1 KATHLEEN E.

WELLS, CSB # 107051

Attorney at Law
2 3393 Maplethorpe Lane
3 Soquel, California 95073
Telephone: (831) 475-1243
4 Email: [email protected]
5
Attorney for Plaintiff DARIN MATTHEWS
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 SAN JOSE DIVISION – ECF PROGRAM
12
13
DARIN MATTHEWS, Case No.
14
15 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
FOR VIOLATION OF FEDERAL
16 v. AND STATE CONSTITUTIONAL
17 RIGHTS; FALSE ARREST;
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ; STEVEN UNLAWFUL SEARCH; ASSAULT
18 CARNEY; CITY OF SCOTTS & BATTERY; INTENTIONAL &
19 VALLEY; SCOTTS VALLEY POLICE NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
OFFICERS (NAMES UNKNOWN) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
20 BADGE NUMBERS 5430, 5140, 5890, VIOLATIONS OF BANE ACT
21 5281; TWENTY UNKNOWN
DEPUTIES AGENTS/EMPLOYEES OF
22
THE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ AND JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
23 TWENTY UNKNOWN
OFFICERS/AGENTS/EMPLOYEES OF
24
THE CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY,
25
26
Defendants.

27
28
Complaint for Damages

-1-
 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1
1. This is an action for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based upon
2
3
the defendants’ violations of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth

4 Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28

5 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1343 based on 42 U.S.C. §1983 and questions of federal

6 constitutional law. Supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims is

7 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

8 2. Venue is proper in the Northern District in that the events and conduct
9 complained of herein all occurred in the City of Scotts Valley, County of Santa Cruz.
10
11 PARTIES
12 3. Plaintiff DARIN MATTHEWS (“MATTHEWS” or “Plaintiff”) is,
13 and was at all relevant times, a resident of the County of Santa Cruz.
14 4. Defendant COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ (“COUNTY”) is a
15 county, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California.
16 Defendant COUNTY operates and is responsible for the actions, omissions,
17 policies, procedures, practices and customs of its various agents and agencies
18 including deputy STEVEN CARNEY (“CARNEY”) and the other unknown
19 individuals, deputies/agents/employees of COUNTY who are named defendants
20 herein. CARNEY and the other unknown COUNTY defendants are sued in both
21 their individual and their official capacities for the acts taken against plaintiff under
22 color of state law.
23 5. Defendant CITY OF SCOTTS VALLEY (“CITY”) is a political
24
subdivision of, and duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of
25
California. Defendant CITY operates and is responsible for the actions, omissions,
26
policies, procedures, practices and customs of its various agents and agencies
27
including the Scotts Valley Police Department (“Police Department”) and their
28
Complaint for Damages

-2-
1 agents and employees. Officers Badge Numbers 5430, 5140, 5890, and 5281

2 (“OFFICERS”) are members of the CITY police department and are named

3 defendants herein in both their official and individual capacities for their actions

4 against plaintiffs taken under color of state law. OFFICERS and employees of the
5 CITY have engaged in the acts complained of herein pursuant to the policies,
6 practices and customs of the CITY.
7 6. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of
8 Defendants designated as 20 unknown COUNTY and 20 unknown CITY
9 employees and agent and, therefore, name these defendants by such designation.
10 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each “Unknown
11 Defendant” so named was employed by Defendants COUNTY or CITY at the
12 time of the conduct alleged herein. Plaintiff alleges that the 40 unknown Defendants,
13 and each of them, in performing the acts alleged herein, were acting as agents of the
14 COUNTY or CITY employed by the COUNTY or CITY; and/or were acting
15 individually, outside the course and scope of their employment; and, in performing
16 all of the acts alleged herein, these unknown defendants acted under color of state
17 law and the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and usages of the COUNTY or
18 CITY, and pursuant to the official policy, custom and practice of the COUNTY or
19 CITY. These defendants are charged with enforcing state and local laws and
20 additionally charged with knowledge and protection of citizens’ constitutional rights
21
while enforcing such laws. Plaintiff will amend his complaint to state the names
22
and capacities of the 40 unknown COUNTY and CITY employees and/or agents
23
when their identities are revealed by the plaintiff through the discovery process.
24
25 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
26 7. On February 19, 2019, plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped at
27
28
Complaint for Damages

-3-
1 approximately 6:30 a.m. as he left for his work as an administrator at the University of

2 California, Santa Cruz. Plaintiff was stopped by a marked CITY police vehicle, which

3 plaintiff has learned and believes had been parked waiting near his home. The

4 OFFICERS pulled behind him with their lights on, and plaintiff pulled into the first
5 safe place to stop which was the Union 76 gas station on Mt. Herman Road . Said gas
6 station is approximately ½ mile from plaintiff’s home.
7 8. The OFFICERS informed plaintiff that he was being stopped
8 because of the paper license plates on his vehicle. Plaintiff explained to the
9 OFFICERS that he had recently purchased the vehicle from a dealership in Oregon
10 and offered to show them the paperwork. They did not look at or check plaintiff’s
11 paperwork. There was nothing unlawful about plaintiff’s vehicle and the OFFICERS’
12 explanation for the stop was just a pretext to allow them to detain plaintiff.
13 9. The OFFICERS told plaintiff to exit his vehicle and informed
14 plaintiff that they were going to search him. When he asked what was the real reason
15 for the stop, the OFFICERS failed and refused to give plaintiff any further
16 explanation. The OFFICERS asked plaintiff for his driver’s license and plaintiff
17 provided them with his current and valid California Driver’s license. The OFFICERS
18 did not ask for proof of registration or ownership.
19 10. One of the OFFICERS held plaintiff’s hands behind his back while
20 another OFFICER pat searched him. Plaintiff then noticed that there were more
21
marked police cars, including a green COUNTY Sheriff ‘s car parked behind his
22
vehicle.
23
11. Plaintiff was approached by CARNEY who ordered plaintiff to
24
sit on the bumper of one of the police vehicles. The defendant OFFICERS
25
proceeded to search plaintiff’s vehicle without plaintiff’s permission. They
26
also searched his backpack that was on the front seat and opened and searched
27
through the trunk as well. They found nothing unlawful in plaintiff’s vehicle.
28
Complaint for Damages

-4-
1 At no time was plaintiff asked for permission, nor did he give permission, to

2 search his vehicle or his backpack.

3 12. CARNEY then informed plaintiff that they had a search

4 warrant to search his home. Additionally, CARNEY inquired of plaintiff if there

5 was a reason why the Las Vegas police would know his name. Plaintiff
6 explained that he owned a home in Las Vegas and traveled there
7 frequently. Plaintiff told CARNEY that had never received so much as a
8 parking ticket in Las Vegas.
9 13. The officers then placed plaintiff in the back seat of one of
10 the CITY Police vehicles and drove him to the front of his home. Plaintiff
11 provided the OFFICERS with the key to his home pursuant to their demand
12 and despite the fact that they assured plaintiff that the search would be
13 discreet, instead they made a great show for plaintiff’s neighbors with two
14 OFFICERS stationed at the back of plaintiff’s condo while another 3 or 4
15 OFFICERS entered his home through the front door, Plaintiff remained in
16 the back seat of the one of the OFFICER’s vehicles.. Many of plaintiff’s
17 neighbors were leaving for school and work during this time and saw the
18 commotion, the police vehicles parked in front of his condo and plaintiff
19 sitting in the back of the patrol car.
20 14. After a period of time, the OFFICERs removed plaintiff from
21
the car and escorted him into his home where they joined CARNEY and 2
22
other unknown OFFICERs whom he had not seen previously. Plaintiff
23
inquired of CARNEY why the search warrant was issued and his home
24
searched. CARNEY gave plaintiff a vague explanation stating that there
25
had been a lot of “coming and going” at plaintiff’s home. CARNEY also
26
stated, falsely, that plaintiff’s name had been mentioned in conjunction with
27
a marijuana arrest in Las Vegas. Plaintiff reiterated that while he owned a
28
Complaint for Damages

-5-
1 home there, he had never had any contact with Las Vegas law enforcement

2 or any other law enforcement agency.

3 15. CARNEY told plaintiff he was free to leave and one of the

4 OFFICERs gave him a ride back to his car.

5 16. Plaintiff filed a tort claim against CITY and CITY OFFICERS on
6 August 7, 2019, which was denied by letter dated September 5, 2019.
7 17. Plaintiff filed a tort claim against COUNTY and CARNEY on
8 August 12, 2019, which was denied by letter dated September 25, 2019.
9
10 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
11 Right to Be Secure From Unreasonable Search and Seizures
12 42 U.S.C. §1983 - Fourth Amendment
13 (Against all defendants)
14 18. Plaintiff hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1-17 of this Complaint
15 as if fully set forth herein.
16
19. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides that: Every person, who under color of
17
any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any state or territory or the
18
District of Columbia subjects or causes to be subjected any citizen of the United States
19
or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights,
20
privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and law shall be liable to the
21
party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other appropriate proceeding for
22
redress .
23
20. Plaintiff in this action is a citizen of the United States and all of these
24
individual Defendants named in this claim are proper defendants for purposes of 42
25
U.S.C. § 1983. All individual Defendants to this claim, at all times relevant hereto,
26
were acting under the color of state law in their capacity as DEPUTY and OFFICERS
27
28
Complaint for Damages

-6-
1 and their acts or omissions were conducted within the scope of their official duties or

2 employment.

3 21. At the time of the complained of events, Plaintiff had a clearly

4 established constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment to be free from unlawful
5 seizure of his person and from unlawful search of his person, his automobile, the
6 effects within his automobile, and his home.
7 22. Any reasonable officer knew or should have known of these rights at
8 the time of the complained of conduct as these rights were clearly established at that
9 time.
10 23. Defendants CARNEY’s and the other individual OFFICERs’
11 actions, as described herein, were objectively unreasonable under the law as
12 established at the time in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them and
13 violated these Fourth Amendment rights of Plaintiff.
14 24. Defendant CARNEY and the other defendant OFFICERs’ actions, as
15 described herein, were also malicious and/or involved reckless, callous, and deliberate
16 indifference to plaintiff’s federally protected rights. Defendants’ unlawful actions
17 shocks the conscience and violated these Fourth Amendment rights of Plaintiff.
18 25. These individual defendant officers unlawfully seized plaintiff’s
19 person by means of threat of physical force, thereby unreasonably depriving plaintiff
20 of his freedom.
21
26. These individual defendant officers unlawfully searched
22
plaintiff’s person, his vehicle and his home by means of threats based on false and
23
defamatory information. These false and defamatory allegations, known to be false
24
when set forth in the affidavit, were allegedly written by CARNEY and provided to a
25
Superior Court Judge for the purpose of securing a search warrant for plaintiff’s home
26
under false pretenses.
27
27. None of the Defendant officers took reasonable steps to protect
28
Complaint for Damages

-7-
1 Plaintiff from the objectively unreasonable and conscience shocking unlawful acts of

2 other Defendant officers. They are each therefore liable for the injuries and damages

3 resulting from the objectively unreasonable and conscience shocking actions of each

4 other officer.
5 28. Defendants engaged in the conduct described in this Complaint
6 willfully, maliciously, in bad faith, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s federal and
7 state protected constitutional rights.
8 29. They did so with shocking and willful indifference to Plaintiff’s
9 rights and their conscious awareness that they would cause Plaintiff severe physical
10 and emotional injuries.
11 30. The acts or omissions of all individual Defendants were the moving
12 forces behind Plaintiff’s injuries.
13 31. These individual Defendants acted in concert and joint action with
14 each other.
15 32. The acts or omissions of Defendants as described herein intentionally
16 deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional rights and caused him other damages.
17 33. These individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity
18 for the complained of conduct.
19 34. The Defendants to this claim at all times relevant hereto were acting
20 pursuant to COUNTY and CITY custom, policy, decision, ordinance, regulation,
21
widespread habit, usage, or practice in their actions pertaining to Plaintiff.
22
35. As a proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has
23
suffered actual physical and emotional injuries, and other damages and losses as
24
described herein entitling him to compensatory and special damages, in amounts to be
25
determined at trial. As a further result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff
26
has incurred special damages and may continue to incur further medical and other
27
special damages related expenses, in amounts to be established at trial.
28
Complaint for Damages

-8-
1 36. On information and belief, Plaintiff may suffer lost future earnings

2 and impaired earnings capacities from the not yet fully ascertained injuries in amounts

3 to be ascertained at trial. Plaintiff is further entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs

4 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, pre-judgment interest and costs as allowable by federal

5 law. There may also be special damages for lien interests.
6 37. In addition to compensatory, economic, consequential and special
7 damages, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against each of the individually
8 named Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in that the actions of each of these
9 individual Defendants have been taken maliciously, willfully or with a reckless or
10 wanton disregard of the constitutional rights of Plaintiff.
11 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
12 Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Deliberately Indifferent Policies, Practices,
13 Customs, Training, and Supervision in violation of the Fourth Amendment
14 (Monell)
15 (Against defendants COUNTY and CITY)
16 38. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-37 of this Complaint as
17 if fully set forth herein.
18 39. The individual Defendants to this claim at all times relevant hereto
19 were acting under the color of state law and according to COUNTY and CITY policy.
20 40. Plaintiff had the following clearly established rights at the time of the
21
complained of conduct:
22
a. the right to be free from seizure of his person in violation of the Fourth
23
Amendment;
24
b. the right to free from unlawful search of his person, of his vehicle, the effects
25
within his vehicle and of his home in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
26
41. Defendants knew or should have known of these rights at the time of
27
the complained of conduct as they were clearly established at that time.
28
Complaint for Damages

-9-
1 42. The acts or omissions of these Defendants, as described herein,

2 deprived plaintiff of his constitutional and statutory rights and caused him other

3 damages.

4 43. Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the

5 complained of conduct.
6 44. Defendants developed and maintained policies, procedures,
7 customs, and/or practices exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights
8 of citizens, which were moving forces behind and proximately caused the violations
9 of Plaintiff’s constitutional and federal rights as set forth herein and in the other
10 claims, resulted from a conscious or deliberate choice to follow a course of action
11 from among various available alternatives.
12 45. Defendants have created and tolerated an atmosphere of
13 lawlessness, and have developed and maintained long-standing, department-wide
14 customs, law enforcement related policies, procedures, customs, practices, and/or
15 failed to properly train and/or supervise its officers in a manner amounting to
16 deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiff and of the public.
17 46. The deliberately indifferent training and supervision provided by
18 Defendants resulted from a conscious or deliberate choice to follow a course of action
19 from among various alternatives available and were the moving forces in the
20 constitutional and federal violation injuries complained of by Plaintiff.
21
47. As a direct result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has
22
suffered physical and emotional injuries, and other damages and losses as described
23
herein entitling him to compensatory and special damages, in amounts to be
24
determined at trial. As a further result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff
25
has incurred special damages, including medically related expenses and may continue
26
to incur further medically or other special damages related expenses, in amounts to be
27
established at trial.
28
Complaint for Damages

-10-
1 48. On information and belief, Plaintiff may suffer lost future earnings

2 and impaired earnings capacities from the not yet fully ascertained extent of his

3 injuries, in amounts to be ascertained at trial. Plaintiff is further entitled to attorneys’

4 fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, pre-judgment interest and costs as
5 allowable by federal law. There may also be special damages for lien interests.
6 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
7 False Arrest and Unlawful Search under Art. 1, §13
8 of the California Constitution
9 (Against all Defendants)
10 49. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-48 of this Complaint as
11 if fully set forth herein.
12 50. Defendants violated plaintiff’s right to be free from unlawful
13 arrest/seizure of his person and unlawful search of his person, his vehicle, the effects
14 in his vehicle, and his home as described in detail herein above
15 51. 25. None of the Defendant officers took reasonable steps to protect
16 Plaintiff from the objectively unreasonable and conscience shocking unlawful acts of
17 other Defendant officers. They are each therefore liable for the injuries and damages
18 resulting from the objectively unreasonable and conscience shocking actions of each
19 other officer.
20 52. Defendants engaged in the conduct described in this Complaint
21
willfully, maliciously, in bad faith, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s federal and
22
state protected constitutional rights.
23
53. They did so with shocking and willful indifference to Plaintiff’s
24
rights and their conscious awareness that they would cause Plaintiff severe physical
25
and emotional injuries.
26
54. The acts or omissions of all individual Defendants were the moving
27
forces behind Plaintiff’s injuries.
28
Complaint for Damages

-11-
1 55. These individual Defendants acted in concert and joint action with

2 each other.

3 56. The acts or omissions of Defendants as described herein intentionally

4 deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional rights and caused him other damages.
5 57. These individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity
6 for the complained of conduct.
7 58. The Defendants to this claim at all times relevant hereto were acting
8 pursuant to COUNTY and CITY custom, policy, decision, ordinance, regulation,
9 widespread habit, usage, or practice in their actions pertaining to Plaintiff.
10 59. As a proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has
11 suffered actual physical and emotional injuries, and other damages and losses as
12 described herein entitling him to compensatory and special damages, in amounts to be
13 determined at trial. As a further result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff
14 has incurred special damages and may continue to incur further medical and other
15 special damages related expenses, in amounts to be established at trial.
16 60. On information and belief, Plaintiff may suffer lost future earnings
17 and impaired earnings capacities from the not yet fully ascertained injuries in amounts
18 to be ascertained at trial. Plaintiff is further entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs. There
19 may also be special damages for lien interests.
20 61. In addition to compensatory, economic, consequential and special
21
damages, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against each of the individually
22
named Defendants in that the actions of each of these individual Defendants have
23
been taken maliciously, willfully or with a reckless or wanton disregard of the
24
constitutional rights of Plaintiff.
25
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
26
Assault and Battery
27
(All Defendants)
28
Complaint for Damages

-12-
1 62. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-61 of this Complaint as

2 if fully set forth herein.

3 63. Defendants intended to and did cause a harmful contact with

4 plaintiff’s person as described in detail herein above. Plaintiff did not consent to
5 defendants’ actions nor was there any privilege excusing defendants from their
6 actions.
7 64. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ actions, plaintiff
8 sustained injuries and damages as set forth above. Further, plaintiff claims all
9 damages and penalties allowed by law.
10 65. Defendants’ acts was committed knowingly, willfully, and with
11 malicious intent and plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be
12 determined at trial.
13
14 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
15 Intentional/Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
16 (Against all Defendants)
17
66. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations set
18
forth in paragraphs 1-65 above.
19
67. Defendants owed a duty to plaintiff to not cause him harm and defendants
20
breached that duty in committing the unlawful actions against plaintiff as described
21 herein above.
22 68. Additionally, defendants intended to and did cause emotional distress to the
23 plaintiff and their conduct was malicious and committed for the purpose of causing
24 plaintiff to suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress.
25 69. As a proximate result of Defendants’ actions and the consequences caused
26 by his actions, plaintiff has suffered severe humiliation, mental anguish and emotional
27
28
Complaint for Damages

-13-
1 and physical distress and has been injured in mind and body all to plaintiff’s damage
2 in amounts according to proof at trial.
3 70. Defendants’ conduct was malicious and carried out in willful and
4 conscious disregard of the truth, the professional reputation and the rights of plaintiff
5 and justifies an award of punitive damages.
6
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
7
Violation of Bane Act, California Civil Code Section 52.1 et seq
8
(All Defendants)
9
10 71. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations set
11 forth in paragraphs 1-70 above.
12 72. Defendants violated plaintiff’s State and Federally protected constitutional
13 rights (as described herein above) by use of threat and coercion in violation of the
14 Bane Act. .

15 73. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of the Bane Act,

16 plaintiff was injured and is entitled to all of the damages available under the Act,
including treble damages.
17
18
19
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
20
74. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all claims for relief.
21
22
PRAYER
23
24 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief, as follows:
25
1. For general damages in a sum according to proof;
26
27
2. For special damages in a sum according to proof;

28
Complaint for Damages

-14-
1 3. For punitive damages against the individual defendants in a sum according

2 to proof;
3
4. For leave to amend or supplement the Complaint as the identities of the
4
5 unknown defendants are discovered and new evidence is uncovered.
6 5. For reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988;
7
6. For all damages available under the Bane Act including treble damages;
8
9 7. For cost of suit herein incurred; and
10
8. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
11
12
13
14
Dated: March 5, 2020 __/s/ Kathleen E. Wells__________________
15 KATHLEEN E. WELLS, Attorney for Plaintiff
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Complaint for Damages

-15-