Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District Et Al.

Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 37
1
2
3
4
RONALD CRUZ, State Bar No. 267038

United for Equality and Affirmative Action Legal Defense Fund (UEAALDF)
1985 Linden Street
Oakland, CA 94607
(510) 384-8859 ronald.cruz@ueaa.net
Fax (313) 586-0089
Attorneys for Plaintiff
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
8
9
10
JONATHAN RODRIGUEZ, by his next friend

IGNACIO RODRIGUEZ;
CASE NO.:
Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF

CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES
11
12
vs.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT, a public entity, OAKLAND
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICE
DEPARTMENT, a public entity, NOIL
ANGELO, CARLTON JOHNSON, ERIC
DUBOIS, ANA VASQUEZ, EMILIANO
SANCHEZ, JAMES WILLIAMS, GARY
YEE, JEFF GODOWN, ANTWAN
WILSON, and DOES 1-10, in their
individual and official capacities,
Defendants.
______________________________________
42 U.S.C. 1983 (First, Fourth, and

Fourteenth Amendments)
42 U.S.C. 1231(2) (Title II of the
ADA)
29 U.S.C. 794 (RA)
20 U.S.C. 1400 (IDEA)
California Constitution Article 1,
1, 13
California Civil Code 52.1
California Civil Code 51.7
Assault and Battery
Negligence
False Arrest or Imprisonment
Abuse of Process
Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress
Intrusion into Private Affairs
Public Disclosure of Private Facts
22
23
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
24
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff, by and through his
1
2
attorneys, UNITED FOR EQUALITY AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION LEGAL
DEFENSE FUND, states as follows:

INTRODUCTION
4
5
1.
This case arises out of the unprovoked and discriminatory targeting and beating of
a Latino special-education high school student by school security officers of the Oakland
School Police Department (OSPD) and a vice principal of Oakland Unified School
District (OUSD), under OUSDs supervision and control, and the cover-up by OSPD
and OUSD of the incident.
10
2.
This incident arises out of OUSDs policy of providing repression instead of equal
11
educational opportunities to Oaklands special-education students and the citys
12
predominantly Latina/o, black, other minority, and immigrant student population.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13
14
3.
This is a civil rights action arising from the Defendants unreasonable seizure of
15
and use of excessive force against Plaintiff Jonathan RODRIGUEZ (Plaintiff), on or
16
about January 22, 2014 at Fremont High School, 4610 Foothill Boulevard, Oakland,
17
California 94601. This action is brought pursuant to: 42 USC 1983 and 1988; the First,
18
Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; the American
19
with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II (42 USC 12131 et seq.); the Rehabilitation Act
20
(RA) (29 USC 794 et seq.); the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
21
(20 USC 1400 et seq.); the California Constitution; California Civil Code 51.7 and
22
52.1, state common law, and related state law statutes, codes, and regulations.
23
4.
24
work in Oakland, California. The events, acts, and/or omissions complained of herein
Plaintiff resides in Oakland, California. All of the Defendants herein reside and/or

occurred in Alameda County, California, and this action is properly assigned to the U.S.
District Court of California, Northern District.
5.
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution under 42 USC 1983, the ADA, the RA, and the
IDEA. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 USC 1331 and 28 USC
1343(3). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction of related state claims from the same
case or controversy under 28 USC 1367(a).
6.
This complaint includes claims made under the Fourth and Fourteenth
This action is timely filed within all applicable statutes of limitation.

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
9
10
7.
A substantial part of the events which give rise to this claim occurred in Alameda
11
County, making assignment to the Oakland Division appropriate under Civil L.R. 3-2(d).
12
PARTIES
13
8.
At all material times, Plaintiff Jonathan RODRIGUEZ, by his next friend Ignacio
14
Rodriguez, was and is a resident of the State of California, County of Alameda. He brings
15
these claims on his own behalf and as a Private Attorney General to vindicate
16
constitutional rights of the highest importance.
17
9.
18
educational service agency established and maintained by the laws and constitution of the
19
State of California, and owns, operates, manages, directs, and controls the Defendant
20
Oakland School Police Department (OSPD), and employs and/or is responsible for other
21
Defendants in this action. Pursuant to California Government Code 815.2, Defendant
22
OUSD is vicariously liable for state law torts of its employees and agents, including but
23
not limited to those named as Defendants herein.
Defendant Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) is a public entity and an
24
10.
Defendant Noil ANGELO was, at all material times up through at least Spring
2014, employed as a school security officer by Defendants OUSD and OSPD, and was
acting within the course and scope of that employment. Defendant ANGELO is being
sued in his individual capacity.
11.
Spring 2014, employed as a school security officer by Defendants OUSD and OSPD, and
was acting within the course and scope of that employment. Defendant JOHNSON is
being sued in his individual capacity.
12.
Defendant Carlton JOHNSON was, at all material times up through at least
Defendant Eric DUBOIS was, at all material times up through at least Spring
10
2014, employed by Defendant OUSD, and he was acting within the course and scope of
11
his employment as a Vice Principal of Fremont High School (FHS). As Vice Principal,
12
on information and belief, he was a policy-making official for FHS, responsible for all
13
policies, procedures, and training at FHS. Defendant DUBOIS is being sued in his
14
individual capacity.
15
13.
16
2014, employed by Defendant OUSD, and she was acting within the course and scope of
17
her employment as a Vice Principal of FHS. As Vice Principal, on information and
18
belief, she was a policy-making official for FHS, responsible for all policies, procedures,
19
and training at FHS. Defendant VASQUEZ is being sued in her individual capacity.
20
14.
21
Spring 2014, employed by Defendant OUSD, and he was acting within the course and
22
scope of his employment as Principal of FHS. As Principal, on information and belief, he
23
was a final policy-making official for FHS, ultimately responsible for all policies,
Defendant Ana VASQUEZ was, at all material times up through at least Spring
Defendant Emiliano SANCHEZ was, at all material times up through at least
24
procedures, and training at FHS. Defendant SANCHEZ is being sued in his individual
capacity.
15.
employed by OUSD as Superintendent, and he was acting within the course and scope of
his employment as Superintendent. As Superintendent, he was a final policy-making
official for OUSD, ultimately responsible for all policies, procedures, and training within
the OUSD and OSPD. He is being sued in his individual capacity.
16.
material times, acting within the course and scope of his employment as Chief of OSPD.
10
He is the current Chief of OSPD. As Chief of OSPD, Defendant GODOWN is a policy-
11
making official for OUSD, and he is the final policy-making official for OSPD,
12
ultimately responsible for policies, procedures, and training within OSPD. Defendant
13
GODOWN is being sued in his individual and official capacities.
14
17.
15
material times, employed by OUSD as Superintendent, and he was acting within the
16
course and scope of his employment as Superintendent. He is the current OUSD
17
Superintendent. As Superintendent, he is a final policy-making official for OUSD,
18
ultimately responsible for all policies, procedures, and training within the OUSD and
19
OSPD. He is being sued in his individual and official capacities.
20
18.
21
Defendants) are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues these Defendants by such
22
fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to show these
23
Defendants true names and capacities when they are ascertained. At all material times,
24
each of the DOE Defendants was an employee and/or agent of Defendants OUSD and/or
Defendant Gary YEE was, at all material times up through at least Spring 2014,
Defendant Jeff GODOWN was, as of February 2015 and at all subsequent
Defendant Antwan WILSON was, beginning July 1, 2014 and at all subsequent
The true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1-10 (DOE

OSPD, and at all material times acted within the course and scope of that relationship.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each Defendant so named was
negligently, wrongfully, or otherwise responsible in some manner for the injuries and
damages sustained by Plaintiff as set forth herein. Further, one or more DOE Defendants
was at all material times responsible for the hiring, training, supervision, and discipline of
other Defendants, including DOE Defendants. Each DOE Defendant is being sued in his
or her individual capacity.
19.
material times pursuant to the actual customs, policies, practices, and procedures of the
The acts and omissions of all DOE Defendants as set forth herein were at all
10
OUSD and/or OSPD.
11
20.
12
sued herein was negligently, intentionally, recklessly, wrongfully, and otherwise
13
responsible in some manner for the events and happenings as hereinafter described, and
14
proximately caused injuries and damages to Plaintiff.
15
21.
16
was at all material times, an agent, servant, employee, partner, joint venturer, co-
17
conspirator, and/or alter ego of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the things herein
18
alleged, was acting within the course and scope of that relationship. Plaintiff is further
19
informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants herein gave
20
consent, aid, and assistance to each of the remaining Defendants, and ratified and/or
21
authorized the acts or omissions of each Defendant as alleged herein, except as may be
22
hereinafter otherwise specifically alleged. At all material times, each Defendant was both
23
jointly engaged in tortious activity and an integral participant in the conduct described
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants
24
herein, resulting in the deprivation of Plaintiffs constitutional and statutory rights and
other harm.
22.
ordinances, policies, practices, customs, and usages of the State of California and the
OUSD and OSPD.
23.
Defendants, and each of them, were and are persons and entities whose conduct is
governed and regulated by all California laws and statutes, including the common law,
the California Constitution, and the public policy of the State of California.
At all material times, each Defendant acted under color of the laws, statutes,
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all material times,
10
24.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the unlawful actions
11
complained of herein, as a result of which Plaintiff sustained the injuries and damages
12
enumerated below, were and are violations of the laws of the State of California and the
13
United States.
14
25.
15
Government Code Claims Act, Cal. Govt. Code 910 et seq., and this action is timely
16
filed within all applicable statutes of limitation.
Plaintiff has complied with the claim filing requirements of Californias
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
17
18
26.
Plaintiff realleges each and every paragraph in this Complaint as if fully set forth
19
here.
20
27.
21
Oakland, California 94601, officers of the OUSD and/or OSPD, including Defendants
22
ANGELO and JOHNSON, wrongfully arrested and detained, assaulted and battered, and
23
used excessive and unjustified force against Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, causing injuries.
On or about January 22, 2014, at Fremont High School, 4610 Foothill Boulevard,
24
28.
At all material times, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ was a 14-year-old boy, who suffered
from disabilities including, but not limited to, Emotional Disturbance. His Individual
Education Plan (IEP) gave notice to school staff of his disability, the \need for positive
engagement and de-escalation, and his vulnerability to emotional trauma.
29.
JOHNSON, and Defendant Vice Principal DUBOIS had previously abused, used
excessive force against, and/or falsely arrested or directly supervised such actions against
other special-education and Latina/o students at Fremont High School (FHS), and they
were never terminated, disciplined, or retrained as a result of these violations.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants ANGELO,
10
30.
On or about January 22, 2014, Plaintiff was in the hallway during passing period
11
at Fremont High School (FHS). Defendant Vice Principal DUBOIS saw him and
12
instructed him to go the office and wait there for him. Plaintiff complied and went to the
13
office to wait for DUBOIS. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ stood in the doorway to the office,
14
talking to other students.
15
31.
16
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ asked him why he was in trouble, and Defendant DUBOIS said
17
something to the effect of, I dont need to tell you, you need to do what I say.
18
32.
19
confront Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.
20
33.
21
assaulted Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ without warrant, probable cause, reasonable suspicion,
22
or legal justification. Defendant ANGELO forcefully shoved Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ
23
from behind into Defendant JOHNSON. Defendant JOHNSON forcibly gripped Plaintiff
24
RODRIGUEZs head under his arm in a headlock.
Defendant DUBOIS approached Plaintiff and ordered him to go inside the office.
Defendant DUBOIS then called Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON to
Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON approached Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ and

34.
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ was a freshman at Fremont High School and weighed
about 110 pounds at the time. Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON were both over six
feet tall and weighed much more than Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.
35.
RODRIGUEZ in a choking headlock into and across the length of the main office,
without warrant, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or legal justification.
36.
choking headlock, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ could not breathe and he began crying. He was
in searing pain and at times came close to blacking out. He thought they were going to
Both Defendants JOHNSON and ANGELO proceeded to drag Plaintiff
As Defendants JOHNSON and ANGELO dragged him across the office in a
10
choke him to death.
11
37.
12
RODRIGUEZ across the office, they hit his head on the counter in the office and swung
13
him around between the two of them. They continued to choke Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ by
14
his neck and crush his face with their hands.
15
38.
16
the view of the offices security camera. At times, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ blacked out
17
and lost consciousness during the choking and beating.
18
39.
19
unreasonable force, and without probable cause or legal justification. Defendant
20
JOHNSON gripped and choked Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, while Defendant ANGELO
21
punched Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ in the face several times.
22
40.
23
VASQUEZ, told Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ that he could not leave and held him in a room
As Defendants JOHNSON and ANGELO forcefully dragged Plaintiff
They deliberately shoved him into a part of the office, behind a wall that blocked
Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON continued to use excessive and
Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON, on the orders of Defendants DUBOIS and
24
for over an hour, without a warrant, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or legal
justification.
41.
searched Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, patting him down and searching his belongings.
42.
back and head pain. But Defendants ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, and VASQUEZ
did nothing to provide RODRIGUEZ medical attention.
43.
SANCHEZ was notified immediately about the incident and had access to the security
Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON, unlawfully and without legal justification,
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ had a laceration above his eye, bruises, sore muscles, and
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Principal
10
camera footage showing the assault on Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.
11
44.
12
Defendants ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, and Defendant Principal
13
SANCHEZ consulted outside. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ was in the room over an hour
14
alone with two different school security officers.
15
45.
16
from school for five days, depriving him of his right to an education without due process
17
and without reasonable cause. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
18
Defendants DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, ANGELO, and JOHNSON had consulted with
19
Defendant PRINCIPAL SANCHEZ to deprive Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ of his rights and
20
to cover-up for their illegal actions.
21
46.
22
RODRIGUEZs status as a special-education student with a disability, and his status
23
being a Latino, were substantial motivating factors in Defendants refusal to respect his
24
rights, refusal to conduct a subsequent investigation of the incident.
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ was forced to stay in the room over an hour, as
Defendant SANCHEZ entered the room and suspended Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff

10
47.
Defendant DUBOIS was the direct supervisor of the attack and arrest. He set into
motion and watched the assault and arrest by Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON
against Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.
48.
students who were inside and outside the main office and other office staff and
administrators, including Defendant DUBOIS and Defendant Vice Principal VASQUEZ,
who were present and watched and took no action to stop the unreasonable seizure and
false arrest of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.
49.
Defendants JOHNSON and ANGELO attacked Jonathan in public view of
Defendant DUBOIS and Defendant VASQUEZ directed the immediate cover-up
10
of the attack, ordering students to leave the office and minimizing the number of
11
independent witnesses.
12
50.
13
integral participants in violating Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs rights. At no time did any of
14
these Defendants stop any other from using excessive force, falsely arresting and/or
15
imprisoning Plaintiff; or otherwise violating Plaintiffs rights.
16
51.
17
retrained for their excessive force and false arrest against Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.
18
52.
19
incident had occurred but something to the effect that Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ was all
20
right. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs cousin drove to Fremont High School to pick him up.
21
53.
22
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs injuries and took pictures of him with his cell phone.
23
54.
24
distraught and worried.
Defendants ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ and SANCHEZ were
Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON were never terminated, disciplined, or
Defendant SANCHEZ called Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs uncle and told him that an
When Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs cousin came to pick him up, he was alarmed by
At home, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs mother saw her sons injuries and was

11
55.
When Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs father came home that same day, he took his son
to Childrens Hospital of Oakland for treatment for his injuries and emotional distress.
56.
staffs actions against her son. She asked to see the video from the security camera.
Defendant SANCHEZ showed her the video, but stopped it before the entire attack was
completed, claiming that there was something wrong with the video.
57.
James WILLIAMS and his subordinates, including DOES 1-10, and that Defendant
OUSD Superintendent GARY YEE, and his subordinates, including Defendant
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs mother visited the school to complain about the school
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant OSPD Chief
10
WILLIAMS and DOES 1-10, received the report of the assault on Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ
11
that included a DVD of the video footage taken from the Fremont High School main
12
office security camera.
13
58.
14
and Defendant YEE and their subordinates conducted no investigation of Defendants
15
ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, and/or SANCHEZ, thus failing to
16
investigate, discipline, and conduct training of OUSD and OSPD staff and exercising
17
deliberately indifference to the rights of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ and other students of
18
OUSD.
19
59.
20
difficulty engaging with school. Not only did none of the Defendants offer counseling or
21
aid of any sort to Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, but Defendant DUBOIS deliberately targeted
22
him for further abuse in a later incident described below.
23
60.
24
Disturbance. School officials had been aware of this detrimental impact given
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant WILLIAMS
After the incident, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ exacerbated his depression and
The January 22, 2014 beating exacerbated Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs Emotional

12
RODRIGUEZs history of Emotional Disturbance and qualification for counseling
services as determined by the Educationally Related Mental Health Services (ERMHS)
evaluator and his IEP team.
61.
deliberately and unlawfully took Plaintiffs cell phone and unlawfully effected his arrest.
As Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ stood in a school hallway at FHS listening to music on his cell
phone, Defendant DUBOIS walked up to RODRIGUEZ and forcefully took away
RODRIGUEZs cell phone without any explanation. DUBOIS accused RODRIGUEZ of
stealing the phone, even though DUBOIS had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion
On March 7, 2014, Defendant DUBOIS, with knowledge of Plaintiffs disability,
10
to believe the phone did not belong to Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.
11
62.
12
back. Defendant DUBOIS refused to return Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ his property. When
13
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ continued to demand his cell phone, Defendant DUBOIS called
14
for police.
15
63.
16
had wrongfully assaulted him. DUBOIS had Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ arrested, even
17
though Defendant DUBOIS continued to unlawfully hold Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs
18
property.
19
64.
20
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs phone was purchased in and the sales receipt, before the police
21
would release Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.
22
65.
23
hall on the basis of Defendant DUBOISs false and misleading statements to police,
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ explained that the cell phone was his and demanded it
Defendant DUBOIS lied to police officers, claiming that Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs mother had to go to the police station with the box
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ had to go to juvenile court and spend a week in juvenile
24
13
further exacerbating his disability of emotional disturbance, difficulty engaging with the
school environment, and the trauma he suffered from the January 22, 2014.
66.
Emotional Disturbance and violated RODRIGUEZs rights under his IEP and Behavior
Support Plan.
67.
and other OUSD staff to have a copy of the security video. But their requests were
ignored.
68.
This second incident again exacerbated Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs diagnosed
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs family made repeated requests to Defendant SANCHEZ
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff
10
RODRIGUEZs status as a special-education student with a disability, and his status
11
being a Latino, were substantial motivating factors in Defendants refusal produce the
12
video to Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ and his parents despite their repeated efforts.
13
69.
14
they produce a copy of the security camera footage of the incident on behalf of Plaintiff
15
RODRIGUEZ.
16
70.
17
GODOWN and his subordinates including DOES 1-10, responded to this request by
18
obtaining their report of the January 22, 2014 incident and DVD video. Defendant OUSD
19
Superintendent WILSON, Defendant GODOWN and their subordinates including DOES
20
1-10, withheld this video. Instead of releasing it to Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ per the request
21
of his attorney, they released it to the news media on March 6, 2015: footage of Plaintiff
22
RODRIGUEZ, a minor, being traumatized and beaten by OSPD officers under the
23
direction and supervision of OUSD officials. Defendants released the video on March 6,
24
2015 without Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs or his parents knowledge or consent, in violation
On February 23, 2015, this law firm sent formal requests to OUSD and OSPD that
Plaintiff is informed and believes thereon alleges that Defendant OSPD Chief Jeff

14
of minors right to privacy under the United States and California Constitutions and state
and federal laws.
71.
coupled their release of the video with prepared statements to media and an email to all
OUSD employees and parents of OUSD children that were specially prepared for the
occasion. These statements named Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, a minor, by his full name.
72.
major TV news stations, and the video of the attack on YouTube was viewed by
thousands more.
Also on March 6, 2015, Defendants WILSON, GODOWN and their subordinates
Footage of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ being brutalized were seen by thousands on
10
73.
At the age of 14, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs privacy and anonymity were stripped
11
away without his or his parents knowledge or consent.
12
74.
13
privacy by Defendants, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ has suffered ongoing pain and severe
14
emotional distress, anxiety, humiliation, mortification, and depression.
15
75.
16
and increased emotional distress resulting from attacks by Defendants in this case.
17
Because of the exacerbation of Plaintiffs emotional disturbance caused by Defendants,
18
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ had to live in a restricted group home from February to December
19
2015.
20
76.
21
emotional disturbance, were among the motivating factors for Defendants DUBOIS,
22
ANGELOs, JOHNSONs, VASQUEZS, and SANCHEZS unlawful treatment of
23
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.
As a result of the excessive force, false arrest, cover-up, and violation of his
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ suffered a loss of appetite, sleeplessness, and weight loss,
On information and belief, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs disabilities, including his
24
15
77.
On information and belief, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ being a Latino was among the
motivating factors for Defendants DUBOIS, ANGELOs, JOHNSONs, VASQUEZS,
and SANCHEZS unlawful treatment of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.
78.
VASQUEZ, and SANCHEZ also targeted Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ for this violation of his
rights based, in part, on his Latino race, national origin, ancestry, and/or assertion of his
Constitutional rights to free speech and to be free from unreasonable seizure.
79.
denied Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ his right to participation in public accommodations and
On information and belief, Defendants DUBOIS, ANGELO, JOHNSON,
Defendants DUBOIS, ANGELO, JOHNSON, VASQUEZ, and SANCHEZ also
10
services and his right to an education.
11
80.
12
managing agents and employees, including, but not limited to, former Defendant OSPD
13
Chief of Police WILLIAMS; former OUSD Superintendent Defendant YEE; Defendant
14
SANCHEZ, Defendant DUBOIS, Defendant VASQUEZ, and other as-yet unknown
15
employees and agents of Defendants OUSD and OSPD, negligently, recklessly,
16
otherwise wrongfully and with deliberate indifference to the rights and safety of OUSD
17
students, including Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, failed to properly screen, investigate, hire,
18
train, supervise, and/or discipline Defendants ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS,
19
VASQUEZ, and/or SANCHEZ.
20
81.
21
did not pose any threat to Defendants or to others. No force was justified at any time, and
22
there was never probable cause to arrest him.
23
82.
24
and unlawful search of his person, false arrest and imprisonment, violation of state and
On information and belief, Defendants OUSD and OSPD, their policymakers and
At all times, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ had committed no crime, was unarmed, and
Additionally, Defendants subjected Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ to an unreasonable

16
federal constitutional rights, violation of privacy, and interference with his rights by
threats, intimidation, and/or coercion.
83.
circumstances, were without probable cause or other legal right, were done under color of
law and within the course and scope of their employment, and were done pursuant to
unconstitutional customs, policies, and procedures of Defendants OUSD and OSPD.
84.
injuries through their own acts and omissions, negligent or otherwise, by failing to
properly and adequately investigate, train, supervise, monitor, instruct, and discipline
10
their employees, officers, and other personnel, including the officers identified herein.
11
85.
12
Defendant were intentional, knowing, wanton and/or willful, reckless, malicious,
13
deliberately indifferent to and with conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and
14
others, done with oppression, fraud, malice, actual malice, grossly negligent, negligent,
15
and objectively unreasonable.
16
86.
17
a result of Defendants misconduct.
18
87.
19
forth above, Plaintiff sustained the following injuries and damages, past and future,
20
among others:
Defendants actions and omissions were objectively unreasonable under the
Defendants OUSD and OSPD are also responsible for Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs
At all material times, and alternatively, the actions and omissions of each
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ has required, and will require, significant medical care as
As a direct and proximate result of each Defendants acts and/or omissions as set
21
a.
Wrongful seizure and imprisonment;
22
b.
Facial cuts and bruises;
23
c.
Physical and emotional pain and suffering, including severe emotional
24
distress;
17
d.
Medical expenses;
e.
Invasion of privacy;
f.
Invasion of bodily integrity;
g.
Lost educational time exacerbation of his disability and unjust disciplinary
action;
h.
Violation of federal and California constitutional rights; and
i.
All compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys fees, costs, and
penalties recoverable under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988, and 12205; 29 U.S.C.
794a; the ADA; the RA; the IDEA; California Civil Code 51.7, 52, 52.1, and
10
3294; California Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5; and as otherwise allowed
11
under California and United States statutes, codes, and common law.
12
13
COUNT ONE
-42 U.S.C. 1983 (Fourth Amendment)
AGAINST DEFENDANTS ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, AND DOES 2-10
14
88.
15
here.
16
89.
17
color of state law in their personal capacities, deprived Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ of the
18
following clearly established and well-settled constitutional rights protected by the First,
19
Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution:
20
Defendants ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, and DOES 2-10, acting under the
a.
The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as secured by

the Fourth Amendment;
b.
The right to be free from excessive and unreasonable force as secured by

the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;
c.
The right to be free from invasion of privacy as secured by the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments;
21
22
23
24
18
d.
1
2
e.
3
4
The right to be free from deprivation of life, liberty, and property without
due process of law, including the right to be free from invasion of privacy
and violation of bodily integrity, as secured by the Fourteenth
Amendment.
The right to Equal Protection of the Laws, and to be free from
discrimination based upon his race and/or national origin, as secured by
the Fourteenth Amendment.
90.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants acts and/or omissions as set
forth above, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ sustained injuries and damages as set forth at 86-
87, above.
91.
RODRIGUEZ to their wrongful conduct and deprived him of rights described herein
Defendants ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, and DOES 2-10 subjected Plaintiff
10
knowingly, maliciously, and with conscious and reckless disregard for whether the rights
11
and safety of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ and others would be violated by their acts and/or
12
omissions.
13
92.
14
entitles Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ to exemplary and punitive damages and penalties
15
allowable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and California law.
16
93.
17
under 42 U.S.C. 1988, Cal. Civ. Code 51.7, 52 and 52.1, Cal. Code Civ. Proc.
18
1021.5, and other applicable California codes and law.
The conduct of Defendants ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, and DOES 2-10
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ is also entitled to reasonable costs and attorneys fees
19
20
21
COUNT TWO
-42 U.S.C. 1983 (Supervisory and Municipal Liability)
AGAINST DEFENDANTS YEE, WILLIAMS, SANCHEZ, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ,
WILSON, GODOWN, AND DOES 2-10
22
94.
23
here.
Plaintiff realleges each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth
24
19
95.
JOHNSON, DUBOIS, and DOES 2-10 were, on information and belief, pursuant to the
following customs, policies, practices and/or procedures of Defendants YEE,
WILLIAMS, SANCHEZ, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, WILSON, GODOWN, and DOES 2-
10, which were directed, encouraged, allowed and/or ratified by policy-making officers
for the OUSD and/or OSPD, including but not limited to DOES 110:
The unconstitutional actions and/or omissions of Defendants ANGELO,
a.
To engage in or tolerate unreasonable searches and seizures of minors, as

described above, or to fail to investigate and review the basis for the arrest
against minors to ensure that minors are properly and legally arrested;
b.
To engage in or tolerate uses of excessive force against minors, as

described above;
c.
To engage in or tolerate serious invasions of minors rights to privacy and

bodily integrity, as described above;
d.
To allow racial profiling and discrimination by security officers;
e.
To fail to properly screen, conduct background searches on, train, monitor,

supervise, and discipline security officers, including but not limited to
Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON;
f.
To fail to properly screen, conduct background searches on, train, monitor,

supervise, and discipline school administrators, including but not limited
to Defendant DUBOIS;
g.
To fail to institute and require proper and adequate training, supervision,

policies, and procedures concerning searches and seizures of minors; and
h.
To cover up violations of constitutional rights by any or all of the

following:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
i.
by failing to properly investigate and/or evaluate complaints or

incidents related to the claimed customs, policies, practices, and
procedures describe above in subparagraphs (a)(f);
ii.
by ignoring and/or failing to properly and adequately investigate

and/or discipline unconstitutional or unlawful activity by
employees/agents of the OUSD and/or OSPD as described above
in subparagraphs (a)(f);
20
21
22
23
24
iii.
by allowing, tolerating, and/or encouraging OUSD and/or OSPD

employees and/or agents to: fail to file complete and accurate
20
police reports; file false police reports; make false statements;

intimidate, bias, and/or coach witnesses to give false information
and/or to attempt to bolster officers stories; and obstruct and/or
interfere with investigations of unconstitutional or unlawful police
conduct, by withholding and/or concealing material information;
1
2
3
4
iv.
to allow, tolerate, and/or encourage a code of silence among

OUSD and/or OSPD employees/agents whereby an officer or
member of the OSPD does not provide adverse information against
a fellow officer or member of the organization or hold another
member accountable for official misconduct, and fails to intervene
when another officer commits misconduct; and
v.
to use or tolerate inadequate, deficient, and improper procedures

for handling, investigating, and reviewing complaints of OUSD
and/or OSPD employee and/or agent misconduct, including claims
made under California Government code 910 et seq.
5
6
7
8
9
10
96.
11
GODOWN, and DOES 2-10 failed to properly screen, hire, train, instruct, monitor,
12
supervise, evaluate, manage, investigate, and discipline Defendants ANGELO,
13
JOHNSON, DUBOIS, and DOES 2-10, with deliberate indifference to the constitutional
14
rights of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, which were thereby violated as described above.
15
97.
16
JOHNSON, DUBOIS, and DOES 2-10, as described above, were approved, tolerated
17
and/or ratified by policy making officers for Defendants OUSD and/or OSPD, including
18
Defendants YEE, WILLIAMS, SANCHEZ, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, WILSON,
19
GODOWN, or DOE 1, and DOES 2-10. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ is informed and believes,
20
and thereupon alleges, that the details of this incident have been revealed to the
21
authorized policy makers within Defendants OUSD and/or OSPD, and that such policy
22
makers have direct knowledge of the facts of this incident. Notwithstanding this
23
knowledge, the authorized policy makers within Defendants OUSD and/or the OSPD
24
have approved of the conduct of Defendants ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, and
Defendants YEE, WILLIAMS, SANCHEZ, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, WILSON,
The unconstitutional actions and/or omissions of Defendants ANGELO,

21
DOES 2-10, and have made a deliberate choice to endorse the decisions of those
Defendant OUSD and/or OSPD employees and/or agents, and the basis for those
decisions. By doing so, the authorized policy makers within Defendants OUSD and/or
OSPD have shown affirmative agreement with the actions of Defendants ANGELO,
JOHNSON, DUBOIS, and DOES 2-10, and have ratified the unconstitutional actions of
these Defendants.
98.
properly and adequately screen, hire, train, instruct, monitor, supervise, evaluate,
investigate, and discipline; as well as the unconstitutional orders, approvals, ratification,
The aforementioned customs, policies, practices, and procedures; the failures to
10
and toleration of wrongful conduct of Defendants YEE, WILLIAMS, SANCHEZ,
11
DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, WILSON, GODOWN or DOE 1, and DOES 2-10, were a moving
12
force and/or proximate cause of the deprivations of the clearly established and well-
13
settled constitutional rights of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, as
14
more fully set forth in 60 above.
15
99.
16
Plaintiff of rights described herein, knowingly, maliciously, and with conscious and
17
reckless disregard for whether the rights and safety of Plaintiff and others would be
18
violated by their acts and/or omissions.
19
100.
20
customs, policies, practices, and procedures of Defendants YEE, WILLIAMS,
21
SANCHEZ, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, WILSON, GODOWN, and DOES 2-10, as described
22
above, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ sustained injuries and damages, and is entitled to relief as
23
described above at 86-87, including compensatory and punitive damages and
24
penalties, and attorneys fees and costs.
Defendants subjected Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ to their wrongful conduct, depriving
As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional actions, omissions,

22
1
2
COUNT THREE
VIOLATION OF TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
(ADA) AND THE REHABILITATION ACT (RA)
AGAINST DEFENDANTS OUSD and OSPD
3
4
101.
here.
102.
among other things, that society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with
disabilities, and that such forms of discrimination continue to be a serious and
pervasive social problem. 42 U.S.C. 12101(a)(2).
Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) upon a finding,
10
103.
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ is a qualified individual suffering from disabilities
11
including, but not limited to, emotional disturbance, a disability that substantially limits
12
his ability to perform major life activities, including but not limited to, learning, reading,
13
concentrating, thinking, and communicating. 42 U.S.C. 12131(2); Section 504 of the
14
RA of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794; 28 C.F.R. 42.540(k).
15
104.
16
U.S.C. 12131(1)(A). Title II of the ADA applies generally to a public entitys services,
17
programs, or activities. 42 U.S.C. 12132. Specifically, Title II of the ADA applies to
18
the services of Defendants OUSD and OSPD, including detentions and arrests.
19
Furthermore, respondeat superior liability applies to Title II claims.
20
105.
21
Defendants OUSD and OSPD receive federal assistance and funds, and are therefore
22
subject to the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794. Defendants OUSD and OSPD are
23
within the mandate of the RA that no person with a disability may be excluded from
Defendants OUSD and OSPD are public entities under Title II of the ADA. 42
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ is informed, and believes, and thereon alleges, that
24
23
participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity. 29 U.S.C. 794.
106.
characteristics related to his disabilities. Defendants also failed to reasonably
accommodate Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs disabilities in the course of detaining and
arresting him, causing him to suffer greater injury in the process than other detainees or
arrestees who are not disabled like him. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants
OUSDs and OSPDs violations of the ADA and RA, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ sustained
serious injuries and is entitled to damages, penalties, costs, and attorneys fees as set forth
10
As described herein, Defendants arrested Plaintiff because of his disabilities and
in 86-87, above.
11
12
13
COUNT FOUR
VIOLATION OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION
ACT (IDEA)
AGAINST DEFENDANT OUSD and OSPD
14
107.
15
here.
16
108.
17
that schools must provid[e] incentives for whole-school approaches [and] positive
18
behavioral interventions and supports to students with disabilities and that [g]reater
19
efforts are needed to prevent the intensification of problems connected with mislabeling
20
and high dropout rates among minority children with disabilities. 20 U.S.C. 1400.
21
109.
22
emotional disturbance and is protected under the IDEA. 20 U.S.C. 1401(3)(A)(i).
23
110.
24
Defendant OUSD owns, operates, manages, directs, and controls the Defendant OSPD,
Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) upon a finding
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ suffers from disabilities including, but not limited to,
Defendant OUSD is an educational service agency under 20 U.S.C. 1401(5).

24
and employs and/or is responsible for other Defendants in this action. Furthermore,
respondeat superior liability applies to IDEA claims.
111.
Individual Education Plan (IEP), and abused, used excessive force, and arrested Plaintiff
because of his disabilities and characteristics related to his disabilities. Defendants also
failed to accommodate Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs disabilities in the course of detaining
and arresting him, causing him to suffer emotional trauma in the process than other
detainees or arrestees who are not disabled like him. As a direct and proximate result of
Defendants OUSDs and OSPDs violations of the IDEA, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ
As described herein, Defendants violated Plaintiffs rights as guaranteed under his
10
sustained serious injuries and is entitled to damages, penalties, costs, and attorneys fees
11
as set forth in 86-87, above.
12
COUNT FIVE
DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ALL DEFENDANTS
13
14
15
112.
16
here.
17
113.
18
Defendant, acting in concert/conspiracy as described above, violated the rights, protected
19
by the California Constitution, of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, including but not limited to the
20
following:
Through their actions, omissions, customs, and policies as described above, each
21
a.
The right to enjoy and defend life and liberty; acquire, possess, and protect
property; and pursue and obtain happiness and privacy, as secured by the
California Constitution, Article 1, 1;
b.
The right to be free from unlawful and/or unreasonable seizure of ones

person as secured by the California Constitution, Article 1, 13.
22
23
24

25
114.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants violation of the rights under the
California Constitution of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff sustained injuries and
damages, and is entitled to relief as described above at 86-87, including compensatory
and punitive damages and penalties, and attorneys fees and costs.
COUNT SIX
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 52.1 (BANE ACT)
DEFENDANTS ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, OUSD, AND OSPD
5
6
7
115.
here.
116.
By their acts, omissions, customs, and policies, each Defendant, acting in
10
concert/conspiracy, as described above, violated Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs rights under
11
California Civil Code 52.1, and the following clearly established rights under the
12
United States Constitution and California Constitution:
13
a.
The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as secured by

the Fourth Amendment;
b.
The right to be free from excessive and unreasonable force in the course of
arrest or detention as secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;
c.
The right to be free from invasion of privacy as secured by the Fourth and
d.
The right to be free from the deprivation of life, liberty, and property
without due process of law, including the right to be free from invasion of
privacy as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment;
e.
The right to be free from retaliation and denial of equal protection for
exercise of rights, speech, and expression, as secured by the First and
f.
The right to Equal Protection of Laws, and to be free from discrimination,

as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment;
g.
The right to reasonable accommodation for his disabilities as secured by

the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act;
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

26
h.
The right to enjoy and defend life and liberty; acquire, possess, and protect
property; and pursue and obtain safety, happiness, and privacy, as secured
by the California Constitution, Article 1, 1;
i.
The right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of ones person
as secured by the California Constitution, Article 1, 13;
j.
The right to be free from unreasonable or excessive force, as secured by

the California Constitution, Article 1, 13;
k.
The right to be free from unlawful searches as secured by California Penal

Code 4030 and 15 California Code of Regulations 1360;
l.
The right to protection from bodily restraint, harm, or personal insult, as

secured by California Civil Code 43.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
117.
Separate from, and above and beyond, Defendants attempted interference,
10
interference with, and violation of, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs rights, Defendants violated
11
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs rights by the following conduct constituting threats,
12
intimidation, or coercion:
13
a.
striking, punching, restraining, choking, and using force against Plaintiff

RODRIGUEZ in the absence of any threat or justification whatsoever;
b.
threatening violence against Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ in violation of

California Civil Code 52.1(j), i.e., speech that threatens violence
against a specific person . . . and the person . . . against whom the threat is
directed reasonably fears that, because of his speech, violence will be
committed against them or their property and that the person threatening
violence had the apparent ability to carry out the threat, e.g. Defendant
JOHNSON telling Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ to sit your ass down and
forcing him to sit back down in his wheelchair;
19
c.
detaining Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ without reasonable suspicion;
20
d.
arresting Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ without probable cause;
21
e.
continuing Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs arrest and custody after any probable

cause that Defendants may have erroneously believed existed to justify
arresting Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ had eroded, such that the officers
conduct became intentionally coercive and wrongful; and
14
15
16
17
18
22
23
24

27
f.
1
2
violating Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs rights to be free, under Cal. Const. Art.

1, 13, from unlawful seizures by both wrongful arrest and excessive
force.
118.
52.1 and of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs rights under the United States and California
Constitutions and statutes, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ sustained injuries and damages and is
entitled to relief as set forth above at 86-87 and all damages allowed by California
Civil Code 52, 52.1 and California law, including but not limited to costs, attorneys
fees, treble damages, and civil penalties.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants violation of California Civil Code
COUNT SEVEN
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 51.7
DEFENDANTS ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, OUSD AND OSPD
10
11
119.
12
fully set forth here.
13
120.
14
concert/conspiracy, as described above, violated Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs rights secured
15
by California Civil Code 51.7 to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of
16
violence, committed against his person or property because of his disability, race, color,
17
or national origin.
18
121.
19
51.7. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ sustained injuries and damages, and is entitled to relief as
20
set forth above at 86-87 and all damages allowed by California Civil Code 51.7, 52,
21
52.1, and California law, including but not limited to attorneys fees, costs, treble
22
damages, and civil penalties.
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ realleges each and every paragraph in this Complaint as if
By their acts, omissions, customs, and policies, each Defendant acting in
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants violation of California Civil Code
23
24
28
COUNT EIGHT
ASSAULT AND BATTERY
DEFENDANTS ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, OUSD AND OSPD
1
2
3
122.
123.
were intentional and/or reckless, harmful, threatening, and/or offensive, and a proximate
cause of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs damages.
124.
RODRIGUEZ sustained injuries and damages, and is entitled to relief as set forth above
10
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ realleges each and every paragraph of this complaint as if
The actions, omissions, customs, and policies of Defendants, as described above,
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants assault and battery, Plaintiff
at 86-87.
COUNT NINE
NEGLIGENCE; PERSONAL INJURIES
ALL DEFENDANTS
11
12
13
125.
14
15
126.
16
due care in the execution and enforcement of any right, law, or legal obligation.
17
127.
At all times, each Defendant owed Plaintiff the duty to act with reasonable care.
18
128.
These general duties of reasonable care and due care owed to Plaintiff
19
RODRIGUEZ by all Defendants include but are not limited to the following specific
20
obligations:
21
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ realleges each and every paragraph in this complaint as if
At all times, each Defendant owed Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ the duty to act with
a.
To properly and adequately screen, investigate, background-check, hire,

train, monitor, supervise, discipline and terminate school security officers;
b.
To refrain from releasing Plaintiffs identity, private information, medical

condition, and video recordings of Plaintiff to the public and the media;
c.
To refrain from violating Plaintiffs privacy;
22
23
24

29
d.
To prohibit racial profiling by school security officers, and to refrain from

engaging in racial profiling;
e.
To refrain from treating Plaintiff differently because of his race, national

origin, ancestry, and/or disabilities;
f.
To refrain from using, or causing to be used, excessive and/or

unreasonable force against Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, or tolerating such
conduct by others;
g.
To refrain from causing Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ to be wrongfully

searched; arrested, and/or detained, or tolerating such conduct by others;
h.
To refrain from conduct that constitutes a substantial factor causing the

violation of Plaintiffs rights;
i.
To use generally accepted procedures and tactics that are reasonable and
necessary under the circumstances;
j.
To refrain from tactics and conduct that led to the otherwise unnecessary
seizure of and use of force against Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ;
12
k.
To refrain from abusing their authority granted them by law; and
13
l.
To refrain from violating Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs rights guaranteed by

the United States and California Constitutions, as set forth above, and as
otherwise protected by law.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
14
15
129.
16
Plaintiffs by Defendants OUSD, OSPD, YEE, WILLIAMS, SANCHEZ, DUBOIS,
17
VASQUEZ, WILSON, GODOWN, and DOES 2-10, include but are not limited to the
18
following specific obligations:
19
Additionally, these general duties of reasonable care and due care owed to
a.
to use reasonable care to discover whether a potential employee is unfit or

incompetent; or who possesses qualities that make him or her likely to
cause harm to other persons or property in view of the work or other
instrumentalities entrusted to him or her; or who may be incompetent
because of a reckless, vicious, or predatory disposition;
b.
to exercise reasonable care in screening, hiring and employing persons to

perform work or other activities on behalf of the OUSD and/or OSPD;
c.
to avoid hiring, or proposing or recommending for hiring, a person known,

or who reasonably should have been known, to be incompetent or unfit
20
21
22
23
24

30
and likely to cause harm to students in view of the work entrusted to him
or her; or who possesses qualities that make him or her likely to cause
harm to other persons or property in view of the work or other
instrumentalities entrusted to him or her; or who may be incompetent
because of a reckless, vicious, or predatory disposition;
1
2
3
4
d.
to exercise reasonable care in supervising persons to perform work or

other activities on behalf of Defendants OUSD and/or OSPD;
e.
to avoid assigning tasks to an employee known, or who reasonably should

have been known, to be incompetent or unfit and likely to harm other
persons or property in view of the work to be entrusted to him or her; or
who possesses qualities that make him or her likely to cause harm to other
persons or property in view of the work or other instrumentalities
entrusted to him or her; or who may be incompetent because of a reckless,
vicious, or predatory disposition;
f.
to exercise reasonable care in determining whether to take appropriate

corrective action, or to suspend or terminate an incompetent or unfit
employee likely to cause harm to a student while performing tasks
activities assigned to him or her; or who possesses qualities that make him
or her likely to cause harm to other persons or property in view of the
work or other instrumentalities entrusted to him or her; or who may be
incompetent because of a reckless, vicious, or predatory disposition; and
g.
to make, enforce, and at all times act in conformance with policies and
customs that are lawful and protective of individual rights, including
Plaintiffs.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
130.
Defendants, through their acts and omissions, breached each and every one of the
17
aforementioned duties owed to Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.
18
131.
19
RODRIGUEZ sustained injuries and damages, and is entitled to relief as set forth above
20
at 86-87.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants negligence, Plaintiff
21
22
23
24
31
1
2
3
COUNT TEN
False Arrest or Imprisonment
DEFENDANTS ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, SANCHEZ, 2-10,
OUSD, AND OSPD
132.
133.
Defendants have a warrant for the arrest of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, nor did Defendants
have any facts or information that constituted probable cause that Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ
had committed or was about to commit a crime. Defendants also lacked reasonable
At no time during the events described above, or at all other pertinent times, did
10
suspicion to detain Plaintiff at any time, and Defendants were not engaged in a lawful
11
investigative detention of Plaintiff.
12
134.
13
restrain, detain, and confine Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, putting restraint on Plaintiff
14
RODRIGUEZs freedom of movement, and compelled Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ to remain
15
and/or move against his will. Defendants authorized, directed, and assisted in procuring,
16
without process, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs unlawful arrest and imprisonment.
17
135.
18
above, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ sustained injuries and damages and is entitled to relief as
19
set forth at 86-87, above.
Defendants, and each of them, intentionally and unlawfully exercised force to
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants acts and/or omissions as set forth
COUNT ELEVEN
Abuse of Process
DEFENDANT DUBOIS, DOES 2-10, AND OUSD
20
21
22
136.
23
24
137.
Knowing about Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs disability, Defendant DUBOIS

32
unlawfully took Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs cell phone, called police against Plaintiff
RODRIGUEZ, and made false and misleading statements to police officers to effect
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs arrest. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ was arrested and taken to the
police station. The juvenile proceedings based on Defendant DUBOIS false complaint
resulted in Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ being kept in juvenile hall for one week.
138.
animus toward Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, based on Plaintiffs disability and his race.
139.
of Defendant DUBOIS authority and power, including the exacerbation of Plaintiffs
Defendant DUBOIS had the ulterior purpose and motive of acting on his personal
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ suffered severe emotional distress from this unjust abuse
10
emotional disturbance and difficulty engaging with his education.
11
140.
12
13
14
15
COUNT TWELVE
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
DEFENDANTS ANGELO,JOHNSON, DUBOIS, DOES 2-10, OUSD AND OSPD
16
141.
17
18
142.
19
all possible bounds of decency. Defendants abused their positions of authority that gave
20
them real or apparent power to affect Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs interests. Defendants
21
knew or must have known that Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ had emotional disturbance was
22
particularly vulnerable to emotional distress. Defendants further knew or must have
23
known that their conduct would likely result in harm due to mental distress. Defendants
24
intended to cause Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ emotional distress.
Defendants conduct was outrageous, and it was so extreme that it went beyond

33
143.
Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ suffered severe emotional distress, including, but not
limited to, substantial and long-lasting suffering, anguish, fright, horror, nervousness,
grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, mortification, embarrassment, depression, and
shame.
144.
severe emotional distress.
145.
Defendants conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs
COUNT THIRTEEN
Intrusion into Private Affairs
DEFENDANTS WILSON, GODOWN, OUSD, OSPD, AND DOES 1-10
10
11
12
146.
13
14
147.
15
about January 22, 2014 because only those students, faculty and other employees/agents
16
of the OUSD and/or OSPD who were present during the events, or who would later
17
investigate the events, would see or hear about them. Further, Plaintiff had a reasonable
18
expectation that Defendants would not disseminate to anyone outside of Defendants
19
OUSD and OSPD information about the events, including but not limited to: Plaintiffs
20
name, his beating at the hands of OUSD and OSPD staff, and the surveillance video that
21
captured portions of these events.
22
148.
23
that occurred on or about January 22, 2014 by releasing information about the events
24
including but not limited to Plaintiffs name; his beating at the hands of OUSD and
Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the events that occurred on or
Defendants intentionally intruded upon this expectation of privacy in the events

34
OSPD staff, and the surveillance video that captured portions of these eventsto various
local, national and international news media outlets and to all staff, students, and parents
of students in OUSD.
149.
reasonable person would find it highly offensive that his name and video footage
showing his beating would be released to local, national and international news media.
150.
distress including, but not limited to, substantial and long-lasting suffering, anguish,
fright, horror, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, mortification,
Defendants intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, because a
As a result of Defendants intrusion, Plaintiff has suffered serious emotional
10
embarrassment, depression, and shame, and Defendants conduct was a substantial factor
11
in causing his harm.
12
151.
13
14
COUNT FOURTEEN
Public Disclosure of Private Facts
DEFENDANTS WILSON, GODOWN, OUSD, OSPD, AND DOES 1-10
15
16
17
152.
18
19
153.
20
not limited to: his name, his beating at the hands of , and the video . This private
21
information was not of legitimate public concern, nor did it have a substantial connection
22
to a matter of public concern; rather, the publicity was a morbid and sensational prying
23
into Plaintiffs private life for its own sake. Further, Defendants made this information
24
public both by communicating it to the public at large and by communicating it to local
Defendants publicized private information about Plaintiff, a minor, including but

35
and international news media, as well as to all staff, students, and parents of students at
OUSD, such that the information was substantially certain to become public knowledge.
154.
publicity highly offensive. Neither Plaintiff nor his parents consented to the publicity
explicitly by voluntarily seeking public attention.
155.
person in Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs position would consider the publicity highly
offensive.
156.
A reasonable person in Plaintiff RODRIGUEZs position would consider this
Defendants knew, or acted with reckless disregard of the fact, that a reasonable
As a result of Defendants intrusion, Plaintiff has suffered serious emotional
10
distress including, but not limited to, substantial and long-lasting suffering, anguish,
11
fright, horror, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, mortification,
12
embarrassment, depression, and shame, and Defendants conduct was a substantial factor
13
in causing his harm.
14
157.
15
16
JURY DEMAND
17
18
158.
Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial in this action.

PRAYER
19
20
21
22
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief against each

and every Defendant herein, jointly and severally:
1.
Compensatory and exemplary damages in an amount according to proof

and which is fair, just, and reasonable;
2.
Punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and California law in an amount

according to proof and which is fair, just, and reasonable;
23
24

36
1
3.
All other damages, treble damages, penalties, costs, interest, and

attorneys fees as allowed by 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988 and 12205; 29
U.S.C. 794a; the ADA; the RA; California Civil Code 51.7, 52, 52.1,
and 3294; California Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5; and as otherwise
may be allowed by California and/or federal law;
4.
Injunctive relief, including but not limited to the following:
2
3
4
5
a.
an order prohibiting Defendants and their employees/agents,

officers and security guards from unlawfully interfering with the
rights of Plaintiff and others to be free from unreasonable searches
and seizures and excessive and unreasonable force;
b.
an order requiring Defendants to institute and enforce appropriate

and lawful policies, procedures, and supervision concerning
detentions, arrests, and the use of force;
c.
an order prohibiting Defendants and their officers and security

guards from engaging in the code of silence as may be supported
by the evidence in this case;
d.
an order prohibiting Defendants from unlawfully interfering with

the rights of Plaintiff and other OUSD students, and students, to
freedom of speech, association, beliefs and conscience; and
e.
An order requiring Defendants to train all OSPD officers

concerning the Courts orders in this matter, including the issues
raised in injunctive relief requests (a)(d), above.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
5.
Such other and further relief as supported by the evidence in

his case and as this Court and/or the jury may deem
appropriate.
18
19
20
By Plaintiffs Attorneys,
UNITED FOR EQUALITY AND AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION LEGAL DEFENSE FUND (UEAALDF)
23
BY: _/s/ Ronald Cruz_____________________

Ronald Cruz (State Bar No. 267038)
1985 Linden Street
Oakland, California 94607
(510) 384-8859 (Ronald Cruz)
24
Dated: January 22, 2016
21
22

37

Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District Et Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District Et Al.

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District Et Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 1 of 37

RONALD CRUZ, State Bar No. 267038

JONATHAN RODRIGUEZ, by his next friend

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF

OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL

42 U.S.C. 1983 (First, Fourth, and

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 2 of 37

attorneys, UNITED FOR EQUALITY AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION LEGAL

DEFENSE FUND, states as follows:

and OUSD of the incident.

educational opportunities to Oaklands special-education students and the citys

predominantly Latina/o, black, other minority, and immigrant student population.

and use of excessive force against Plaintiff Jonathan RODRIGUEZ (Plaintiff), on or

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES

Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 3 of 37

District Court of California, Northern District.

case or controversy under 28 USC 1367(a).

This action is timely filed within all applicable statutes of limitation.

constitutional rights of the highest importance.

Defendants in this action. Pursuant to California Government Code 815.2, Defendant

not limited to those named as Defendants herein.

Defendant Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) is a public entity and an

Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 4 of 37

sued in his individual capacity.

being sued in his individual capacity.

Defendant Carlton JOHNSON was, at all material times up through at least

her employment as a Vice Principal of FHS. As Vice Principal, on information and

scope of his employment as Principal of FHS. As Principal, on information and belief, he

Defendant Emiliano SANCHEZ was, at all material times up through at least

Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 5 of 37

his employment as Superintendent. As Superintendent, he was a final policy-making

the OUSD and OSPD. He is being sued in his individual capacity.

He is the current Chief of OSPD. As Chief of OSPD, Defendant GODOWN is a policy-

GODOWN is being sued in his individual and official capacities.

course and scope of his employment as Superintendent. He is the current OUSD

Superintendent. As Superintendent, he is a final policy-making official for OUSD,

OSPD. He is being sued in his individual and official capacities.

Defendant Jeff GODOWN was, as of February 2015 and at all subsequent

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES

Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 6 of 37

or her individual capacity.

OUSD and/or OSPD.

sued herein was negligently, intentionally, recklessly, wrongfully, and otherwise

proximately caused injuries and damages to Plaintiff.

Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 7 of 37

OUSD and OSPD.

filed within all applicable statutes of limitation.

Plaintiff has complied with the claim filing requirements of Californias

Case 4:16-cv-00402 Document 1 Filed 01/22/16 Page 8 of 37

engagement and de-escalation, and his vulnerability to emotional trauma.

were never terminated, disciplined, or retrained as a result of these violations.

talking to other students.

confront Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.

assaulted Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ without warrant, probable cause, reasonable suspicion,

or legal justification. Defendant ANGELO forcefully shoved Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ

RODRIGUEZs head under his arm in a headlock.

Defendant DUBOIS then called Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON to

Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON approached Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ and