'" 00

""
1 MATTHEW PAPPAS (SBN: 171860)
CHARLES SCHURTER (SBN: 174261)
2 22762 Aspan Street, Suite 202-107
Lake Forest, CA 92630
3 Phone: (949) 382-1485
4 Facsimile: (949) 242-2605
5
LEE H. DURST (SBN: 69704)
6 220 Newport Ctr. Dr. , Suite 11285
7 NewpOlt Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 400-5068
8
9
10
11
l2
l3
Facsimile: (949) 242-2096
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
DORIAN BROOKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
--:::1
--<.
()
0 -:-
,-.;)
I' lm
=



3:
:7J r:

:::;:..
"':.::1

rv
;. ......... t. . ..,
0'

>.-

-0
:;: ::: Z"--i
;:.. " --i
0 ,"", N
?>.=)
..r.:- ..
::; en
"-4
14 DORIAN BROOKS, an individual,
No.:
SACV 13 - 00478 AG (JPRx)
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF LONG BEACH, a California
municipal corporation; DAVID PAUL
l8 STROHMAN; JASON M. KIRK; KALID
ABUHADWAN; FRANCISCO VASQUEZ;
19 MARTIN RON; DONALD GREGORY
20 MAUK; MICHAEL DOMENIC PENNINO;
TIMOTHY MARK LONG; JERRY M.
21 GIBBS; LEE DAVID DEBRABANDER;
OSCAR ALBERTO VALENZUELA;
22 JAMES McDONNELL; and DOES 1 to 10,
23
Defendants.
24
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS (42 U.S.C. 1981,
1983, & 1988)
25 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
26 1. Plaintiff seeks relief for violations of the United States Constitution and damages
27 sought under 42 U.S.c. 1981, 1983, and 1988. This court has subject matter jmisdiction
28 pursuant to 28 U.S.c. 1331, 1338, and 42 U.S.c. 1988. The state law
COMPLAINT
'/}
<t
v;

co
<t
...
N
iS r--
CO
OM

0 0-

"" .
:- 0
< .... M

<0-
"- "-


u'O V>

"" NO
"" '"
o
is --l
<
....:I
1 Claims are within the supplemental jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.c. 1367.
2 2. Venue is proper in tIllS Judicial District because this is where the injmy
3 occurred and where the defendants are employed.
)
,
4 mTRODUCTORYSTATEMENT
"
5 3. Tills lawsuit arises out of Defendants' imposition of summary punishmetfF
r1
6 and use of excessive force. It also arises out of the Defendants' decision to treat similarlp
7 situated disabled and/or African American individuals differently when engaging in illegal
8 raids and attacks under color of an invalid law.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
STATUTORY PROVISIONS
4. Title 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (SEC. 1983), provides
that "[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage,
of any State or TerritOlY or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to
the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."
5. Title 42 U.S.C. 1981 (SEC. 1981) provides that, "[a]ll persons within the
jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in evelY State and TerritOlY to make
and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all
laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens,
and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of
21 every kind, and to no other."
22 6. Cal. Civil Code 54( c), the California Disabled Persons Act (CDPA),
23 proillbits laws, rules, policies, procedures, and actions by state, county, and city governments
24 that facially or through disparate impact discriminate against qualified disabled individuals.
25 7. Cal. Civil Code 51(), part of the Jesse Uruuh Civil Rights Act (UNRUH),
26 prohibits laws, rules, policies, procedures, and actions by state, county, and city governments
27 that facially or through disparate impact discliminate against qualified disabled individuals.
28
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
2
'"
'"
'" <
p..
;;6
""'7

('.}


"'
0
I%l
(.)
""'
'"
"' 0
is:

,..;;
1 8.
Code 52(a) .,r,nfHl
or incites a denial,
2 or makes any discIimination or distinction f'.U1Tr<l to Section 51, 51 or 51 is liable
3 each and evcIY nTTArlC''''' for the actual and any amount that be detennined by a
amount of actual 4 or a court without a jury, up to a maximum of three
5 damage but in no case
6 may be detennined
than four dollars ($4,000), and attomey's fees that
suffered by any rU"T"nn ..... ""ULl..., .... the rights
7 provided in 51,51 or 51.6."
8 9. CaL Code 52.1, Civil (BANE), provides
9 that "[a]ny individual whose exercise or of rights secured the Constitution or
of the United or of rights by the Constitution or of this state, has
interfered to
with ... may . and prosecute . . a
12 civil action for "
13 10. Article 1, (a) in-part provides, "[a] may not
14 deprived of life, or property without process of law or protection
15 the laws;"
16 11. City Charter art. 2, 210 provides, "[n]o
ordinance upon its the same been introduced,
emergency measures as provided Chatter ... No by the
Council shall before of thirty the time
passage, except ... emergency
"
12. Beach City (LBCC), art. 2, 211 "[ t ]he City Council
by vote of its emergency for the
public peace, health to take time
shall contain a section in which emergency IS
set forth and ..... VA.U ... ''-' A separate roll on the question of emergency shall
money may be passed as emergency ordinances."
1 V.LLJ-U'.U'> all
2 marijuana dispensaries, patient COlleCTIVI:S with more than (3) patients, and
3 cannabis cultivation the City Long Beach.
4
5 Plaintiff DORlAN BROOKS (BROOKS) is a
6 America who resides in Los County, California.
of the United States
suffers from physical and
7 mental ,",V.L.L'-""" .LVL'" that a major activity
8 Gov't Code 12926 and 12926.1. BROOKS is
9 Defendant CITY LONG (CITY) is a municipal corporation
operating as a Charter under sec. 7
Defendants DAVID STROHMAN (STROHMAN),
(KIRK), KALID (ABUHADW AN), FRANCISCO
MARTIN RON (RON), DONALD
14 DO:NrENIC PENNINO (PENNINO), JERRY GIBBS (GIBBS), TIMOTHY
15 LONG DA VID DEBRABANDER (DEBRABANDER); ALBERTO
16 JAMES are
17 individuals employed as police '-'.L.L,L ... ..,. by the s police department.
18 Defendant McDO)JNELL is, and all times mentioned this Complaint
19 was, of Long Police Department a of
McDON1\lELL was responsible
training, and hiring persons
specifically including .J,J..,J..'-'.L"u.UJ.
administration of LBPD
within the LBPD, including peace officers and
VALENZUELA, DEBRABANDER, and LONG. Plaintiff is
informed and believes and based upon such information and alleges at all
defendant was for
maintaining and implementing the policies the use of force, including, but not
limited proper and detainment As McDONNELL is one
1 persons responsible for ,"uatu",-.L S damages. Defendant McDONNELL is sued in both
2 individual capacity.
3 18. Plaintiff is and and based upon such
4 alleges that
5 VASQUEZ,
aU relevant Defendants STROHMAN, KIRK, ABUHADWAN,
PENNINO, GIBBS,
6 LONG, and McDONNELL were employees LBPD.
7 19. Plaintiff is and and upon such
8 alleges that Defendants STROHMAN, KIRK, ABUHADWAN, VASQUEZ, RON, 1vIAUK,
9 and LONG (pOLICE
10 DEFENDANTS) acted in concert with one another, to an
11 Plaintiff of protected by the state and federal law
(J) Plaintiff is informed and and upon such information
<
'r,
alleges Defendants ABUHADW AN, RON, PENNINO, and
il< N

;:;:: :;::. \0
8 14 OFFICERS) were the who, on June 19, assaulted battered

F
15 BROOKS exceSSive and are officers in photographs included as
"'0.";
0;;:0
'" 01 f-<' 16 this

",NO
17 21. Plaintiff is informed and and upon such information and
...J
j 18 alleges that Defendant STROHMAN was officer in-charge on June 19, 2012 at time
took "''''''Uu.u,"U STROHMAN' directed
ABUHADWAN, RON,MAUK, GIBBS,
Plaintiff informed and believes and upon information and belief
on June 12 and
DEBRABANDER (RANKING each: held a higher other
; b) were present when the ASSAULTING OFFICERS
J.UHlU.LJ. BROOKS; c) had a of
BROOK's rights; and d) to stop violation
to intervene and stop the violation of
'"
<
p. '"
"" 00
-.: "
"" N



<t
::i'l
'"
o
'" U
IZ<
IZ<
o
fi::
<
,..l
HUJ.JLWL.L is ignorant the true identities and of Defendants DOES
2 1 to for reason sues names.
3 LLL.1..'V .. .u",.,u. and believes and based
Defendants by such
such infonnation and UU'vA"'" that the
4 fictitiously named Defendants is in some manner to some """' .. a ..... ". liable for
InJunes
5
6
7
8
9
10 the
11 or
Plaintiff seek leave to amend this Complaint to the true
these
is infonned
Defendant is,
successor and/or
believes based upon
mentioned
or in omitting to act as ....... oJF. .... '" in this Complaint, was
are
infonnation belief
the agent, employee,
Defendant, doing
within the of his
actual or apparent authority, or the alleged acts and omissions of each
adopted by
13 individual Defendants acted or .L .... "LV" to act in the
12 subsequently were ratified other as principal. An
to do and
14 did so maliciously and with reckless and callous L .... UJlU ... .L s rights thus, are
15 liable
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
punitive The Defendant officers were engaged a conspiracy to violate
were acting as vU-""'''i"h' this aim mind. If
continuing unconstitutional and unlawful actions,
is threatened with irreparable injury that they may
unlawful in the future. Accordingly
appropriate.
26. In
is infonned and believes
relevant to
in their '
incorporates
claim), which is against
maliciously, and with reckless or
based upon
allegations
this
disregard
subjected to the same
Issuance injunctive
infmmation and belief
acted under the color
CDPA
as a
acted
1 As an award of damages under and California law against each
2 individual is justified.
3 27. Defendants are entitled to UUJ.u.J. ... 'u. immunity for . conduct as set
4 III Complaint.
Plaintiff or substantially complied Claim (Cal.
Code 900, et seq.) requirements submitting to Defendant on July 20
5
6
7
8 on official claim (CLAIM). CLAIM includes a stamp
9
date it was received by CITY. true and correct copy of the
10
11
12 DENIAL).
CLAIM
14
On February 7, sent a
CLAIM was assigned number 13-0064 by A
included with this Complaint as =,,-,,-_
No of insufficiency Cal.
15 delivered, or otherwise served by CITY during first 20-days
16 specified in Gov't Code 911.6.
(CLAIM
910.8 was
the 45-day period
17
31. No of insufficiency under CaL Gov't Code 910.8 was
18 delivered, or otherwise served by CITY during
19
20
uresen.tea by
Defendants timely notice of the nature of Plaintiff s claims so that they could
21
22
23
See Connelly v. County
V. Santa Clara County
Gov't Code 911
of Education, Ca1.App.3d 702, 7
24 (1990);
25 claims brought nn,n", .. Title of the
Code are not
26 to the requirements the Cal. Gov't Claim Act. Javor v. Taggart, 120 Cal.Rptr,2d 174,
1 (2002); Williams v. Horvath, 16 (1976).
28
1
2
LBMC CHAPTER 5.89
On or around March 201 the Council
3 Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Chap. 5.87 to regulate medical cannabis collectives.
4 October 4, 2011, the Second District California Court of Appeal struck
5 down just the permit and permn: provisions of and the
6 vast majority of Chap. 5.87's regulatory provisions, including but not limited to provisions
7 of operationa1 location, and manner of
8 easily modified to remain valid. Pack v. Superior
9 199 Cal. 4th 1070 (rev. grant 1118/20 rev. dismissed 8/2212012) (2011). The
10 ~ V ~ ~ V L A , prior to remittitur that on
11 14,2012.
12 February
art.
20 the City Council enacted, as
13 legislation under 211, Long Municipal Code
medical cannabis dispensaries, collectives, and cultivation
3 LBMC 5.89 setting
particularity the emergency circumstances as required by LBCC art. 211 was .
as a matter oflaw. Accordingly, LBMC Chap. 5.89 was enacted in contravention LBCC
0& 211 and is void.
"emergency" cited in LBMC Chap. 5.89 was insufficient both factually
and legally under LBCC art. II, 211 applicable '-/"',LLLV decisional San Christina
Inv. Co. v. City County olSan Francisco, 762, 384 (1914);
Francisco Fire F'ighters Local 798 v. City and County olSan 23 Cal. Rptr.3d 364
was in contravention of
void.
40. LBMC Chap. 5.89 targets patients prescribed medical manJuana by a
Califomia physician are disabled
Califomia law and treats those patients operating together as a dispensary or collective
differently than comparable uses in contravention of CDPA UNRUH.
'" :
""
'"
A.;
i:!:
~
:=
f-<
""
<t:
:;::
I><
0
1:'1
'-I
~
'" 0
~
<>:
....1
1
J . . . . I ' - ' J " " ' " ~ Chap. discriminatOlY in violation of the and section 5 and
2 IS
3
4 suffers for
5 which his licensed California doctor prescribed him AU...,'-U,""ou manJuana. Prior to incident
6 on 19,20 BROOKS not been rrA(,i"Ari for or convicted of a crime.
7 42. Pursuant to California ill 12 joined a medical
8 cannabis patient collective (COLLECTIVE) located 1 Atlantic ill Beach,
9 Cal. Health & Code 11362.775. Starting in May, 2012, BROOKS
10 work as a patient
11 43. ensure safety of and authorized caregivers the only
12 who were members COLLECTIVE - COLLECTIVE
13 tied to a series
14 in numerous prior wanantless raids collectives located in
15 during raids, removed and destroyed and
16 CAMERAS not only to the but
17 (SECOKDARY DVR SYSTEM).
18 on June 2012, POLICE
19 down a raid
20
21 45. approximately 1: 16 the AS SAUL TING OFFICERS, with guns
22 approached Plaintiff and ordered him with
23 the officers' commands, BROOKS laid on ground. Without provocation or any resistance
24 BROOKS, one of the OFFICERS walked-on BROOKS' stepping
25 his weight. Another one of the
26 OFFICERS then pulled BROOKS' arm and applied weight using full force his body
27
28
BROOKS' back. were placed on BROOKS.
t/}

H
'"
C<l
0( :!
N
i:l:
00
M
;.l ;;;'
:r::
"'"
E-<
2>
f-< cO
<t ,t) 0

""0.";

!::J Nt-<"



i:l:
,..J

,..l
1
on and several
2 made cornmel
"'While they were
when BROOKS out in pain "you're a black
3 you should be used to this."
4
5 still on
7
After the handcuffs had been placed on
floor, one of the ASSAULTING OFFICERS
and while
there was a
their
Thereafter, u",,,/u,u.,.:>,-
IJVJlllt\.Al the camera out to the other
surveillance camera was positioned near
was
8 the room, one of the POLICE
9 violently striking the camera.
,1.' .. /'-,""," DEFENDANTS a large metal pole
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
one
was
the officer '">'" the camera with metal pole, it to the
officers responded,
The handcuffs
was positioned below
cried out as
up you dumb
had been placed on
"
along with dust and
LU,HLlLF, materials hit
were very when
one of the ASSAULTING OFFICERS "nvu,,,v loosen the handcuffs, the
" .. the handcuffs
BROOKS was
51. While ill
who had been
one of the
and placed in a chair
wai ting area
and working at
OFFICERS to patient
in handcuffs.
the patient
COLLECTIVE rlnr ... "Ie. the raid, were
and placed in chairs. Two (2) of the individuals who had been
area were
(2) detainees were
While .:>J.LL,UL,c;, in the chair
(1) of the two LtU,l,.lllV detainees
volunteers and
,A .. I,,,,,, .. ,, who had been
one of the OFFICERS came to the patient
about BROOKS and the two (2) Latino detainees. The
several V'u"UJ.J:h' about the Latino detainee.
After approximately (30) minutes,
1 BROOKS
2
upper
3 loosen
4 asked
5 removed.
6
7 attention.
8 medical
9
10 SYSTEM.
to lose
pain following
handcuffs,
his
BROOKS
The officers
During
However,
from
At no
in his was also from severe neck and
assault by officers. When asked an to please
refused. However, when one of the Caucasian detainees
loosened, handcuffs for Caucasian were
told several officers he was pam and medical
to assist BROOKS and to provide with any
RAID, located, and the
footage of the attack on BROOKS was captured on the off-site
The photographs included as ==.:......;;....;;;, are true and
footage raid.
during the raid did Plaintiff to resist
14 Plaintiff simply remained passively limp entire time avoid provoking Defendants
unprovoked and excessive use 15 because he feared for physical safety the face of
After incident, <:>11'\1'11'1' learned that
addition to
the RANKING OFFICERS were also at the scene the incident.
informed and believes and upon such information and belief alleges
were a
the violations alleged in
directly to these violations.
24 II
25 II
26 //
1/
28 II
prevent OFFICERS
Complaint and declined to do or contributed
'" <e
'"
>n
'"
co
<
:":
'"
N
i:J::
""
'"

);.I 0,
=
"
""

""
.;
<t
'"
)';1
'D
N
'"
""
<t
0 0
rz;INf-.:'
U\D(/)
.....
j;:r., 1:'10
""
0

i3:
...l
<
...:i
1
2 [42 U.S.C. 1983; Excessive Force in Violation
3
of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments; AU Defendants]
4
5
6
58. Plaintiff incorporates by allegations of 1 through 55
as in full.
59. actions of Defendants deprived Plaintiff his under the
7
Constitution. Accordingly,
8 claims damages the violation under 42 U.S.c. 1983.
9
60. Plaintiff's the Fourth and Fourteenth
10 Amendments, inter alia, by subjecting to excessive unreasonable by
to 11 on his full on neck, causing onto
unnecessary and unreasonable to handcuff and arrest improperly.
ill situation. Defendants violated
14 Plaintiff's constitutional rights by imposing smnmary punishment on him by on his
15 neck, on violently <HU"-...,". him he was on ground and
16 complying ill every way with officers' commands. Summary punishment was also
17
tightening of handcuffs and continuing threats of violence the
18 officers. Defendants further imposed smnmalY punishment after Plaintiff was handcuffed
19 and no threat to the or anyone else by causing
20 a surveiHance camera debris to fall him. Defendants had no justification to use the
21 force was these
with intentional and deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's constitutional rights.
61. a and of Defendants' acts and omissions, Plaintiff has
suffered bodily ill]UIy, humiliation, anxiety, degradation, and emotional
1
2
3
4
5
[42 U.S.C. Racial Discrimination in Violation of Equal
Protection Clause, Fourteenth Amendment, and U.S.C. 1981;
Officer Defendants Only]
62. Plaintiff incorporates by reference allegations of Paragraphs 1
6 of this Complaint, as set here
55
7
complained of Plaintiff had the clearly established
8 constitutional right to be
racial discrimination in law A .... YA."ATY\
9 and to
the protection of the
10
Plaintiff, as an African American a member of a protected class, and thus
11 also
clearly
12 free from racially motivated beatings,
Any reasonable police
14 the
of the complained of conduct as
provision of
searches, and the filing of
or should known

charges.
were clearly established at that time.
66. Plaintiffs race was a motivating in the decisions to use
1 to be
at
force
16 and
with charges. conduct was
unde11aken with purpose depriving Plaintiff the equal protection benefits of the
law, Hv'''-v>J and AUAUU ..UJLU"",,, the and violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment and 1981.
Defendants '"'.'.AI..,"!',""'" m conduct described this Complaint
maliciously, in bad
rights.
and reckless disregard Plaintiff BROOKS' federally protected
68. or the were
movmg behind injuries and the DEFENDANTS acted in
concert mutually with each
acts or omissions of the POLICE as
described herein intentionally deprived Plaintiff of constitutional and statutOlY and
caused other "',,",,'.un}..,""'"
1 aU during by POLICE
2 OFFICER DEFENDANTS were acting to municipal/county policy,
in their U,"'t"'VL.h> pertaining 3 decision, ordinance, regulation, widespread
4 to Plaintiff.
usage, or
U.S.C. Deliberately Indifferent Policies, Procedures, Customs,
Training, Supervision in Violation of Fourth, and Fourteenth
Amendments, City and Police Chief Defendants Only]
74. A Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of 1 through
55 of Complaint, as forth here
10
11
12
'"
""'


13
..:
.".
M

14
wl'Ch'


:'0
15
< t-< pi
Vl'"

.....
0.< 0,
16


;x.,NO
17
'" '"

:S: >-l
..:
18 ....1
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
77.
STROHMAN
on the scene
OFFICERS.
Defendants
officers on
suffered.
McDONNELL
use
and/or
RON given
aware,
19,2012.
to participate on
likely to be
and believes that Defendants
and the RANKING were the supervisors
was subjected to by ASSAULTING
STROHMAN and PENNINO RANKING OFFICER
prevent, discipline or
20 or thereafter and are therefore
is further infonned and
1 4 failed to adequately
constitutional
control the subordinate
Plaintiff for the injuries he
alleges that Defendants
discipline or in any
previous complaints .... u"'h .... "h
",u"',..,.., ...... Defendant
ABUHADWAN
history of complaints, of
should not have allowed
and/or DOES 1 to 4 were
participate in the LBPD raid on
Defendants STROHMAN, and RON and
19, 2012, Defendants knew or should have known that were
to the excessive use of by Defendants.
J.J ..... ,,"'.... on the custom and condoning, tolerating, and
ULHJH'" and a failure to adequately discipline subordinate
1 who committed constitutional violations, as the DEFENDANTS,
2 McDONNELL, STROHMAN, the RANKING OFFICERS, and 1 to 4 are liable for
3 constitutional violations committed by POLICE OFFICER for the
4 suffered ............. LL.LL ... as forth h""""011'>
5 80. aforementioned acts the individual defendants McDONNELL and
6 STROHlV1AN, RANKING OFFICERS, and DOES 1 to inclusive, were willful, wanton,
7
8 these Defendants is justified.
9
10
11
12
13 of
14
15 Cal.
16
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
[Violation of the Disabled Civ. 54;
Against All Defendants]
81. "'11"1'1-11-1- incorporates by
the of Paragraphs 1 through 55
Complaint, as set forth in fulL
82. within scope CDPA,
Code 54; Cal. Code 12926 1. Accordingly, Ulll:LU.LL IS a
the
ofnPT .... "n
protected by the CDPA, which uu.<"",,,,,, it unlawful a public
17 entity to discriminate against an individual with a disability.
18
83. Plaintiff is mtornled. and and based upon infonnation and belief
Defendants McDONNELL, STROHMAN, the RANKll\JG
was a medical marijuana collective and that under California
ill or Ul.':>'[U.Jl.\,U patients or their authorized
members
Indeed, targeted
as a medical marijuana patient collective. Defendants McDONNELL,
or have that
time raid would include
of persons protected CDPA.
84.
alleges
disability by, other bU.UL>"..." failing
1 provide proper and reasonable training to officers, including but limited to
2 POLICE
3 who are mentally or emotionally disabled
4 with people with disabilities who do not
the manner which to respond to
by failing to respond
any serious threat to or
5 Defendants' and as alleged herein, were III violation of the
6 Civ. and The
7 Defendants concerning discrimination against persons, as Plaintiff, on basis
8 disability. Indeed, the was intended prevent the of injury
be
damage set forth
9
10
IS a the
85. Because of Defendants'
by the
11 damages including, but not limited to, medical expenses, attorneys' mental
costs, costs and pecuruary
86. Plaintiff also suffered
emotional mental
presently
continues to physical'
shock,
15 discomfort and anxiety, as a
anguish, humiliation, embarrassment,
of Defendants' acts.
18
19
[Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code 51(t);
Against All Defendants]
allegations Paragraphs 1 through 55
this Complaint, as if herein
88. Plaintiff from a disability within the meaning and scope Gov't
& 1 1. Accordingly, Plaintiff a member
protected by section 51(t) Jesse Civil
to discriminate against an individual with a disability.
Generally, the Jesse Umuh Civil
applicable
Civil Code incorporates protections for provided
the class
only
persons
for a
business
section 51(t) of the
U.S 101, et
California Supreme COUli
held that the rights nrr.TAf"TA" under
51()
'" <.:
Q..
Q..
00
<.:
""
Q..
M

01

t-< '..-'
f-

;;g:;;S!
:::e,<>:
<0

u"''''


... ""'
0
U.l

;:; .-l
:
...l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
include those provided for in Title II of 42 U.S.c. s. 12101, et seq. Munson v. Del Taco,
Inc., 46 Ca1.4th 661, 94 Ca1.Rptr.3d 685, 208 P.3d 623 (2009). Title II of 42 U.S.c. 12101,
et seq. does not apply to business establishments and can only apply to public entities.
Accordingly, through section 51(f), the Jesse Unruh Civil Rights Act is applicable here.
90. Plaintiff is infonned and believes and based upon such infonnation and belief
alleges Defendants McDONNELL, STROHMAN, and the RAN1(ING OFFICERS knew the
location raided on June 19,2012 was a medical marijuana collective and that under California
law only seriously ill or disabled patients or their authorized caregivers may be members of
medical marijuana collectives. Indeed, the Defendants targeted the COLLECTIVE solely
based on its status as a medical marijuana patient collective. Defendants McDONNELL,
STROHMAN, and the RANKING OFFICERS knew or should have known that the
individuals inside the COLLECTIVE at the time of the raid would include members of the
class of persons protected by lJl\lRUH.
91. Plaintiff is infonned and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants
discriminated against Plaintiff because of his disability by, amongst other things, failing to
provide proper and reasonable training to LBPD officers, including but not limited to the
POLICE OFFICER DEFENDANTS, regarding the manner in which to respond to people
who are mentally or emotionally disabled and by failing to respond reasonably in dealing
with people with disabilities who do not pose any serious threat to themselves or others.
Defendants' acts and omissions, as alleged herein, were in violation of UNRUH, specifically
21 Cal. Civ. Code 51(f).
22 92. Because of Defendants' acts and omISSIOns, Plaintiff has suffered actual
23 damages including, but not limited to, medical expenses, attorneys' fees, mental counseling
24 costs, costs of suit, and other pecuniary loss not presently known.
25 93. Plaintiff also suffered and continues to suffer physical injuries, sickness and
26 emotional and mental distress, anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain,
27 discomf0l1 and anxiety, as a result of Defendants' acts.
28
1
2
3
4
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
[Violation of Cal. Civ. Code 52.1;
Against AU Defendants]
94. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 55
5 of this Complaint, as if set forth here in full.
6
95. The Defendants' actions complained of herein, including the use of excessive
7 force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, racial discrimination in
8 violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, racial discrimination in violation of art.
9 I, 7 of the California Constitution, failure to afford Plaintiff due process, and inflicting cruel
10 and unusual punishment in violation of state and federal constitutional provisions, denied,
11 aided in the denial of and/or incited others to deny rights of and/or to discriminate against
Vl 12 Plaintiff in contravention of Cal. Civ. Code 52.1.
<l!
Po; v;
~ ~ 13 96. Defendants interfered with Plaintiffs rights under state and federal law and
Po; n
t'- co
: s : ~ ~
@ 81 14 under the state and federal constitutions, including, but not limited to, Plaintiff s rights to be
~ ~ ~ ;
;j i2 15 free from excessive force and unlawful searches and seizure, and did so by means of threats,
~ E ~ &!
" ' ' ' ' ~
0.:(0
riI N"; 16 intimidation, and coercion.
~ ~ ~
",NO
~ ~ 17 97. As a direct and legal result of the Defendants' acts, and each of them,
is: '"'
j 18 Plaintiff has suffered damages, including, without limitation, loss of earnings and earnings
19 capacity, medical expenses and future medical expenses, loss of enjoyment of life, pain and
20 suffering and emotional distress.
21
98. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants' acts,
22 and each of them, were willful, malicious, intentional, oppressive and despicable and/or were
23 done in willful and conscious disregard of the rights, welfare and safety of Plaintiff.
24 Accordingly, an award of punitive and exemplaty damages is justified.
25
26
27
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
[Battery; Against Officer Defendants]
99. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the aHegati ons of Paragraphs 1 through 55
28 of this Complaint, as if set forth here in full.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
100. Plaintiff
unlawful touching
Plaintiff.
10I. a
and each of them,
a claim of battery
which was in-part
and legal result of
has suffered U<UUUF,'-'0,
these Defendants
and legal cause
and omissions of
including, without
earnings and capacity, loss of enjoyment of life, pain and
distress, medical attorneys' suit, other pecuniary
ascertained.
102. informed and
these of malicious,
their
Defendants,
loss of
emotional
not yet
11 and despicable and/or were done in willful and disregar'd of the and
12 safety of Plaintiff. Accordingly, an award of punitive and exemplary damages
13
17
18
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
[Negligence; Defendants in Individual Capacities]
103. incorporates by u.u\ .. p;,UUVJ"" of 1
Complaint, as
104.
each of them, owed a
reasonable diligence to see
in full.
and
care towards
that Plaintiff was not
alleges that
which they were
and
to use
JeIl:ndlanrs aU owed a duty care to Plaintiff. As
by their acts or
each of these
105. As
that defendants
trained and
106. As a direct
each of them, Plaintiff
as a result caused .... ,"" .... <+/.,""'"
Plaintiff is
PENNINO,
the POLICE
complained of herein.
result of the u"'/., .... t,"' ....
suffered damages,
believes
and/or DOES 1 to 4
DEFENDANTS prior to
omISSIOns
without limitation,
1 earnings and "'ULLLllJlF, capacity, loss of enjoyment of
and future medical
suffering, emotional
2 distress,
3
4
5
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
[Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;
Against Defendants in their Individual Capacities]
6
107. LUllJlULL incorporates by
"'-'V,LU!J.UULU, as if set forth here in full.
of Paragraphs 1 through
7 of
8
9
10 each
11 and nervous
12
13 each
15 losses not
1
18 done
actions or omissions circumstances constituted
a direct acts and omissions,
herein, Plaintiff unen:u severe shock to mental
a further direct and legal acts and omissions,
Plaintiff has suffered without limitation, pam and
U.lLJ.VU'LU distress, medical expenses, auc)rnt':v costs of suit, other
Plaintiff is informed and
were willful, malicious,
conscious disregard of
and exemplary Y...u.U"i")"''''
T"'I",rAr,n alleges that Defendants'
oppressive and despicable and/or were
and safety. Accordingly,
Plaintiff requests the following
23
24
The award of compensatory
in an amount according to
For all medical expenses;
For general damages;
against all Defendants,
award of punitive and damages against all
capacities in an amount be -n .. n"", ... at trial;
ill
'" -<:
'"
'"
'"
00
..:
.".
'"
N

OM

trl
N
.".
0",
('-.1 '-'

f- ( '1





U \OVl


L<.
0

....l
..:
....l
'-- ' ..
1 5. The award of any and all other damages allowed by law according to proof to
2 be determined at time of trial in this matter;
3 6. The award of costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.
4 1988, California Civil Code 51 pursuant to 52.1(b), and/or California Code of Civil
5 Procedure 102l.5;
6 7. An injunction requumg Defendants CITY, McDONNELL, and
7 STROHMAN to take the necessary steps to prevent further acts of discrimination in violation
8 of the CDPA against Plaintiff and other disabled persons who have been prescribed medical
9 cannabis by a licensed California doctor; and
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8. The award of such other relief as the court deems just and proper.
DATED: 2-18-2013
I
MATTHEW PAPPAS (SBN: 171860)
Attorney for Plaintiff
22762 Aspan St. , #202-107
Lake Forest, CA 92630
(949) 382-1485
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLA TIONS
22
EXHIBIT 1 (P. 1)
EXHIBIT 1 (P. 2)
Return to: CITY CLERK
333 West Ocean Blvd.
Long Beach, CA 90802
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
AGAINST CITY OF LONG BEACH
1. Claims for death, injury to person or to personal property must be filed not later than
6 months after date of occurrence. (Gov. Code Sec. 911.2)
2. Claims for damages to real propelty must be filed not later than 1 year after the occurrence.
(Gov. Code Sec. 911.2)
3. Read entire claim for before filing.
4. Fill in each line completely.
5. Attach separate sheets, if necessary, to give full details.
DORIAN BROOKS
811211983
N/A
Name o/Clai mant (type or print) Date of Birth Driver License #
C/O MATTHEW PAPPAS, 22641 LAKE FOREST DR. , #B5-107, LAKE FOREST 92630 (SEE BELOW
Home Address of Claimant City, State, Zip Code Telephone #
22641 LAKE FOREST DRIVE, #B5-107
LAKE FOREST, CA 92630
949-371-7881
Business Address of Claimant City, State, Zip Code Telephone #
949-371-7881
Give name and address to which notlces or communications are to be sent regarding this clarrn:
RESERVE FOR FILING STAMP
FILENO.
w
en
f"'
()
LAW OFFICES OF 1vIATTHEW PAPPAS AND DAVID WELCH, 22641 LAKE FOREST DRIVE, #B5-107, LAKE FOREST, CA 92630
Date of incident: Exact location of occurrence:
JUNE 19 2012
Time of occun'ence:
1:30 P.M. 301 ATLANTIC AVE., LONG BEACH CALIFORNIA
(Month) (Day) (Year)
AM
License munber and make ofvehicle(s) involved (if applicable):
What happened? ILLEGAL LBPD RAID UNDER COLOR OF INVALID CITY LAW (l.E. LBMC 5.89). EXCESSIVE FORCE BY
POLlCE OFFICERS. VIDEO AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.YOUTUBE.COMIWATCH?v=AG942y1Cq64.
OFFICERS CAUSED PHYSICAL INTIJRY TO MR. BROOKS DURING THE RAID, VIOLATED HIS CIVIL RIGHTS,
VIOLATED THE CA. DISABLED PERSONS ACT (CIV. CODE S. 54(C)), AND ENGAGED IN CONDUCT THAT
VIOLATED VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.
Were Police at scene? rx Yes 0 No
Why is City of Long Beach responsible? Give name of public employee involved, ifknown.
SEE ABOVE.
Give total amotmt of claim. (Include estimated amount of any prospective injury or damage):
rN EXCESS OF $1,000,000.00 (EST.)
How was amount of claim computed? (Be specific. List doctor bill, wage rate, repair estimates, etc.):
PLEASE ATTACH ESTIMATES.
BILLS HA VB NOT BEEN RECEIVED YET FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT AND MENTAL COUNSELrNG.
List names and addresses of witnesses; doctors and hospitals; insurance companies:
DALLAS ALEXANDER, LANDON ALEXANDER, EDWARD CRIA, JEAt'mINE CARTER, KATHERINE ALDRICH, UNKNOWN
OTHERS (INVESTIGATION CONTINUING).
Return ORIGINAL to City Clerk
I(eep a Capv f or vaur File
CLAIMS MUST BE FILED with CITY CLERK
(CaL Gov. Code Sec. 915a)
(Claim may be mailed to Clerk)
NOTE: Presentation of a false claim is a felony
(Cal. Pen. Code Sec. 72)
I certify und ty of perjury that the 0regoing is true and correct.

IF M1NOR (UNDER 18) PARENT OR GUARDIAN MUST SIGN FORM
Signature of Claimant or person filing on his behalf-giving relationship to Claimant.
LAKE FOREST, CA 7-5-2012
CI1Y DATE
ATTORNEY
ROBERT E. SHANNON
City Attorney
MlCHAELJ. MAIS
Assistant Cify AUortlr:y
). CHARLES PARKrN
AssistaJll City AttoYJIcy
February 7, 2013
Law Offices of Matthew and David
Welch
22641 Lake Forest Drive, #85-107
Lake Forest, CA 92630
RE:
Dear Sirs:
Claimant:
Clajm No.:
Claim Date:
Dorian Brooks
F13-0064
17/5/2012
This letter is to inform that your claim, which you filed with the City of Long
Beach, is rejected as of Febryary 7,2013. Based on our investigation of your claim, we
have determined that neither the City nor any of its employees are liable to you for any
alleged damages. Your rejected on that basis, and no further action will be
taken on this matter.
STA: E LAW REQUIRES THAT YOU BE
GIVEN THE FOLLOWING WARNING
I
Subject to certain you have only six (6) months from the date that this
notice was personally or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim.
See Government Code 945.6.
I
This time limitation applies only to causes of action for which Government Code
900 - 915.4 required you t9 present a claim. Other Causes of action, including those
arising under federal law, maYt have different time limitations.
I
I
CGM: tis I
L IApPS\ClylaWJZ\WPDOCSI0007IP020100371 967. DOC
I
Sincerely,
ROBERT E. City
By c
CHRISTOPHER G. MORA
City Investigator
333 West Ocean Boulevard, Eleventh Floor, Long Beach, California 908024664 (562) 570-2200 (562) 436-1579
.', ..... .. .. . ., .' .; ; .; ; ... :: . . Eighth Floor (562) 570-2245 Fax (562) 5702220
'.
A tHie C. Lnl!ime
Monle H. A1bclut
C. Geoff"" AI/red
Gory J. Allckr.;ol!
RicJ"rrd F. AnthoHY
Kendra L Carne! ,
Christina L. Cheed
Chlr/es M. Cnle
Barbara f. IYfcTigVi::
Darry M. Me"ers
Howard O. Russel!
14frmi L. Shin
Lilldn Trtlng
A'(1Y R Webbrr
Theodore 8. Zinger