Anthony Brown vs. LASD Et Al-Complaint PDF

Case 2:15-cv-02162-DDP-FFM Document 1 Filed 03/24/15 Page 1 of 22 Page ID #:1
2
3
4
Milton C. Grimes, Esq. (SBN 59437)

miltgrim@aol. co 111
Iverson Matthew Jackson, Esq. (SBN 276541)
mqt([email protected]
LA W OFFICES OF MILTON C. GRIMES
3774 West 54 th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90043
Telephone: (323) 295-3023
Fax: (323) 295-5708
Attorneys for Plaintiff ANTHONY BROWN

6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
10
II
Case No.: 2:15-cv-02162
ANTHONY BROWN,
12
COMPLAINT
13
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff,
14
15
1. Cruel and Unusual Punishment, 42

U.S.C. 1983, 1988;
2. Municipal and Supervisory Liability,
42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988;
3. Failure to Provide Adequate Medical
Care, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988;
4. Retaliation, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988;
5. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.
701 et seq.; and
6. Civil Conspiracy under Federal Law,
42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988.
vs.
16
17
18
19
20
:(1
22
23
24
25
26
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SHERIFF

LEROY D. BACA, UNDERSHERIFF
PAUL TANAKA, CAPTAIN WILLIAM
CAREY, LIEUTENANT GREGORY
THOMPSON, LIEUTENANT STEPHEN
LEAVINS, SERGEANT SCOTT CRAIG,
SERGEANT MARCIELLA LONG,
DEPUTY GERARD SMITH, DEPUTY
MICKEY MANZO, DEPUTY JAMES
SEXTON, individually and in their official
capacities, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive,
Defendants.
28
~I~
COMPLAINT
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff ANTHONY BROWN ("Plaintiff'), for his Complaint against Defendants
2
3
CO~UNTY OF LOS ANGELES ("LA County"), SHERIFF LEROY D. BACA ("Sheriff
Baca"), UNDERSHERIFF PAUL TANAKA ("Undersheriff Tanaka"), CAPTAIN
WILLIAM CAREY ("Cpt. Carey"), LIEUTENANT GREGORY THOMPSON ("Lt.
Thompson"), LIEUTENANT STEPHEN LEAVINS ("Lt. Leavins"), SERGEANT
SCOTT CRAIG ("Sgt. Craig"), SERGEANT MARCIELLA LONG ("Sgt. Long"),
DEPUTY GERARD SMITH ("Deputy Smith"), DEPUTY MICKEY MANZO ("Deputy
Manzo"), DEPUTY JAMES SEXTON ("Deputy Sexton"),-individually and in their
I()
official capacities, and DOES I through 10, inclusive (collectively referred to herein as
II
"Defendants"), alleges as follows:
12
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13
1.
14
15
16
This Complaint is asserted by Plaintiff ANTHONY BROWN, for compensation
for:
a. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: For the violation by Defendants of Plaintiffs
17
rights secured by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution to
18
be free from Cruel and Unusual Punishment, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983,
19
1988;
2()
21
22
23
24
b. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: For Municipal and Supervisory Liability

under Federal Law, pursuant to 42 U .S.C. 1983, 1988;
c. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: For Failure to Provide Adequate Medical
Care, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988;
d. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: For Retaliation in Violation of the First
25
Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
26
1983, 1988;
n
28
e. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: For violation of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973,29 U.S.C. 701 et seq.; and
~2~
COMPLAINT
f. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: For Civil Conspiracy under Federal Law,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988.
This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Federal Civil Rights claims under 42
3
4
U.S
1983, 1988,29 U.S.C. 701 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq. pursuant to 28
U.S
1331, ] 343 and the Eighth Amendment to the United State's Constitution.
Further, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 3
limitations of Plaintiffs claims herein, due to his incarceration, for an additional two (2)
years. See, CCP 352.1 (a); Ontiveros v. Los Angeles County, 611
Carlson v. Blatt, 87 Cal.AppAth 646 (200 I).
10
3.
1(a) tolls the statute of
Supp.2d 1090 (2009);
Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b) because: (i) a
II
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this judicial
12
district; and (ii) Defendants reside within this judicial district.
13
PARTIES
14
15
4.
The true names and capacities of the defendants named herein as DOES I
16
through 10, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues them under these
17
fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to add their true names and
18
capacities when they become known.
19
20
5.
As alleged more fully below, this Complaint arises out of the cruel and unusual
punishment and treatment of Plaintiff ANTI-IONY BROWN in and around August and
September 2011, which was perpetrated by Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
22
:>.3
peace officer(s) under the color of law.

6.
Prior to and during September 2011, and at all relevant times herein, Plaintiff
:~4
ANTHONY BROWN is/was an individual and was in the custody of the Los Angeles
25
Sheriffs Department located in Los Angeles County, California. Plaintiff suffered, and
26
continues to suffer, from several serious medical conditions, including diabetes, coronary
artery disease and hypertension. His chronic illnesses were well known and documented
28
in his records within the jails.
~3~
COMPLAINT
7.
Prior to and during September 20] 1, and at all relevant times herein,
Defendants, Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka, Cpt. Carey, Lt. Thompson, Lt. Leavins,
:\
Sgt. Craig, Sgt. Long, Deputy Smith, Deputy Manzo, Deputy Sexton, and DOES I
through 10, inclusive, were law enforcement officers, peace officers, officers, agents and
employees of Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES acting within the course and
scope of such agency and/or employment, and under color of law. Defendants, Sheriff
Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka, Cpt. Carey, Lt. Thompson, Lt. Leavins, Sgt. Craig, Sgt.
ii
Long, Deputy Smith, Deputy Manzo, Deputy Sexton, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
are being sued in their official and individual capacities.
10
8.
Prior to and during September 2011, and at all relevant times herein,
II
Defendants, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka, the Los
12
Angeles Sheriffs Department ("LASD"), and its employees, agents, supervisors,
13
managers and/or representatives, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, were deliberately
14
indifferent, reckless, negligent and/or careless with respeet to the hiring, training,
15
supervision and discipline of Defendants, Undersheriff Tanaka, Cpt. Carey, Lt.
16
Thompson, Lt. Leavins, Sgt. Craig, Sgt. Long, Deputy Smith, Deputy Manzo, Deputy
17
Sexton, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. As an actual, legal and proximate result of
18
said Defendants' deliberate indifference, recklessness, negligence and carelessness: (a)
19
Plaintiff was sequestered in isolation; (b) subj ected to cruel and unusual punishment by
20
the unreasonable use of excessive force, intimidation, coercion, threats, and solitary
confinement; and (c) Plaintiff suffered the damages alleged herein. Defendants, DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, who are employees, agents, supervisors, managers and/or
representatives of Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and the Los Angeles
24
Sheriff's Department, are being sued in their of1icial and individual capacities.
25
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
26
9.
28
In and/or around August and September 2011, while in the custody of the Los
Angeles Sheriff's Department's jail facilities, including but not limited to the Men's
~4~
COMPLAINT
Central Jail, 441 Bauchet Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 ("MCJ"), Twin Towers
2
Correctional Facility, 450 Bauchet Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 ("TrCF") and
San Dimas Station, 270 S. Walnut Ave., San Dimas, California 9] 773 ("SDS"):
a. Defendants learned that Plaintiff was cooperating and participating as an
informant for the United States Depmiment of Justice, Federal Bureau of
Investigation ("FBI") during its investigation into corruption and abuse by
LASD deputies operating in the LASD jails. As soon as Defendants became
aware of Plaintiff's cooperation with the FBI's investigation, they conspired
to retaliate against PlaintitT for his participation as an informant and obstruct
10
that investigation by intentionally, recklessly, deliberately inditTerently,
II
and/or negligently and unreasonably hiding and/or kidnapping Plaintiff in
12
the jail system under fictitious identities, covertly moving him about and
13
throughout the LASD's jail system, and unreasonably kept him in isolation
14
without cause.
15
b. Defendants intentionally, recklessly, deliberately inditTerently, and/or
16
negligently and unreasonably intimidated, threatened and used excessive
17
force, physical harm and mental distress, by refusing to provide adequate
18
medical care to Plaintiff for his serious medical condition(s), including but
19
not limited to his coronary artery disease, diabetes and hypertension, to
interrogate and obtain information from PlaintitT concerning the LASD's

employees' unlawful conduct that he witnessed and reported to the FBI as an
informant in furtherance of the FBI's investigation. During this time,
23
Plaintiff was in dire fear for his life that Defendants would carry out a threat
24
on his life or order/allow other jail inmates/gangs to kill Plaintiff because
25
Defendants told him, "No witness, no conviction."
26
c. Defendants exacerbated PlaintitT's isolation and emotional distress in an
27
effort to further obstruct the FBI's investigation by intentionally, recklessly,
28
deliberately indifferently, and/or negligently and unreasonably lying and
~5~
COMPLAINT
making threats to Plaintiff that, due to Defendants' hiding of Plaintiff and

2
the FBI being unable to fInd him, that the FBI had abandoned him as an
informant, kept him in his isolation and moved him about and throughout the
jail system so that he could not be found.

d. Defendants Sheriff Baca and Undersheriff Tanaka were aware, privy to
5
6
and/or ordered Defendants to sequester Plaintiff in what is and/or was
known as "Operation Pandora's Box" within the LASD. Further,
Defendants kept Sheriff Baca and Undersheriff Tanaka informed on the
progress with regards to the operation as it unfolded and had knowledge of

Plaintiff's unlawful treatment throughout the duration of the operation.
10
e. Defendants, Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka and DOES 1 through 10,
II
12
inclusive, intentionally, recklessly, deliberately indifferently, and/or
13
negligently and unreasonably failed and refused to intervene or make any
14
effort to prevent Defendants from unreasonably subjecting Plaintiff to cruel
15
and unusual punishment, inadequate medical care, retaliation and
16
discrimination.
17
10.
As an actual, legal and proximate result of the aforementioned intentional,
18
deliberately indifferent, reckless, negligent and unreasonable acts and omissions of
19
Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff suffered and incurred damages, including, but not
limited to, pain and suffering, mental and emotional distress, as a result of the unlawful
and/or unreasonable cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth
22
Amendment.
24
FIRST CAUSE OJ;-' ACTION
25
Violation of Plaintiff's Rights Secured by the Eighth Amendment to Be Free from
26
Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988.
27
28
~~ 6 ~
COMPLAINT
COUNTY
[Against
Sgt. Craig, Sgt.
2
3
4
5
Smith,
II .
10,
Plainti ff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs ] through 10,
inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

PlaintifT asserts this First Cause of Action for Defendants' violation of
6
7
Plaintiffs rights secured by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988.
l)
13.
In and/or around August and September 2011, at several of the LASD'sjails,
10
11
Sgt. Craig, Sgt. Long, Deputy Smith, Deputy Manzo, Deputy Sexton, and DOES 1
12
through 10, inclusive, intentionally, recklessly, deliberately indifferently, and/or
13
negligently and unreasonably subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unusual punishment by
14
intentionally and/or unreasonably subjecting Plaintiff to isolation without adequate
15
medical care for his chronic illnesses, excessive force, physical harm, harassment and
16
mental anguish and distress. At the order, direction, oversight and supervision of
17
18
Sgt. Craig, and Sgt. Long, Defendants moved Plaintiffthrougb different cells and
Il)
jailbouse locations in an attempt to sequester Plaintiff from participating as an informant
20
for the FBI during the FBI's investigation into corruption and abuse in LASD's jails.
Defendants intentionally intimidated, physically abused, harassed, tormented and tortured
22
Plaintiff, in addition to unreasonably isolating him, to obtain information Plaintiff knew
23
about the investigation, the corruption and abuse, and any information that he disclosed
24
to FBI officials about the misconduct in their department.
25
14.
Defendants intentionally, recklessly, deliberately indifferently, and/or
26
negligently and unreasonably failed and refused to intervene or make any eHort to stop or
27
prevent Defendants from subjecting Plaintiff to cruel and unusual punishment in violation
28
of the Eighth Amendment.
~ 7~"
COMPLAINT
15.
As an actual, legal and proximate result of the intentional, deliberately
indifferent, reckless, unreasonable, negligent and otherwise wrongful conduct of
Defendants, and each of them, PlaintifI was kidnapped, sequestered, hidden, physically
abused and mentally tortured in LASD jails.
16.
In engaging in the conduct alleged above, Defendants, Sheriff Baca,
Undersheriff Tanaka, Cpt. Carey, Lt. Thompson, Lt. Leavins, Sgt. Craig, Sgt. Long,
Deputy Smith, Deputy Manzo, Deputy Sexton, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
unreasonably and/or unlawfully employed cruel and unusual punishment on Plaintiff.
17.
Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Sheriff Baca, UndersherifITanaka,
10
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are responsible for implementing, maintaining,
II
sanctioning and/or condoning policies, customs, practices, training and/or supervision
12
with respect to the unlawful and unreasonable cruel and unusual punishment of Plaintiff.
13
18.
The above-alleged conduct of Defendants, Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka,
14
Cpt. Carey, Lt. Thompson, Lt. Leavins, Sgt. Craig, Sgt. Long, Deputy Smith, Deputy
15
Manzo, Deputy Sexton, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, was consistent with the
16
directives, orders, training, policies, customs and practices set forth by Defendant
17
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka, and Defendants
111
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, concerning the unlawful and unreasonable cruel and
19
unusual punishment of persons such as Plaintiff. Defendants' unlawful conduct was
20
ordered, directed and/or ratified by Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Sheriff

Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka and Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.
19.
Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka
23
and Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, knew or should have
24
known that Defendants' directives, orders, training, policies, customs, and/or practices
:25
regarding the unlawful and unreasonable cruel and unusual punishment of persons such
26
as Plaintiff were so inadequate that it was obvious that a failure to correct them would
:n
result in future incidents of unreasonable cruel and unusual punishment.
28
~8~
COMPLAINT
20.
At all relevant times herein, Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Sheriff
Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka and Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, ordered,
directed, authorized and/or acquiesced in the aforementioned policies, customs, practices,
training and/or supervision and the commission of the type of acts by its officers similar
to those which are alleged herein to have caused the injuries to Plaintiff. Furthermore,
said Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the probability of the occurrence of such
acts and failed to correct said policies, customs, practices, training and/or supervision,
thereby causing the damages alleged herein.
21.
Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka
10
and Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, maintained or permitted an official
II
policy, custom or practice of knowingly permitting the occurrence of the type of wrongs
12
set forth above and, based upon the principles set forth in Monell v. New York City
13
Department a/Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), and City a/Canton, Ohio v. Harris,
14
489 U.S. 378 (1989), are liable for all injuries sustained by Plaintiff as set forth herein.
15
22.
Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SheritTBaca, Undersheriff Tanaka
16
and Defendants DOES I through 10, inclusive, were objectively deliberately indifferent
17
to the practice of subordinates, officers, employees and/or agents of the Los Angeles
18
Sheriffs Department of employing cruel and unusual punishment to persons such as
19
Plaintiff.
)0
23.
Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, had actual and/or constructive knowledge that it was
n
the policy, practice or custom of subordinates, officers, employees and/or agents of
Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES to employ cruel and unusual punishment to
24
persons such as Plaintiff.
25
24.
The above described policies, customs, practices, training and/or supervision of
26
Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka and
27
Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, demonstrate a deliberate indifference on the
28
part of policymakers of Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES to the constitutional
~9~
COMPLAINT
rights of persons within their jurisdiction, including Plaintiff: and were the driving force
2
3
and cause of the violations of Plaintiff s rights alleged herein.

25.
By reason of the conduct of the Defendants, and each of them, as alleged
herein, Plaintiff was deprived, under color of law, of his right guaranteed by the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment.
26.
As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendants, Plaintiff suffered
injury, and thus Plaintiff seeks and is entitled to recover, general and special damages,
including but not limited to physical, mental and emotional pain, agony and suffering, in
10
11
an amount according to proof at trial.

27.
The aforementioned conduct of Defendants, Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka,
12
Cpt. Carey, Lt. Thompson, Lt. Leavins, Sgt. Craig, Sgt. Long, Deputy Smith, Deputy
13
Manzo, Deputy Sexton, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, was done maliciously,
14
oppressively and in conscious disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiff: such that an
15
award of exemplary and punitive damages should be imposed against individual
16
17
Sgt. Craig, Sgt. Long, Deputy Smith, Deputy Manzo, Deputy Sexton, and DOES 1
18
through 10, inclusive, in an amount to be proven at trial.
19
20
28.
1988.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
22
23
24
Plaintiff is entitled to recover his attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983,
Municipal and Supervisory Liability, Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988.

[Against Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff
Tanaka and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.)
26
27
29.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 28,
inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
28
~ IO~
COMPLAINT
30.
In and/or around August and September 2011, Defendants, COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES, Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka and DOES 1 through 10, deprived
:\
PlaintiffANTI10NY BROWN of the rights and liberties secured to him by the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, in that said defendants
and their supervising and managerial employees, agents, and representatives, acted
intentionally, with gross negligence, and with reckless and deliberate indifference to the
safety, rights, and liberties of Plaintiff ANTHONY BROWN, and of persons in his class,
1\
situation and comparable position, in particular, by knowingly maintaining, hiring,
condoning, ratifying and/or authorizing:
10
a. a custom, policy, and practice of promulgating unlawful police tactics within
1J
its jails and facilities against individuals, such as Plaintiff~ in contravention
12
of the Eighth Amendment;
13
14
b. failing to prohibit the practice of promulgating unlawful police tactics within

its jails and facilities against individuals, such as Plaintiff;
15
c. failing to institute appropriate policies, regarding constitutional procedures
16
and practices for prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment, inadequate
17
medical care, and discrimination of individuals, such as Plaintiff;
18
d. employment and retention as law enforcement officers and other personnel,
19
including Defendants, Undersheriff Tanaka, Cpt. Carey, Lt. Thompson, Lt.
20
Leavins, Sgt. Craig, Sgt. Long, Deputy Smith, Deputy Manzo, Deputy
Sexton, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, who Defendants, SheriffBaca,
12
Undersheriff Tanaka and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, at all times material
23
herein, knew or reasonably should have known had propensities for abusing
24
their authority and for mistreating citizens by failing to follow written Los
25
Angeles Sheriff's Department policies;
26
e. inadequately supervising, training, controlling, assigning, and/or disciplining
27
Los Angeles Sheriff's Department deputies, and other personnel, including
28
Defendants, Undersheriff Tanaka, Cpt. Carey, Lt. Thompson, Lt. Leavins,
~ J1 ~
COMPLAINT
Sg1. Craig, Sg1. Long, Deputy Smith, Deputy Manzo, Deputy Sexton, and
2
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, who Defendants Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff
Tanaka and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, each knew or in the exercise of
reasonable care should have known had the aforementioned propensities,
character traits and conduct; and/or

f. maintaining grossly inadequate procedures for repOliing, supervising,
investigating, reviewing, disciplining and/or controlling the intentional
misconduct by Defendants, Undersheriff Tanaka, Cpt. Carey, L1. Thompson,

9
L1. Leavins, Sgt. Craig, Sgt. Long, Deputy Smith, Deputy Manzo, Deputy
10
Sexton, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, who are Los Angeles Sheriffs
II
Department deputies, peace officers and/or employees.
12
31.
Defendants, Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka and DOES 1 through 10,
13
inclusive, together with various other officials, whether named or unnamed, had either
14
actual or constructive knowledge of the propensities, character and conduct of
15
Defendants, Undersheriff Tanaka, Cpt. Carey, Lt. Thompson, Lt. Leavins, Sgt. Craig,
16
Sgt. Long, Deputy Smith, Deputy Manzo, Deputy Sexton, and DOES I through 10,
17
inclusive, alleged in the paragraphs above. Despite having knowledge as stated above,
18
these Defendants condoned, tolerated and/or, through actions and inactions, thereby
19
ratified such policies, customs and/or practices. Said Defendants also acted with
20
deliberate indifference to the foreseeable effects and consequences of these actions or
21
inactions with respect to the constitutional rights of Plaintiff ANTHONY BROWN and
other individuals similarly situated.
23
32.
By perpetrating, sanctioning, tolerating and/or ratifying the outrageous conduct
24
and other wrongful acts, Defendants, Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka and DOES 1
:25
through 10, inclusive, acted with an intentional, reckless, and callous disregard for the
26
safety and constitutional rights of Plaintiff ANTHONY BROWN. Defendants, Sherif1~

Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of their actions
28
~ 12-~
COMPLAINT
or inactions were willful, wanton, oppressive, malicious, fraudulent, and extremely

2
offensive and unconscionable to any person of normal sensibilities.

33.
This unconstitutional policy, practice or custom of promulgating unlawful
police tactics within its jails and facilities against individuals, such as Plaintiff, is
evidenced by prior citizen complaints, claims, and/or lawsuits, including, but not limited
to:
a. USA v. Gregory Thompson. et al., United States District Court, Central
District of California, Case No. CR-13-00819, in which defendants are
criminally charged with violating 18 U.S
371, conspiracy, 18 U.S.C.
10
1503(a), obstruction of justice, and 18 U.S.C. 1001, false statement. In
11
this case it is alleged that defendants committed, condoned and/or promoted
12
conduct in which sheriffs deputies would abuse civil rights, such as
13
deputies using excessive force on inmates in jail and public corruption
14
offenses, such as deputies smuggling contraband into jails in exchange for
15
bribes. Thus far, six (6) sheriff's deputies have been convicted of the
16
charges;
17
b. In the 341h Semi Annual Report o.lSpecial Counsel, Los Angeles Sheriff's
18
Department, August 2014, the rep01i highlights corruption of deputies
19
exposed by the FBI and, a tendency in the Baca-Tanaka years to turn a blind
20
eye to such misconduct in their department.

c. In the Report of the Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence, dated September
28,2012, the report discusses Sheriff Baca's reluctance to enteliain "bad
news" from department managers that fosters an environment where
24
problem deputies or bad conduct can thrive without recourse. It also
25
discusses the widely known and fostered "code of silence" issue amongst
26
deputies that supports, rather than eliminates or disciplines, problem
27
deputies or bad conduct.
28
~ 13 ~
COMPLAINT
d. In a September 2011 report by the American Civil Liberties Union

2
("ACLU") National Prison Project and ACLU of Southern California titled
Cruel and Usual Punishment: How a Savage Gang ofDeputies Controls LA
County Jails, the ACLU documented numerous accounts of deputy
excessive force and deputy authorized attacks by inmates against other
inmates in LASD jails, specifically the Men's Central Jail and Twin Towers
Correctional Facility. This report was supported by accounts of witness
declarations from other LASD deputies, inmates and civilians.
a. As early as July 1992, The Kolts Report sets f01ih the same issues of policy,
10
custom and practice of supervisors facilitating the "code ~fsilence" and
II
approving or ratifying, by failing to discipline, sheriff deputies' conduct in
12
violating the civil rights of individuals.
13
34.
Despite having knowledge, direct, constructive or otherwise, of the unlawful
14
custom, policy, and/or practice of deputies employing cruel and unusual punishment,
15
excessive force and other unlawful police tactics in its jails and facilities against
16
individuals, Defendants condoned, tolerated and/or through actions and/or inactions
17
thereby ratified such conduct against individuals, including Plaintiff. Said Defendants
18
also acted with deliberate indifference to the foreseeable effects and consequences of
19
these policies with respect to the constitutional rights of Plaintiff and other individuals
:20
similarly situated.
35.
By perpetrating, sanctioning, tolerating and/or ratifying the outrageous conduct
:>2
and other wrongful acts, Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Sheriff Baca,
)3
Undersheriff Tanaka and DOES I through 10, inclusive, acted with an intentional,
24
reckless, and callous disregard for the safety and constitutional rights of Plaintiff.
25
Defendants Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka and DOES I through 10, inclusive, and
26
each of their actions were willful, wanton, oppressive, malicious, fraudulent, and
27
extremely offensive and unconscionable to any person of normal sensibilities.
28
~ 14~
COMPLAINT
36.
By reason of the aforementioned deficient policies and practices of Defendants,
Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Plaintiff suffered
extensive physical and mental damages and other harm.
37.
The policies, practices, and/or customs implemented, maintained and tolerated
by Defendants, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka and
DOES] through 10, inclusive, were affirmatively linked to and were a significantly
intluential driving f(Jrce behind the damages incurred by Plaintiff
R
9
38.
Plaintiff is entitled to recover his attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983,
1988.
10
TH
II
12
CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Provide Adequate Medical Care, Pursuant to
U.S.C. 1983, 1988.
13
[Against Defendants Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka, Cpt. Carey, Lt. Thompson,
14
Lt. I-Ieavins, Sgt. Craig, Sgt. Long, Deputy Smith, Deputy Manzo, Deputy Sexton,
15
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.]
16
17
IR
39.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 to 38, inclusive,
as though fully set forth herein.

40.
In and/or around August and September 2011, Defendants, SheriffBaca,
19
20
Deputy Smith, Deputy Manzo, Deputy Sexton, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, while
working as peace officers for Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, and acting
22
within the course and scope of their duties, had custody of Plaintiff in LASD's jailhouse
23
facilities.
24
41.
Defendants, at the order, direction, oversight and/or supervision of Defendants,
25
Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka, Cpt. Carey, Lt. Thompson, Lt. Leavins, Sgt. Craig,
26
Sgt. Long, intentionally denied or delayed Plaintiff's access to adequate medical care or
27
intentionally interfered with the course of his medical treatment once prescribed for
28
Plaintiff, while he was sequestered and secreted in the LASD jails despite knowing, being
~ 15~
COMPLAINT
aware of or having constructive knowledge of Plaintiffs chronic medical conditions,

2
including but not limited to diabetes, coronary artery disease and hypertension, because
Defendants took him from the medical ward or jail hospital when it was discovered that
he was an informant for the FBI. Additionally, Plaintiff's medical records which
contained information about his chronic illnesses, including but not limited to diabetes,
coronary artery disease and hypertension, was maintained as a pmi of his records jacket
or other inmate records that were accessible to Defendants. Furthermore, while
Defendants sequestered Plaintiff and subjected him to torment, harassment, cruel and
unusual punishment, and physical and mental abuse, he pleaded with Defendants to
10
provide him with medications, medical care and assistance for his chronic illnesses, but
II
defendants refused and/or failed to provide Plaintiff with adequate medical care.
12
42.
Defendants' failure to provide or obtain adequate medical care for Plaintiff in
13
light of the obvious and serious nature of his chronic illnesses constituted violations of
14
Plaintiff's rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
15
43.
As a result of Defendants' failure to provide adequate medical care, Defendants
16
caused Plaintiff to suffer pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish,
17
disability, and damages according to proof at the time of trial.
18
44.
Defendants, Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka, Cpt. Carey, Lt. Thompson, Lt.
19
Leavins, Sgt. Craig, Sgt. Long, Deputy Smith, Deputy Manzo, Deputy Sexton, and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, are liable for Plaintiff's damages because they were integral
pmiicipants to the denial of medical care by ordering that Plaintiff be sequestered and/or
22
had knowledge, direct, constructive or otherwise, of Plaintiff's condition and treatment
23
and failed to intervene.
24
45.
The conduct of Defendants, SheriffBaca, Undersheriff Tanaka, Cpt. Carey, Lt.
25
26
Sexton, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, was malicious, wanton, oppressive, and
27
accomplished with a conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff ANTHONY BROWN,
28
justifying an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
16
COMPLAINT
46.
2
Plaintiff is entitled to recover his attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S
. 1983,
1988.
FOUR1'H CAUSE
Violation
1983, 1988.
[Against Defendants Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka,

Sgt.
12
13
Thompson,
Sgt. Long, Deputy Smith, Deputy Manzo, Deputy Sexton,

and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.)
10
II
to
under
Unusual
to
Plaintiff's Rights
47.
Plaintiffrealleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 to 46, inclusive,

48.
Plaintiff asserts this Fourth Cause of Action for Retaliation in violation of his
14
First Amendment rights in asserting his freedom of speech and/or to petition the
15
government for a redress of grievances.
J6
49.
In and/or around August and September 20 II, Defendants became aware that
17
Plaintiff was a cooperating informant for the FBI during its investigation into the
18
corruption and abuse of authority by LASD deputies in the jails. As soon as Defendants
19
obtained this information, they secreted and sequestered Plaintiff from the official records
20
of the LASD jail, physically and unreasonably moved him about the jails and kept him in
isolation without adequate medical care, and harassed, physically abused, mentally
22
tormented and tortured Plaintiff in an effort to extract what he learned about the
23
corruption and misconduct of deputies in the jails and what he reported to the FBI, while
24
operating as an informant, in retaliation for his cooperation and participation as an FBI
25
informant.
26
50.
The motivating factor behind Defendants' unlawful conduct towards Plaintiff
was Plaintiffs cooperation and participation as an informant in the FBI's investigation.

28
As further evidence of Defendants' purpose in retaliation for his cooperation and
"~17 ~
COMPLAINT
participation as an informant for the FBI, Defendants harassed, intimidated, coerced and
2
threatened other FBI informants and Plaintiff's handler who was an FBI agent assigned to
the FBI's investigation into the corruption and abuse of authority being perpetrated by
LASD deputies in the jails. At all relevant times herein, defendants acted under color of
law, and in their individual and of11cial capacities.
51.
Defendants' retaliatory action advanced no legitimate penological interest.
Defendants' intended to thwart and/or terminate Plaintiff's participation as an FBI
informant by sequestering him in the jail system under false identities, and threatening
him by informing him that the FBI had abandoned him. However, the FBI had lost
10
contact with Plaintiff only due to Defendants' conduct in hiding him within the jail
II
system. Further, Defendants directly told Plaintiff, "No witness, no conviction," inferring
12
that ifhe disappeared there could be no conviction of LASD deputies in federal court, in
13
reference to the FBI investigation while sequestering him within the LASD jails.
14
15
16
17
1
19
20
52.
Defendants' retaliatory conduct constituted violations of Plaintiff's rights under
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

53.
As a result of Defendants' retaliatory conduct, Defendants caused PlaintitTto
suffer pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, disability, and damages
according to proof at the time of trial.
54.
1 through 10, inclusive, are liable for Plaintiff's damages because they were integral
22
2.3
participants in retaliating against Plaintiff.

55.
The conduct of Defendants, Sheriff Baca, UndersherifTTanaka, Cpt. Carey, Lt.
~~4
25
Sexton, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, was malicious, wanton, oppressive, and
26
accomplished with a conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff ANTHONY BROWN,
27
justifying an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
28
~ 1g ~~
COMPLAINT
56.
2
Plaintiff is entitled to recover his attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S
1983,
1988.
3
4
Violation
All
OF
ON
of 1973,29 U.S.C. 701
FI
the Rehabilitation
COUNTY
1 through 10, inclusive.]

7

9

58.
Plaintiff asserts this Fifth Cause of Action for violation of the Rehabilitation
10
II
Act of 1973,29 U.S.C. 701 et seq., pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988.

59.
At all relevant times herein, Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, and
12
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, received federal financial assistance within the meaning
13
14
of29 U.S.C. 794(a).

60.
At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff was a person with a "disability" within the
15
meaning of 29 U.S.C. 705(9)(B) because he suffered from physical impairments,

16
17
including but not limited to diabetes, coronary artery disease, hypertension, and/or other
physical illnesses, that substantially limited one or more of his major life activities.
61.
At ail relevant times herein, Plaintiff was an "individual with a disability"
19
20
within the meaning of29 U.S.C. 705(20)(B) because: (a) he suffered from physical
impairments, including but not limited to diabetes, coronary artery disease, hypeliension,
:22
and/or other physical illnesses, that substantially limited one or more of his major life
activities; (b) had a record of such impairment; and/or (c) was regarded as having such an
23
24
25
26
impairment.
62.
At all relevant times herein, Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, and
DOES I through 10, inclusive, constituted "programs or activities" within the meaning of
29 U.S.C. 794(b) in that said Defendants (i) were instrumentalities of state or local
27
28
c~
19 ~
COMPLAINT
government, and (ii) provided the program and activity of maintaining a person in
2
3
custody, such as Plaintiff, who was a pretrial detainee or an inmate.

63.
At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff was otherwise qualified, with or without
reasonable accommodation, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 794(a), to participate in
the programs and activities of Defendants COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive. Such programs and activities included being safely and
appropriately maintained in custody as a pretrial detainee or an inmate.
64.
At all relevant times herein, in engaging in the conduct alleged above,
Defendants and each of them, discriminated against Plaintiff, within the meaning of 29
10
U.S.C. 794(a), with regard to their services, programs, and activities. Defendants
II
violated Plaintiff's federally guaranteed right to be free from discrimination on the basis
12
of a disability by: (a) failing to make reasonable modifications to their policies, practices
13
and procedure to ensure that his adequate medical needs as an individual with a disability
14
would be met; (b) failing to train or discipline the individual defendants, Defendants
15
16
Deputy Smith, Deputy Manzo, Deputy Sexton, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, with
17
respect to safely and appropriately maintaining custody of a person, such as Plaintiff:
18
who was a pretrial detainee or inmate. Said discrimination was: (a) because of Plaintiff's
19
disability; (b) due to Plaintiff's cooperation and participation as an FBI informant; and (c)
20
consisted of being deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's rights in that Defendants knew

that harm to Plaintiff's federally protected rights was substantially likely, and failed to act
)2
23
upon that likelihood.

65.
As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendants, Plaintiff suffered,
24
and thus Plaintiff seeks and is entitled to recover, general and special damages, including
25
but not limited to general and special damages, mental and emotional pain, shock, agony
26
and suffering in an amount according to proof at trial.
27
28
66.
Plaintiff is entitled to recover their attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1983, 1988.
~20~
COMPLAINT
CAUSE
Law,
Conspiracy
ACTION
to
1983, 1988.
Lt.
Sgt.
and
5
6
7
9
10
Sgt. Long, Deputy Smith, Deputy Manzo,
67.
Sexton,
1 through 10, inclusive.]

68.
Plaintiff asserts this Sixth Cause of Action for Conspiracy under federal law to
violate his Civil Rights.

69.
II
Leavins, Sgt. Craig, Sg1. Long, Deputy Smith, Deputy Manzo, Deputy Sexton, and DOES
12
1 through 10, inclusive, entered into a civil conspiracy and agreement, to violate the civil
13
rights of Plaintiff, by engaging in the conduct, acts and omissions alleged herein by
14
unlawfully sequestering Plaintiff in isolation, by subjecting him to cruel and unusual
15
punishment, failing and/or refusing to provide adequate medical care, and discriminating
16
against him on the basis of his disability in and/or around August and September 2011.
17
In addition to the conduct alleged above, said conspiracy and agreement is evidenced by
18
the fact, inter alia, that said Defendants: (a) ordered, directed, supervised, authorized,
19
aided, abetted, approved, ratified and/or deliberately and knowingly failed, refused and/or
20
refrained from intervening in or stopping the wrongful conduct alleged herein; and/or (b)
engaged in conduct alleged herein that was unlikely to have been undertaken without an
22
agreement. None of the individually named defendants would have unreasonably
23
violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights but for an agreement with the other individually
24
named defendant(s).
25
70.
Defendants Sheriff Baca, Undersheriff Tanaka, Cpt. Carey, L1. Thompson, Lt.
26
27
1 through 10, inclusive, are legally responsible for, and indeed proximately and legally
~21~
COMPLAINT
caused, the damages alleged herein for the reasons alleged above and incorporated herein
2
by reference.
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS
4
5
71.
Pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1988, Plaintiff is entitled to and
demands an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs attendant to prosecuting this
action in an amount to be determined according to proof at trial.
8
9
PRA YER FOR RELIEF
10
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks damages as follows:
II
a. General damages
In an amount to be proven at trial;
12
b. Special damages
In an amount to be proven at trial;
13
c. Punitive damages
14
proven at trial;
Against the individual Defendants, in an amount to be
15
d. An award of prej udgment interest;
16
e. An award of post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1961(a);
17
f. Attorney's fees and costs of suit incurred herein; and
18
g. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
19
20
22
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY .JURY
Dated: March 24,2015
LAW OFFICES OF MIL TON C. GRIMES
23
24
25
26
One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff
27
ANTHONY BROWN
28
~22 ~
COMPLAINT

Anthony Brown vs. LASD Et Al-Complaint PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anthony Brown vs. LASD Et Al-Complaint PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anthony Brown vs. LASD Et Al-Complaint PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:15-cv-02162-DDP-FFM Document 1 Filed 03/24/15 Page 1 of 22 Page ID #:1

Milton C. Grimes, Esq. (SBN 59437)

Attorneys for Plaintiff ANTHONY BROWN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

Case No.: 2:15-cv-02162

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1. Cruel and Unusual Punishment, 42

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SHERIFF

Case 2:15-cv-02162-DDP-FFM Document 1 Filed 03/24/15 Page 2 of 22 Page ID #:2

CO~UNTY OF LOS ANGELES ("LA County"), SHERIFF LEROY D. BACA ("Sheriff

Baca"), UNDERSHERIFF PAUL TANAKA ("Undersheriff Tanaka"), CAPTAIN

WILLIAM CAREY ("Cpt. Carey"), LIEUTENANT GREGORY THOMPSON ("Lt.

Thompson"), LIEUTENANT STEPHEN LEAVINS ("Lt. Leavins"), SERGEANT

SCOTT CRAIG ("Sgt. Craig"), SERGEANT MARCIELLA LONG ("Sgt. Long"),

DEPUTY GERARD SMITH ("Deputy Smith"), DEPUTY MICKEY MANZO ("Deputy

Manzo"), DEPUTY JAMES SEXTON ("Deputy Sexton"),-individually and in their

"Defendants"), alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Complaint is asserted by Plaintiff ANTHONY BROWN, for compensation

rights secured by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution to

be free from Cruel and Unusual Punishment, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983,

b. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: For Municipal and Supervisory Liability

Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

e. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: For violation of the Rehabilitation Act of

Case 2:15-cv-02162-DDP-FFM Document 1 Filed 03/24/15 Page 3 of 22 Page ID #:3

f. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: For Civil Conspiracy under Federal Law,

1983, 1988,29 U.S.C. 701 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq. pursuant to 28

Further, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 3

Carlson v. Blatt, 87 Cal.AppAth 646 (200 I).

1(a) tolls the statute of

Supp.2d 1090 (2009);

district; and (ii) Defendants reside within this judicial district.

capacities when they become known.

peace officer(s) under the color of law.

in his records within the jails.

Case 2:15-cv-02162-DDP-FFM Document 1 Filed 03/24/15 Page 4 of 22 Page ID #:4

are being sued in their official and individual capacities.

Angeles Sheriffs Department ("LASD"), and its employees, agents, supervisors,

managers and/or representatives, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, were deliberately

supervision and discipline of Defendants, Undersheriff Tanaka, Cpt. Carey, Lt.

said Defendants' deliberate indifference, recklessness, negligence and carelessness: (a)

representatives of Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and the Los Angeles

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Case 2:15-cv-02162-DDP-FFM Document 1 Filed 03/24/15 Page 5 of 22 Page ID #:5

a. Defendants learned that Plaintiff was cooperating and participating as an

informant for the United States Depmiment of Justice, Federal Bureau of

Investigation ("FBI") during its investigation into corruption and abuse by

LASD deputies operating in the LASD jails. As soon as Defendants became

aware of Plaintiff's cooperation with the FBI's investigation, they conspired

to retaliate against PlaintitT for his participation as an informant and obstruct

that investigation by intentionally, recklessly, deliberately inditTerently,

and/or negligently and unreasonably hiding and/or kidnapping Plaintiff in

b. Defendants intentionally, recklessly, deliberately inditTerently, and/or

negligently and unreasonably intimidated, threatened and used excessive

force, physical harm and mental distress, by refusing to provide adequate

not limited to his coronary artery disease, diabetes and hypertension, to

interrogate and obtain information from PlaintitT concerning the LASD's