. Destiny Rios is

informed and believes and thereupon alleges that in committing said acts and/or omissions, each

Defendant was the agent and employee of each other defendant and was acting within such

agency and employment and that each Defendant was acting under color of state law.

21. 42 U.S.C. §1983 requires that the conduct complained of must have deprived the

person of some privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

As such, Destiny Rios alleges that Defendants, jointly and/or severally deprived her of her

Fourth amendment rights and those rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Fourth and

Fifth amendments to the Constitution incorporated and applied to the states through the

Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants violated this provision by the following actions and/or

omissions, inter alia:

a. by using excessive force in the course of Defendants' attempted custody of

Plaintiff, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and its "reasonableness"standard. Plaintiff therefore pleads that she was unlawfully beaten, kicked andharmed. Such actions resulted directly and only from the use of force that was

6


clearly excessive to the need, and the excessiveness of which was objectivelyunreasonable;

b. by failing to intervene, where such intervention would have prevented theviolations and/or injuries of Plaintiff

c. by failing to provide supervision and/or proper training, where the necessity ofsame was necessary, required by law and/or needed.

d. by detaining Plaintiff in violation of her Fourth Amendment expectation ofprivacy and guarantee to security from unreasonable search and seizure withoutreasonable suspicion and/or probable cause.

e. by intentionally denying and/or delaying Plaintiff the access to medical care

and/or failing to provide Plaintiff with adequate medical care for injuries receivedwhile in custody in violation of her Fourteenth Amendment right to due process

22. The individual Defendants' actions and/or omissions were "objectivelyunreasonable" in light of the facts and circumstance confronting them without regard to their

underlying intent or motivation. Clearly, careful attention to the facts and circumstances of this

particular case demonstrates the unreasonableness of the individuals Defendants' actions. In

light of the fact that Destiny Rios was already restrained prior to being brutally beaten and not

resisting arrest by Defendants, it is initially absurd that the Defendants would deem force was

warranted and/or required. Destiny Rios was restrained in handcuffs lying face down on the

ground as she was repeatedly beaten by Defendants. Destiny Rios never posed an immediate

threat to the safety of the individual Defendants. Furthermore, Destiny Rios was not armed with

any kind of weapon. For these and other reasons, it was objectively unreasonable for Defendants

Reich, Delgado and Valenzuela to savagely beat and brutally assault Destiny Rios on the

occasion described herein.

23. §1983—Excessive Force Plaintiff pleads that Defendants used excessive force in

the course of the officers' supposed arrest, and/or investigatory stop, and/or other "seizure" of a

free citizen, such as Destiny Rios, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and its reasonableness"

standard. Plaintiff therefore pleads that Destiny Rios was unlawfully assaulted, and physically

beaten by Defendants Reich, Delgado and Valenzuela. Said actions resulted directly and only

from the use of force that was clearly excessive to the need, and the excessiveness of which was

objectively unreasonable.

7


24. §1983—Search & Seizure. The Fourth Amendment guarantees security from

unreasonable search and seizure. It includes the expectation of privacy, the right to be free from

detention, search and/or arrest without reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause to believe the

seized person committed a crime. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants, jointly and/or

severally have violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Destiny Rios when she was

unreasonably and unlawfully detained and searched. When a person, such as Destiny Rios, is

seized and is not a "suspect" and is committing no crime, but is forced to undergo policeescalation and brutality, the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the

intrusion is necessarily diminished. As such, the actions and/or omissions of said officers cannot

be justified under the circumstances of the instant case.

25. Likewise, Defendants are liable if they conduct the search or seizure in an abusive

manner even if they have the lawful authority to conduct the search and seizure. Destiny Rios in

this situation is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article

I, Sec. 9 of the Texas Constitution. The right to security in person and property protected by the

Fourth Amendment may be invaded in quite different ways by searches and seizures. A search

comprises the individual interest in privacy; a seizure deprives the individual of dominion over

his or her person or property. In this instance, the search of Destiny Rios ran afoul of the Fourth

Amendment because the search was conducted in an unnecessarily cruel and/or dangerous

manner.

26. §1983—Municipal Liability Under §1983, Defendant City of San Antonio is

also liable for failing to supervise and/or train, and/or acquiescence in unconstitutional behavior

by subordinates. First, said Defendant failed to properly train and failed to properly supervise

their officers. Said Defendant is liable under §1983, as there is a causal connection between his

actions and/or omissions and the alleged constitutional violations, as outlined throughout this

entire pleading. In fact, said Defendant did not sanction the individual Defendantsconduct and

did not punish them accordingly, thereby sanctioning their actions, amounting to a departmental

policy that violated the Plaintiffs civil rights. Said Defendant's failure to supervise or train

amounted to gross negligence or deliberate indifference.

8


27. It is also well established that municipalities are liable under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for

constitutional torts that are in compliance with their customs, practices policies or procedures. A

municipality is liable for constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to governmental custom

even though such custom has not received formal approval through the body's official decision

making channels. In this case, Defendant City of San Antonio is liable because it sanctioned the

custom, practice and/or policy or procedures of, inter alia, (1) using excessive force to effectuate

what are otherwise routine arrests; (2) using excessive force when such is not necessary and/or

allowable; (3) ignoring the serious need for training and supervision of their officers in regards to

the use of force; (4) failing to discipline those persons whom are found to have engaged in the

use of excessive force upon those entrusted to their care and /or under their control; (5) failing to

adequately supervise and/or observe their employees and/or officers; (6) failing to provide

adequate training in regard to the availability of alternative means of detaining persons apart

from the use of excessive force; and (7) failing to train officers in the proper use of force for

prevention of escape and/or detention. Such policy and/or customs were the "moving force"

behind the constitutional violation of excessive force exacted upon Destiny Rios, and were the

cause in fact of her injuries.

Plaintiff alleges, inter alia:

a. A continuing and pervasive pattern of civil rights abuses by the City of SanAntonio police officers against persons who live within the City.

b. The deliberate indifference of the City of San Antonio in failing to adequatelytrain, supervise and discipline police officers.

c. A continuing pattern of civil rights abuses that results from the Defendant City ofSan Antonio's deliberate conduct in establishing policy and custom that

encourages and acquiesces in Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rightsviolations.

d. Policies, practices and customs of these Defendants. That allowed the individualDefendants to use excessive force against citizens, and to subject persons to

outrageous, unreasonable and inhuman treatment that leads to serious injury andoften death.

e. Defendant City of San Antonio failed to discipline any of the officers who usedexcessive force although they were notified that Plaintiff had been savagelybeaten and suffered a miscarriage, and Defendant City of San Antonio's refusal to

9


discipline the Defendants effectively acted to ratify the conduct, and furtherevidences the existence of preexisting policy and custom of allowing Defendantsto engage in such conduct.

28. The actions and/or inaction taken in this case was uncalled for and taken pursuant

to the customary practices and/or policies or procedures that were sanctioned by all named entityDefendants. Liability for Defendant City of San Antonio is established under §1983 because the

"turns a blind eye" approach to the use of excessive force is a persistent, widespread practice of

the city employees—namely police officers—that, although not authorized by officially adopted

policy, is so common and well settled as to constitute a custom that fairly represents official

policy. Defendant City of San Antonio had actual or constructive knowledge of each practice,

custom, and/or policy or procedure and numerous prior incidents of such conduct and/ or

inaction as to establish accession to that custom by the policy makers. Defendant City of San

Antonio's unspoken policies above reflect a decision that shows deliberate indifference to the

risk that a violation of a particular constitutional or statutory rights will follow the decision. In

the alternative, Defendant City of San Antonio is liable under §1983 for failing to adopt clear

policies outlining the criteria for determining the need form the availability of and/or the means

by which to use force.

29. Moreover, Defendant City of San Antonio is liable for the inadequate training of

their officers under §1983. Liability attaches to Defendant City of San Antonio because its

failure to train officers amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of the persons with whom

they come in contact.

30. §1983—Qualified Good Faith Immunity Qualified good faith immunity

stands for the proposition that even though the civil rights of a complainant may have been

violated, if the officer engaged in the conduct in good •aith, there is no liability for that

individual. The standard by which an officer's entitlement to good faith qualified immunity is

objective not subjective. The determination of objective reasonableness must be based on a

version of the facts most favorable to the Plaintiff. To the extent that credibility or fact questions

exist, a fact-finder continues to be necessary. In the instant case, Plaintiff alleges that the

individual Defendants are not entitled to claim "qualified good faith immunity". Importantly, the

individual Defendants never had a good faith belief in their conduct because they acted in a

10


manner demonstrating that they were plainly incompetent and knowingly violated the civil rightsof Destiny Rios. When the pleadings (and/or facts) are taken in the light most favorable to the

Plaintiff, it is clear that Destiny Rios was unlawfully assaulted and repeatedly beaten byDefendants Reich, Delgado and Valenzuela after she had been restrained in handcuffs and was

lying face down and defenseless on the ground. Destiny Rios never posed an immediate threat

to the safety of the individual Defendants. Any reason given by the individual Defendants for

their unlawful actions does not warrant the application of qualified good faith immunity because

neither the individual Defendants nor any persons in the vicinity were ever in any danger. The

savage beating of a defenseless detainee restrained in handcuffs is never reasonable.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF—Texas Assault & Battery

31. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 8 through 17 are herein incorporated by

reference, the same as fully set •orth verbatim for any and all purposes of this pleading.

Furthermore, the claims brought by Plaintiff under this section only apply to the individual

Defendants. Any reference to "Defendants" in this section only applies to the individual

Defendants and does not include Defendant City of San Antonio,

32. As a pendant state cause of action, at all times material and relevant herein, the

individual Defendants, by acts and/or omissions and under color of state law did then and there

by acts and/or omissions, intentionally, knowingly and/or recklessly cause severe personal injury

to Destiny Rios through unconsented physical contact with her,

33. Under Texas law, the cause of action for excessive force is simply one for assault

and battery. Plaintiff alleges that the individual defendants committed an assault upon Destiny

Rios when she was intentionally, knowingly and/or recklessly beaten by Defendants Reich,

Delgado and Valenzuela after she had been restrained in handcuffs and was lying face down

and defenseless on the ground. Said assaultive conduct of the individual Defendants was

committed intentionally, knowingly and/or recklessly, and was the proximate cause of the

physical and emotional injuries, including the miscarriage suffered by Destiny Rios. Said

injuries were the direct and immediate consequence of Defendants' wrongful acts and a natural

and direct result of the assault resulting in the damages described herein.

11


34. At no time were the individual Defendants privileged to take the action, as force

was not necessary. Moreover, the individual Defendants' assault of Destiny Rios was not

objectively reasonable when balancing the amount of force used against the need for such force.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF—Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

35. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 8 through 17 are herein incorporated by

reference, the same as if fully set forth verbatim for any and all purposes of this pleading.

Furthermore, the claims brought by Plaintiff under this section only apply to the individual

Defendants. Any reference to "Defendants" in this section only applies to the individual

Defendants and does not include Defendant City of San Antonio.

36. As a pendant state cause of action, at all times material and relevant herein,

Defendants, by acts and/or omissions and under color of state law, intentionally and/or recklessly

inflicted emotional duress upon Destiny Rios, thereby she claims the tort of intentional infliction

of emotional distress. Destiny Rios alleges that the individual Defendants acted intentionally or

recklessly when beating her, and further alleges that such conduct was extreme and outrageous.

The actions of the individual Defendants caused Destiny Rios to suffer emotional distress and

physical injuries, including a miscarriage which was so severe that Destiny Rios required

treatment. No reasonable person should be expected to endure such.

DAMAGES

37. As a result of the foregoing unlawful and wrongful acts of Defendants, jointly and

severally, Plaintiff has been caused to suffer general damages which include, but are not limited

to, the following: both physical and emotional personal injury, pain and suffering, and emotional

and mental distress associated with the loss of her unborn child.

38. Said injuries have caused Plaintiff to incur special damages, which include but are

not limited to medical expenses associated with Plaintiff's personal physical and emotional

injuries and the loss of her unborn child.

39. Pursuant to the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act, 42 U.S.C.S. 1988, a

prevailing party in a §1983 case is entitled to recover its attorney's fees. Hence, Plaintiff further

prays for all costs and attorney fees associated with bringing the present case to trial.

12


40. In addition, Plaintiff prays for punitive damages against the individual

Defendants. Punitive damages are designed to punish and/or deter persons such as the individual

Defendants who have engaged in egregious wrongdoing. Punitive damages may be assessed

under §1983 when the conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it

involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that upon trial on the merits,

Plaintiff recover compensatory damages against Defendants, jointly and severally; that Plaintiff

also recover punitive damages against the individual Defendants in an amount to punish and/or

deter and to make an example of that Defendant in order to prevent similar future conduct; and

that Plaintiff recover against each Defendant all reasonable and necessary attorney's fees, court

costs and expenses in regards to the present litigation. Moreover, Plaintiff prays for all

prejudgment and post-judgment interest that can be assessed against the Defendants in the event

of recovery; and that Plaintiff recover against each Defendant any and all other general or

specific relief to which she proves herself to be justly entitled.

Respectfully Submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF GAYLE CALDAROLA8301 Broadway, Suite 100San Antonio, Texas 78209Phone: (210) 930-0777Fax: (210) 930-0784E-mail: lo2c3 u)shc_lobal.net

By:GAYLE CALDAROL_______State Bar No. 03614553Attorney fbr Plaintiff

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b).

13

CONTRACT Towrs

Foreign Country

I FORFEITURE/PENALTY I BANKRUPTCY OIHER STATUTES

Case 5:14-cv-00590 Document 1-1 Filed 07/02/14 Page 1 of 1

JS 44 (Rev. 12/12) CIVIL COVER SHEETThe JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except asprovided by local rules of court. This form approved by the Judicial Conlbrence of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for thepurpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEF INS7Ri 1(110N5 ON NEAT PA( ;P: OF illIS R)M)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTSDESTINY ANNMARIE RIOS CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS; OFFICER TRAVIS REICH,

Individually; OFFICER DELGADO, Individually; OFFICERVALENZUELA, Individually; WILLIAM McMANUS, Individually

(b) County of Residence of First Listed PlaiMiff BEXAR County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(ER LPL IN US PLAINMF (ASEN (IN (IS. PLAINTIN, (ASES ONLY)NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF

THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Addre.vs, and Telephone Numbel) Attorneys (11Kiumn)Gayle Caldarola, Law Offices of Gayle Caldarola N/A8301 Broadway, Suite100, San Antonio, Texas 78209(210) 930-0777

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X- in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "X- in One Box jhr Plain(iff(For Diversity (*uses Only) and One Box JOr Oefendant)

O 1 U.S. Government N 3 Federal Question l'TF DEE PTF DEEPlaintiff ((1.5 Govermnent Not a Nrqr, Citizen of This Stale 0 1 El 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 0 4 0 4

of Business In This State

0 2 U.S. Government 0 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State El 2 El 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 0 5 0 5Defendant (1ndicate (Wizens/rip ofParties in hem of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 0 3 CI 3 Foreign Nation 0 6 0 6

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Mace an "X" in One Box Onlv)

O 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 0 625 Drug Related Seizure 0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 0 375 False Claims ActO 120 Marine 0 310 Airplane 0 365 Personal Injury or Property 21 USC 881 CTI 423 Withdrawal 0 400 State ReapportionmentO 130 Miller Act 0 315 Airplane Product Product Liability CI 690 Other 28 USC 157 0 410 AntitrustO 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 0 367 Health CaiN 0 430 Banks and BankingO 150 Recovery of Overpayment 0 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGIITS 0 450 Commerce

& Enforcement o/Judgment Slander Personal Injury CI 820 Copyrights 0 460 DeportationO 151 Medicare Act 0 330 Federal Employers' Product I, iability 0 830 Patent 11 470 Racketeer Influenced andO 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 0 368 Asbestos Personal 0 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations

Student Loans El 340 Marine Injury Product 0 480 Consumer Credit(Excludes Veterans) El $45 Marine Product Liability LA BOR SOCIAL SECURITY 0 490 Cable/Sat TV

O 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 0 71)) Fair Labor Standards 0 861 Ill A (1395ff) 0 850 Securities/Commodities/of Veteran's Benefits 0 350 Motor Vehicle El 370 Other Fraud Act El 862 Black lmng (923) Exchange

O 160 Stockholders' Suits Fl 355 Motor Vehicle 0 371 Truth in Lending 0 720 Labor/Management 0 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) El 890 Other Statutory ActionsEl 190 Other Contract Product Liability Fl 380 Other l'ersonal Relations El 864 SSID rale XVI tEl 891 Agricultural ActsO 195 Contract Product Liability 0 360 Other Personal Property Damage El 740 Railway Labor Act El 865 RS1 (405(g)) 0 893 Environmental MattersO 196 Franchise Injury 0 385 I'roperty Damage 0 751 Family and Medical El 895 Freedom of Information

CI 362 Personal linitiy Product Liability Leave Act ActMedical Malpractice CI 790 nher Labor Litigation 0 896 Arbitration

I REAL PROPERTY CIVII, RIGIITS PRISONER purrrioNs 0 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS 0 899 Administrative Procedure

0 210 Limd Condemnation M 440 Other Civil !lights I !aliens Corpus: Income Security Act CI 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act/Review or Appeal of0 220 Foreclosure 0 441 Voting 0 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) Agency Decision0 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 0 442 Employment 11 510 Motions to Vacate 0 871 IRS—Third Party 0 950 Constitutionality ofCI 240 Torts to Land 0 443 TIousing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 State Statutes1 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 0 530 General

0 290 All Other Real Property 0 445 Amer. w/Disabilities 11 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION

Employment Other: CI 462 Naturalization Application0 446 Amer. w/Disabilities 0 540 Mandamus & Other 0 465 Other Immigration

Other 0 550 Civil Rights ActionsCI 448 Education 0 555 l'rison Condition

0 560 Civil DetaineeConditions ofConfinement

V. ORIGIN (Place an "X- in One Bos Only))31 I Original 0 2 Removed from 0 3 Remanded from 0 4 Reinstated or 0 5 Transferred from 0 6 Multidistrict

Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation(Ape(*)

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (no not citejurisdictional statutes unless diversity):42 U.S.C.S. 1983

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:

Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated her civil rights by using excessive force acting under color of law.VII. REQUESTED IN 0 Cl IECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND CHECK YES only it'demanded in complaint:

COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: >1 Yes 0 No

VIII. RELATEDCASE(S),.IF ANY (se, instructions):

JUDGE.---7

DOCKfT NUMBW 5: 14—CV-590

/s/ Gayle Caldarolat,

07/02/2014 1...-----(DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT i) AniouNT APPLYING 1FP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

San Antonio Express-News lawsuit.pdf · Case 5:14-cv-00590 Document 1 Filed 07/02/14 Page 2 of 13...

Documents

Transcript of San Antonio Express-News lawsuit.pdf · Case 5:14-cv-00590 Document 1 Filed 07/02/14 Page 2 of 13...