COMPLAINT for Damages; Jury Trial Demanded against R. Jensen, R. Endow, K. Staggs, L. Ausmus, S. Seder, T. Mork, R. Rosin, R. Vass, C. Cox (Filing fee IFPP). Filed by Charles Johnson. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2008) (gba, COURT STAFF).
No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
There was a problem locating the requested document.
Page 1 (\y MORK, R. ROSIN, R. VASS, C. COX, R.
GO 44 SEC.
\
1 || Charles Johnson tite
C858 Feet mma Z\25 “10 TN Ave. * 14 E illing
2 || Oakland, CA 94606
3
* |IIn Propria Persona F I LE nl
5
6 R WN 3.0 2008 eV?
Ic
NORCLER, Us pen MIEKING
ONKLANDY CALIFORNIA
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA A
D
10 | f?
e
11 . C 0 8 = 03 ,
N || CHARLES JOHNSON, CIVIL NO: 14 0%
PLAINTIFF, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
13 ,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
14 Vv.
15 |} OAKLAND POLICE OFFICERS R. ENDOW,
K. STAGGS, L. AUSMUS, S. SEDER, T.
JENSEN, AND OAKLAND POLICE
OFFICERS WHOSE NAMES ARE NOT
1s || KNOWN TO PLAINTIFFS AT THIS TIME,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND IN THEIR
13 || CAPACITIES AS EMPLOYEES OF
THE CITY OF OAKLAND, ‘THE CITY OF
[OAKLAND, AND DOES 1-10,
; DEFENDANT.
ke EFENDA
a :
= Es
= . Ff 1. Plaintiff, Charles Johnson, is and at all times mentioned herein was a resident of
$F EH Alameda County, California.
in A 2. Oakland Police Officers R. Endow, K. Staggs, L. Ausmus, S, Seder, T. Mork, R.
2 =F
os Rosin, R. Vass, C. Cox, R. Jensen, and Does 1-10, police officers whose names and capacities
—
= are not known to plaintiff, are sued herein individually and in their official capacities as a sworn
Case 3:08-cv-03140-JCS Document 1 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 2of6
\
peace officers of the State of California, City of Oakland, for acts and conduct under color of
law, as follows.
3. The City of Oakland is a municipal corporation of the State of California.
4, This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sections 1983, et seq. and 1988, and
the California Constitution, civil rights statutes and common law. Jurisdiction is based on 28
U.S.C. sections 1331 and 1343 and the aforementioned federal statutes.
5. Plaintiffs further invoke the pendent jurisdiction of this court to decide claims
arising under the California Constitution and California law covering the use of unreasonable
force.
6. Plaintiffs have filed administrative claims in compliance with Cal. Govt. Code
§910 et seq, and such claims have been denied.
7. Plaintiffs have standing to file this complaint against defendants because they
were injured by Defendants’ acts, violation of the California and United States Constitutions, and
California tort law. ~
8. Under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983, et seq. and 1988, Plaintiffs have standing to bring
suit against defendants to recover compensation for Plaintiffs’ injuries resulting from
Defendants’ violation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights.
9. The City of Oakland is a subdivision of the State of California and was acting
pursuant to the police power authorized by Article XI, Section 7, of the California Constitution,
when Oakland Police officers injured Plaintiff.
10. | When the officers injured Plaintiff, they were acting as employees of the City of
Oakland Police Department.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATIONS OF TITLE 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983
11. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 10, of this
complaint as if fully set forth herein.
12. Both Charles Johnson’s and Charles Johnson, Sr.’s Constitutional rights were
violated on December 12, 2007, at 8831 “D” Street, Oakland, California.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES -2- ‘Page 3 10
1i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case 3:08-cv-03140-JCS Document 1 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 3of6
\
13. On or about December 12, 2007, in Oakland, California, Defendants Officers R.
Endow, K. Staggs, L. Ausmus, S. Seder, T. Mork, R. Rosin, R. Vass, C. Cox, R. Jensen, and |
Officers whose names are unknown at this time, appeared at Charles Johnson, Sr.’s and Charles
Johnson Jr.’s residence at 8831 “D” Street, Oakland, California.
14. According to the statements made to Charles Johnson, the Defendant officers,
received a report from a confidential source that Charles Johnson, and or others possessed
firearms and were selling illegal drugs from the residence at 8831 “D” Street, Oakland,
California.
15. Defendant officers alleged that they obtained a search warrant based upon the
above incorrect assumptions. .
16. The Defendants working with each other conspired to and did detained Charles
Johnson, his son, and others whom are not a part of this law suit.
17. The Defendants placed Charles Johnson and his son in handcuffs and removed
them from the residence so they could not witness the unlawful search and then they searched the
residence, including the bedrooms of Charles Johnson and his son.
18. | The defendants arrested both Charles Johnson. and his son without informing
them of the reasons for their arrests.
19. Defendants did; however, seize prescription medicines lawfully prescribed to
Charles Johnson and his son.
20. Defendants conspired to and did also seized approximately $7,100, from Charles
Johnson, approximately $600 of which was on his person, and $6,500 of which was hidden in a
jacket pocket inside his bedroom closet. He had recently inherited that money as a result of the
sale of his deceased father’s estate and he confirmed the money was there minutes before the
police searched his room.
21. Days later, Defendants later released both Charles Johnson and his son.
22. Defendants returned Charles Johnson prescription medications to his son.
23. Defendants did not return any of Charles Johnson’s son’s prescription
medication.
|] COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES -3-Page 4 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
\
24. Defendants did not return any of the money they wrongfully seized.
25. Both Charles Johnson filed a claim against the City of Oakland, under the
Government tort claims act demanding the return of his money.
26. About February 1, 2008, following a January 2008, letter from Internal Affairs
requesting that this plaintiff Charles Johnson be interviewed regarding his claims against the City
of Oakland, he was re-arrested by Oakland Police for a probation violation related to the original
false arrest of December 21, 2007, and charged with possession of narcotics.
27. Charles Johnson beliéves he was re-arrested in retaliation for filing a claim
against the City of Oakland pursuant to the Government Code.
28. Charles Johnson remained in custody until about June 3, 2008, when he was again
released without any of the charges being sustained and there was no finding of a probation or
parole violation. Despite Charles Johnson remaining in custody for many months, neither of his
arrests resulted in a conviction or any other form of criminal penalty.
29. ‘ When Charles Johnson went over the police report with his attorney while in
custody, he noticed that the $6,500 taken from his closet was not listed. Furthermore, there is nd
mention of the $6,500 anywhere in the report.
30. Defendants' above-described conduct, and particularly the unreasonable seizure of
plaintiffs, violated plaintiffs’ rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 under the Fourth Amendment,
applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
31. | Defendants' above-described conduct, and particularly the acts and omissions of
those defendants and maltreatment of the plaintiff, violated plaintiff's rights under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments, applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
32. Defendants’ above-described conduct, and particularly the acts and omissions of
those defendants involved in the unlawful seizure of plaintiffs, is tantamount to a policy and
custom of certain employees of the City of Oakland of taking money and property from arrested
persons and failing to list it in the report or return it to the person from whom it was taken. In
addition, the City of Oakland failed to properly supervise / and or train its employees in proper
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES -4-Page 5 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case 3:08-cv-03140-JCS Document 1 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 5of6
\ .
procedures for searching residences, listing items seized, and returning money seized as a result
of these arrests.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
PENDENT STATE CLAIMS
33. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 32, of this
complaint as if fully set forth herein.
34. In doing the acts complained of herein, Defendants, and each of them,
intentionally and unlawfully restrained and bound Plaintiffs to a confined area without their
permission.
35. In doing the acts complained of herein, Defendants, and each of them, unlawfully
converted money belonging to Charles Johnson to their own use without the permission of
Charles Johnson.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES ALLEGATION
36. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 35, of this complaint
as if fully set forth herein.
37. Defendants’ above-described engaged in conduct that was intentional, malicious,
oppressive, and in reckless disregard of plaintiff's Constitutional rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial for each cause of action for which she is entitled to a
jury trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court grant the following relief:
A. An award of compensatory and general damages for Charles Johnson and against |
the defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,007,100;
B. A change in City of Oakland police policy requiring that witnesses be present
during all phases of searches.
C. An award of exemplary and punitive damages against all defendants sued in their
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES -5-Page 6 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
\
individual capacities in the amount of $500,000, to be apportioned between the plaintiffs;
D. Trial By Jury; and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just
and proper.
Dated: lo— 2D (- oe
By: Charles acl Plaintiff
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ‘ -6-
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
(\y MORK, R. ROSIN, R. VASS, C. COX, R.
GO 44 SEC.
Case 3:08-cv-03140-JCS Document 1 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 1 of 6
\
1 || Charles Johnson tite
C858 Feet mma Z\25 “10 TN Ave. * 14 E illing
2 || Oakland, CA 94606
3
* |IIn Propria Persona F I LE nl
5
6 R WN 3.0 2008 eV?
Ic
NORCLER, Us pen MIEKING
ONKLANDY CALIFORNIA
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA A
D
10 | f?
e
11 . C 0 8 = 03 ,
N || CHARLES JOHNSON, CIVIL NO: 14 0%
PLAINTIFF, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
13 ,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
14 Vv.
15 |} OAKLAND POLICE OFFICERS R. ENDOW,
K. STAGGS, L. AUSMUS, S. SEDER, T.
JENSEN, AND OAKLAND POLICE
OFFICERS WHOSE NAMES ARE NOT
1s || KNOWN TO PLAINTIFFS AT THIS TIME,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND IN THEIR
13 || CAPACITIES AS EMPLOYEES OF
THE CITY OF OAKLAND, ‘THE CITY OF
[OAKLAND, AND DOES 1-10,
; DEFENDANT.
ke EFENDA
a :
= Es
= . Ff 1. Plaintiff, Charles Johnson, is and at all times mentioned herein was a resident of
$F EH Alameda County, California.
PDF Page 3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case 3:08-cv-03140-JCS Document 1 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 2of6
\
peace officers of the State of California, City of Oakland, for acts and conduct under color of
law, as follows.
3. The City of Oakland is a municipal corporation of the State of California.
4, This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sections 1983, et seq. and 1988, and
the California Constitution, civil rights statutes and common law. Jurisdiction is based on 28
U.S.C. sections 1331 and 1343 and the aforementioned federal statutes.
5. Plaintiffs further invoke the pendent jurisdiction of this court to decide claims
arising under the California Constitution and California law covering the use of unreasonable
force.
6. Plaintiffs have filed administrative claims in compliance with Cal. Govt. Code
§910 et seq, and such claims have been denied.
7. Plaintiffs have standing to file this complaint against defendants because they
were injured by Defendants’ acts, violation of the California and United States Constitutions, and
California tort law. ~
8. Under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983, et seq. and 1988, Plaintiffs have standing to bring
suit against defendants to recover compensation for Plaintiffs’ injuries resulting from
Defendants’ violation of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights.
9. The City of Oakland is a subdivision of the State of California and was acting
pursuant to the police power authorized by Article XI, Section 7, of the California Constitution,
when Oakland Police officers injured Plaintiff.
10. | When the officers injured Plaintiff, they were acting as employees of the City of
Oakland Police Department.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATIONS OF TITLE 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983
11. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 10, of this
complaint as if fully set forth herein.
12. Both Charles Johnson’s and Charles Johnson, Sr.’s Constitutional rights were
violated on December 12, 2007, at 8831 “D” Street, Oakland, California.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES -2- ‘
PDF Page 4
10
1i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case 3:08-cv-03140-JCS Document 1 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 3of6
\
13. On or about December 12, 2007, in Oakland, California, Defendants Officers R.
Endow, K. Staggs, L. Ausmus, S. Seder, T. Mork, R. Rosin, R. Vass, C. Cox, R. Jensen, and |
Officers whose names are unknown at this time, appeared at Charles Johnson, Sr.’s and Charles
Johnson Jr.’s residence at 8831 “D” Street, Oakland, California.
14. According to the statements made to Charles Johnson, the Defendant officers,
received a report from a confidential source that Charles Johnson, and or others possessed
firearms and were selling illegal drugs from the residence at 8831 “D” Street, Oakland,
California.
15. Defendant officers alleged that they obtained a search warrant based upon the
above incorrect assumptions. .
16. The Defendants working with each other conspired to and did detained Charles
Johnson, his son, and others whom are not a part of this law suit.
17. The Defendants placed Charles Johnson and his son in handcuffs and removed
them from the residence so they could not witness the unlawful search and then they searched the
residence, including the bedrooms of Charles Johnson and his son.
18. | The defendants arrested both Charles Johnson. and his son without informing
them of the reasons for their arrests.
19. Defendants did; however, seize prescription medicines lawfully prescribed to
Charles Johnson and his son.
20. Defendants conspired to and did also seized approximately $7,100, from Charles
Johnson, approximately $600 of which was on his person, and $6,500 of which was hidden in a
jacket pocket inside his bedroom closet. He had recently inherited that money as a result of the
sale of his deceased father’s estate and he confirmed the money was there minutes before the
police searched his room.
21. Days later, Defendants later released both Charles Johnson and his son.
22. Defendants returned Charles Johnson prescription medications to his son.
23. Defendants did not return any of Charles Johnson’s son’s prescription
medication.
|] COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES -3-
PDF Page 5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case 3:08-cv-03140-JCS Document 1 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 4 of 6
\
24. Defendants did not return any of the money they wrongfully seized.
25. Both Charles Johnson filed a claim against the City of Oakland, under the
Government tort claims act demanding the return of his money.
26. About February 1, 2008, following a January 2008, letter from Internal Affairs
requesting that this plaintiff Charles Johnson be interviewed regarding his claims against the City
of Oakland, he was re-arrested by Oakland Police for a probation violation related to the original
false arrest of December 21, 2007, and charged with possession of narcotics.
27. Charles Johnson beliéves he was re-arrested in retaliation for filing a claim
against the City of Oakland pursuant to the Government Code.
28. Charles Johnson remained in custody until about June 3, 2008, when he was again
released without any of the charges being sustained and there was no finding of a probation or
parole violation. Despite Charles Johnson remaining in custody for many months, neither of his
arrests resulted in a conviction or any other form of criminal penalty.
29. ‘ When Charles Johnson went over the police report with his attorney while in
custody, he noticed that the $6,500 taken from his closet was not listed. Furthermore, there is nd
mention of the $6,500 anywhere in the report.
30. Defendants' above-described conduct, and particularly the unreasonable seizure of
plaintiffs, violated plaintiffs’ rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 under the Fourth Amendment,
applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
31. | Defendants' above-described conduct, and particularly the acts and omissions of
those defendants and maltreatment of the plaintiff, violated plaintiff's rights under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments, applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
32. Defendants’ above-described conduct, and particularly the acts and omissions of
those defendants involved in the unlawful seizure of plaintiffs, is tantamount to a policy and
custom of certain employees of the City of Oakland of taking money and property from arrested
persons and failing to list it in the report or return it to the person from whom it was taken. In
addition, the City of Oakland failed to properly supervise / and or train its employees in proper
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES -4-
PDF Page 6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case 3:08-cv-03140-JCS Document 1 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 5of6
\ .
procedures for searching residences, listing items seized, and returning money seized as a result
of these arrests.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
PENDENT STATE CLAIMS
33. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 32, of this
complaint as if fully set forth herein.
34. In doing the acts complained of herein, Defendants, and each of them,
intentionally and unlawfully restrained and bound Plaintiffs to a confined area without their
permission.
35. In doing the acts complained of herein, Defendants, and each of them, unlawfully
converted money belonging to Charles Johnson to their own use without the permission of
Charles Johnson.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES ALLEGATION
36. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 35, of this complaint
as if fully set forth herein.
37. Defendants’ above-described engaged in conduct that was intentional, malicious,
oppressive, and in reckless disregard of plaintiff's Constitutional rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial for each cause of action for which she is entitled to a
jury trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court grant the following relief:
A. An award of compensatory and general damages for Charles Johnson and against |
the defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,007,100;
B. A change in City of Oakland police policy requiring that witnesses be present
during all phases of searches.
C. An award of exemplary and punitive damages against all defendants sued in their
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES -5-
PDF Page 7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case 3:08-cv-03140-JCS Document 1 Filed 06/30/2008 Page 6 of 6
\
individual capacities in the amount of $500,000, to be apportioned between the plaintiffs;
D. Trial By Jury; and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just
and proper.
Dated: lo— 2D (- oe
By: Charles acl Plaintiff
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ‘ -6-
Back to 
