Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al

8/20/2019 Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al.

1/37

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES 1

CASE NO. 4:11-cv-05719-YGR

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

CASE NO.:

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF

CIVIL RIGHTS AND DAMAGES

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 EmotionalDistress

Intrusion into Private Affairs

Public Disclosure of Private Facts

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

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 [email protected] (313) 586-0089

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

JONATHAN RODRIGUEZ, by his next friendIGNACIO RODRIGUEZ;

Plaintiff,

vs.

OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT, a public entity, OAKLANDUNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICE

DEPARTMENT, a public entity, NOILANGELO, CARLTON JOHNSON, ERICDUBOIS, ANA VASQUEZ, EMILIANO

SANCHEZ, JAMES WILLIAMS, GARY

YEE, JEFF GODOWN, ANTWAN

WILSON, and DOES 1-10, in theirindividual and official capacities,

Defendants. ______________________________________

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


2/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff, by and through his

attorneys, UNITED FOR EQUALITY AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION LEGAL

DEFENSE FUND, states as follows:

INTRODUCTION

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 OUSD’s supervision and control, and the cover-up by OSPD

and OUSD of the incident.

2. This incident arises out of OUSD’s policy of providing repression instead of equal

educational opportunities to Oakland’s special-education students and the city’s

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

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This is a civil rights action arising from the Defendants’ unreasonable seizure of

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

about January 22, 2014 at Fremont High School, 4610 Foothill Boulevard, Oakland,

California 94601. This action is brought pursuant to: 42 USC §§1983 and 1988; the First,

Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; the American

with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) Title II (42 USC §§ 12131 et seq.); the Rehabilitation Act

(“RA”) (29 USC § 794 et seq.); the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”)

(20 USC § 1400 et seq.); the California Constitution; California Civil Code §§ 51.7 and

52.1, state common law, and related state law statutes, codes, and regulations.

4. Plaintiff resides in Oakland, California. All of the Defendants herein reside and/or

work in Oakland, California. The events, acts, and/or omissions complained of herein



3/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

occurred in Alameda County, California, and this action is properly assigned to the U.S.

District Court of California, Northern District.

5. This complaint includes claims made under the Fourth and Fourteenth

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 action is timely filed within all applicable statutes of limitation.

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

7. A substantial part of the events which give rise to this claim occurred in Alameda

County, making assignment to the Oakland Division appropriate under Civil L.R. 3-2(d).

PARTIES

8. At all material times, Plaintiff Jonathan RODRIGUEZ, by his next friend Ignacio

Rodriguez, was and is a resident of the State of California, County of Alameda. He brings

these claims on his own behalf and as a Private Attorney General to vindicate

constitutional rights of the highest importance.

9. Defendant Oakland Unified School District (“OUSD”) is a public entity and an

educational service agency established and maintained by the laws and constitution of the

State of California, and owns, operates, manages, directs, and controls the Defendant

Oakland School Police Department (OSPD), and employs and/or is responsible for other

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

OUSD is vicariously liable for state law torts of its employees and agents, including but

not limited to those named as Defendants herein.



4/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

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. Defendant Carlton JOHNSON 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 JOHNSON is

being sued in his individual capacity.

12. Defendant Eric DUBOIS was, at all material times up through at least Spring

2014, employed by Defendant OUSD, and he was acting within the course and scope of

his employment as a Vice Principal of Fremont High School (“FHS”). As Vice Principal,

on information and belief, he was a policy-making official for FHS, responsible for all

policies, procedures, and training at FHS. Defendant DUBOIS is being sued in his

individual capacity.

13.

Defendant Ana VASQUEZ was, at all material times up through at least Spring

2014, employed by Defendant OUSD, and she was acting within the course and scope of

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

belief, she was a policy-making official for FHS, responsible for all policies, procedures,

and training at FHS. Defendant VASQUEZ is being sued in her individual capacity.

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

Spring 2014, employed by Defendant OUSD, and he was acting within the course and

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

was a final policy-making official for FHS, ultimately responsible for all policies,



5/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

procedures, and training at FHS. Defendant SANCHEZ is being sued in his individual

capacity.

15. Defendant Gary YEE was, at all material times up through at least Spring 2014,

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

material times, acting within the course and scope of his employment as Chief of OSPD.

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

making official for OUSD, and he is the final policy-making official for OSPD,

ultimately responsible for policies, procedures, and training within OSPD. Defendant

GODOWN is being sued in his individual and official capacities.

17. Defendant Antwan WILSON was, beginning July 1, 2014 and at all subsequent

material times, employed by OUSD as Superintendent, and he was acting within the

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,

ultimately responsible for all policies, procedures, and training within the OUSD and

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

18. The true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as DOES 1-10 (“DOE

Defendants”) are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues these Defendants by such

fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to show these

Defendants’ true names and capacities when they are ascertained. At all material times,

each of the DOE Defendants was an employee and/or agent of Defendants OUSD and/or



6/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

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. The acts and omissions of all DOE Defendants as set forth herein were at all

material times pursuant to the actual customs, policies, practices, and procedures of the

OUSD and/or OSPD.

20. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants

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

responsible in some manner for the events and happenings as hereinafter described, and

proximately caused injuries and damages to Plaintiff.

21.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants

was at all material times, an agent, servant, employee, partner, joint venturer, co-

conspirator, and/or alter ego of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the things herein

alleged, was acting within the course and scope of that relationship. Plaintiff is further

informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants herein gave

consent, aid, and assistance to each of the remaining Defendants, and ratified and/or

authorized the acts or omissions of each Defendant as alleged herein, except as may be

hereinafter otherwise specifically alleged. At all material times, each Defendant was both

jointly engaged in tortious activity and an integral participant in the conduct described



7/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

herein, resulting in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional and statutory rights and

other harm.

22. At all material times, each Defendant acted under color of the laws, statutes,

ordinances, policies, practices, customs, and usages of the State of California and the

OUSD and OSPD.

23. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all material times,

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.

24. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the unlawful actions

complained of herein, as a result of which Plaintiff sustained the injuries and damages

enumerated below, were and are violations of the laws of the State of California and the

United States.

25. Plaintiff has complied with the claim filing requirements of California’s

Government Code Claims Act, Cal. Gov’t. Code § 910 et seq., and this action is timely

filed within all applicable statutes of limitation.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

26. Plaintiff realleges each and every paragraph in this Complaint as if fully set forth

here.

27. On or about January 22, 2014, at Fremont High School, 4610 Foothill Boulevard,

Oakland, California 94601, officers of the OUSD and/or OSPD, including Defendants

ANGELO and JOHNSON, wrongfully arrested and detained, assaulted and battered, and

used excessive and unjustified force against Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, causing injuries.



8/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

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. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants ANGELO,

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.

30. On or about January 22, 2014, Plaintiff was in the hallway during passing period

at Fremont High School (“FHS”). Defendant Vice Principal DUBOIS saw him and

instructed him to go the office and wait there for him. Plaintiff complied and went to the

office to wait for DUBOIS. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ stood in the doorway to the office,

talking to other students.

31.

Defendant DUBOIS approached Plaintiff and ordered him to go inside the office.

Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ asked him why he was in trouble, and Defendant DUBOIS said

something to the effect of, “I don’t need to tell you, you need to do what I say.”

32. Defendant DUBOIS then called Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON to

confront Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.

33. Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON approached Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ and

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

or legal justification. Defendant ANGELO forcefully shoved Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ

from behind into Defendant JOHNSON. Defendant JOHNSON forcibly gripped Plaintiff

RODRIGUEZ’s head under his arm in a headlock.



9/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

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.

Both Defendants JOHNSON and ANGELO proceeded to drag Plaintiff

RODRIGUEZ in a choking headlock into and across the length of the main office,

without warrant, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or legal justification.

36. As Defendants JOHNSON and ANGELO dragged him across the office in a

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

choke him to death.

37. As Defendants JOHNSON and ANGELO forcefully dragged Plaintiff

RODRIGUEZ across the office, they hit his head on the counter in the office and swung

him around between the two of them. They continued to choke Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ by

his neck and crush his face with their hands.

38.

They deliberately shoved him into a part of the office, behind a wall that blocked

the view of the office’s security camera. At times, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ blacked out

and lost consciousness during the choking and beating.

39. Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON continued to use excessive and

unreasonable force, and without probable cause or legal justification. Defendant

JOHNSON gripped and choked Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, while Defendant ANGELO

punched Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ in the face several times.

40. Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON, on the orders of Defendants DUBOIS and

VASQUEZ, told Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ that he could not leave and held him in a room



10/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

for over an hour, without a warrant, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or legal

justification.

41. Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON, unlawfully and without legal justification,

searched Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, patting him down and searching his belongings.

42. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ had a laceration above his eye, bruises, sore muscles, and

back and head pain. But Defendants ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, and VASQUEZ

did nothing to provide RODRIGUEZ medical attention.

43. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Principal

SANCHEZ was notified immediately about the incident and had access to the security

camera footage showing the assault on Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.

44. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ was forced to stay in the room over an hour, as

Defendants ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, and Defendant Principal

SANCHEZ consulted outside. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ was in the room over an hour

alone with two different school security officers.

45.

Defendant SANCHEZ entered the room and suspended Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ

from school for five days, depriving him of his right to an education without due process

and without reasonable cause. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that

Defendants DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, ANGELO, and JOHNSON had consulted with

Defendant PRINCIPAL SANCHEZ to deprive Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ of his rights and

to cover-up for their illegal actions.

46. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff

RODRIGUEZ’s status as a special-education student with a disability, and his status

being a Latino, were substantial motivating factors in Defendants’ refusal to respect his

rights, refusal to conduct a subsequent investigation of the incident.



11/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

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.

Defendants JOHNSON and ANGELO attacked Jonathan in public view of

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. Defendant DUBOIS and Defendant VASQUEZ directed the immediate cover-up

of the attack, ordering students to leave the office and minimizing the number of

independent witnesses.

50. Defendants ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ and SANCHEZ were

integral participants in violating Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s rights. At no time did any of

these Defendants stop any other from using excessive force, falsely arresting and/or

imprisoning Plaintiff; or otherwise violating Plaintiff’s rights.

51. Defendants ANGELO and JOHNSON were never terminated, disciplined, or

retrained for their excessive force and false arrest against Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.

52. Defendant SANCHEZ called Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s uncle and told him that an

incident had occurred but something to the effect that Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ was “all

right.” Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s cousin drove to Fremont High School to pick him up.

53. When Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s cousin came to pick him up, he was alarmed by

Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s injuries and took pictures of him with his cell phone.

54. At home, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s mother saw her son’s injuries and was

distraught and worried.



12/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

55. When Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s father came home that same day, he took his son

to Children’s Hospital of Oakland for treatment for his injuries and emotional distress.

56. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s mother visited the school to complain about the school

staff’s 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. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant OSPD Chief

James WILLIAMS and his subordinates, including DOES 1-10, and that Defendant

OUSD Superintendent GARY YEE, and his subordinates, including Defendant

WILLIAMS and DOES 1-10, received the report of the assault on Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ

that included a DVD of the video footage taken from the Fremont High School main

office security camera.

58. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant WILLIAMS

and Defendant YEE and their subordinates conducted no investigation of Defendants

ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, and/or SANCHEZ, thus failing to

investigate, discipline, and conduct training of OUSD and OSPD staff and exercising

deliberately indifference to the rights of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ and other students of

OUSD.

59. After the incident, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ exacerbated his depression and

difficulty engaging with school. Not only did none of the Defendants offer counseling or

aid of any sort to Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, but Defendant DUBOIS deliberately targeted

him for further abuse in a later incident described below.

60. The January 22, 2014 beating exacerbated Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s Emotional

Disturbance. School officials had been aware of this detrimental impact given



13/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

RODRIGUEZ’s 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.

On March 7, 2014, Defendant DUBOIS, with knowledge of Plaintiff’s disability,

deliberately and unlawfully took Plaintiff’s 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

RODRIGUEZ’s cell phone without any explanation. DUBOIS accused RODRIGUEZ of

stealing the phone, even though DUBOIS had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion

to believe the phone did not belong to Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.

62. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ explained that the cell phone was his and demanded it

back. Defendant DUBOIS refused to return Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ his property. When

Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ continued to demand his cell phone, Defendant DUBOIS called

for police.

63.

Defendant DUBOIS lied to police officers, claiming that Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ

had wrongfully assaulted him. DUBOIS had Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ arrested, even

though Defendant DUBOIS continued to unlawfully hold Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s

property.

64. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s mother had to go to the police station with the box

Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s phone was purchased in and the sales receipt, before the police

would release Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.

65. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ had to go to juvenile court and spend a week in juvenile

hall on the basis of Defendant DUBOIS’s false and misleading statements to police,



14/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

further exacerbating his disability of emotional disturbance, difficulty engaging with the

school environment, and the trauma he suffered from the January 22, 2014.

66. This second incident again exacerbated Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s diagnosed

Emotional Disturbance and violated RODRIGUEZ’s rights under his IEP and Behavior

Support Plan.

67. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s family made repeated requests to Defendant SANCHEZ

and other OUSD staff to have a copy of the security video. But their requests were

ignored.

68. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff

RODRIGUEZ’s status as a special-education student with a disability, and his status

being a Latino, were substantial motivating factors in Defendants’ refusal produce the

video to Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ and his parents despite their repeated efforts.

69. On February 23, 2015, this law firm sent formal requests to OUSD and OSPD that

they produce a copy of the security camera footage of the incident on behalf of Plaintiff

RODRIGUEZ.

70. Plaintiff is informed and believes thereon alleges that Defendant OSPD Chief Jeff

GODOWN and his subordinates including DOES 1-10, responded to this request by

obtaining their report of the January 22, 2014 incident and DVD video. Defendant OUSD

Superintendent WILSON, Defendant GODOWN and their subordinates including DOES

1-10, withheld this video. Instead of releasing it to Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ per the request

of his attorney, they released it to the news media on March 6, 2015: footage of Plaintiff

RODRIGUEZ, a minor, being traumatized and beaten by OSPD officers under the

direction and supervision of OUSD officials. Defendants released the video on March 6,

2015 without Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s or his parents’ knowledge or consent, in violation



15/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

of minors’ right to privacy under the United States and California Constitutions and state

and federal laws.

71. Also on March 6, 2015, Defendants WILSON, GODOWN and their subordinates

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. Footage of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ being brutalized were seen by thousands on

major TV news stations, and the video of the attack on YouTube was viewed by

thousands more.

73. At the age of 14, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s privacy and anonymity were stripped

away without his or his parents’ knowledge or consent.

74. As a result of the excessive force, false arrest, cover-up, and violation of his

privacy by Defendants, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ has suffered ongoing pain and severe

emotional distress, anxiety, humiliation, mortification, and depression.

75.

Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ suffered a loss of appetite, sleeplessness, and weight loss,

and increased emotional distress resulting from attacks by Defendants in this case.

Because of the exacerbation of Plaintiff’s emotional disturbance caused by Defendants,

Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ had to live in a restricted group home from February to December

2015.

76. On information and belief, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s disabilities, including his

emotional disturbance, were among the motivating factors for Defendants DUBOIS’,

ANGELO’s, JOHNSON’s, VASQUEZ’S, and SANCHEZ’S unlawful treatment of

Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.



16/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

77. On information and belief, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ being a Latino was among the

motivating factors for Defendants DUBOIS’, ANGELO’s, JOHNSON’s, VASQUEZ’S,

and SANCHEZ’S unlawful treatment of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.

78.

On information and belief, Defendants DUBOIS, ANGELO, JOHNSON,

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. Defendants DUBOIS, ANGELO, JOHNSON, VASQUEZ, and SANCHEZ also

denied Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ his right to participation in public accommodations and

services and his right to an education.

80. On information and belief, Defendants OUSD and OSPD, their policymakers and

managing agents and employees, including, but not limited to, former Defendant OSPD

Chief of Police WILLIAMS; former OUSD Superintendent Defendant YEE; Defendant

SANCHEZ, Defendant DUBOIS, Defendant VASQUEZ, and other as-yet unknown

employees and agents of Defendants OUSD and OSPD, negligently, recklessly,

otherwise wrongfully and with deliberate indifference to the rights and safety of OUSD

students, including Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, failed to properly screen, investigate, hire,

train, supervise, and/or discipline Defendants ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS,

VASQUEZ, and/or SANCHEZ.

81. At all times, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ had committed no crime, was unarmed, and

did not pose any threat to Defendants or to others. No force was justified at any time, and

there was never probable cause to arrest him.

82. Additionally, Defendants subjected Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ to an unreasonable

and unlawful search of his person, false arrest and imprisonment, violation of state and



17/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

federal constitutional rights, violation of privacy, and interference with his rights by

threats, intimidation, and/or coercion.

83. Defendants’ actions and omissions were objectively unreasonable under the

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. Defendants OUSD and OSPD are also responsible for Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s

injuries through their own acts and omissions, negligent or otherwise, by failing to

properly and adequately investigate, train, supervise, monitor, instruct, and discipline

their employees, officers, and other personnel, including the officers identified herein.

85. At all material times, and alternatively, the actions and omissions of each

Defendant were intentional, knowing, wanton and/or willful, reckless, malicious,

deliberately indifferent to and with conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and

others, done with oppression, fraud, malice, actual malice, grossly negligent, negligent,

and objectively unreasonable.

86. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ has required, and will require, significant medical care as

a result of Defendants’ misconduct.

87. As a direct and proximate result of each Defendant’s acts and/or omissions as set

forth above, Plaintiff sustained the following injuries and damages, past and future,

among others:

a. Wrongful seizure and imprisonment;

b. Facial cuts and bruises;

c. Physical and emotional pain and suffering, including severe emotional

distress;



18/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

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

3294; California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5; and as otherwise allowed

under California and United States statutes, codes, and common law.

COUNT ONE

-––42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment)––

AGAINST DEFENDANTS ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, AND DOES 2-10


here.

89. Defendants ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, and DOES 2-10, acting under the

color of state law in their personal capacities, deprived Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ of the

following clearly established and well-settled constitutional rights protected by the First,

Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution:

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;



19/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

d. 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 privacyand violation of bodily integrity, as secured by the Fourteenth

Amendment.

e. The right to Equal Protection of the Laws, and to be free fromdiscrimination 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. Defendants ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, and DOES 2-10 subjected Plaintiff

RODRIGUEZ to their wrongful conduct and deprived him of rights described herein

knowingly, maliciously, and with conscious and reckless disregard for whether the rights

and safety of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ and others would be violated by their acts and/or

omissions.

92. The conduct of Defendants ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, and DOES 2-10

entitles Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ to exemplary and punitive damages and penalties

allowable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California law.

93. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ is also entitled to reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees

under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51.7, 52 and 52.1, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §

1021.5, and other applicable California codes and law.

COUNT TWO

-––42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Supervisory and Municipal Liability)––

AGAINST DEFENDANTS YEE, WILLIAMS, SANCHEZ, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ,WILSON, GODOWN, AND DOES 2-10

94. Plaintiff realleges each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth

here.



20/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

95. The unconstitutional actions and/or omissions of Defendants ANGELO,

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 1–10:

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:

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);

iii. by allowing, tolerating, and/or encouraging OUSD and/or OSPDemployees and/or agents to: fail to file complete and accurate



21/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

police reports; file false police reports; make false statements;

intimidate, bias, and/or “coach” witnesses to give false informationand/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;

iv.

to allow, tolerate, and/or encourage a “code of silence” amongOUSD and/or OSPD employees/agents whereby an officer ormember 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 intervenewhen another officer commits misconduct; and

v. to use or tolerate inadequate, deficient, and improper proceduresfor 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.

96. Defendants YEE, WILLIAMS, SANCHEZ, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, WILSON,

GODOWN, and DOES 2-10 failed to properly screen, hire, train, instruct, monitor,

supervise, evaluate, manage, investigate, and discipline Defendants ANGELO,

JOHNSON, DUBOIS, and DOES 2-10, with deliberate indifference to the constitutional

rights of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, which were thereby violated as described above.

97.

The unconstitutional actions and/or omissions of Defendants ANGELO,

JOHNSON, DUBOIS, and DOES 2-10, as described above, were approved, tolerated

and/or ratified by policy making officers for Defendants OUSD and/or OSPD, including

Defendants YEE, WILLIAMS, SANCHEZ, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, WILSON,

GODOWN, or DOE 1, and DOES 2-10. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ is informed and believes,

and thereupon alleges, that the details of this incident have been revealed to the

authorized policy makers within Defendants OUSD and/or OSPD, and that such policy

makers have direct knowledge of the facts of this incident. Notwithstanding this

knowledge, the authorized policy makers within Defendants OUSD and/or the OSPD

have approved of the conduct of Defendants ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, and



22/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

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. The aforementioned customs, policies, practices, and procedures; the failures to

properly and adequately screen, hire, train, instruct, monitor, supervise, evaluate,

investigate, and discipline; as well as the unconstitutional orders, approvals, ratification,

and toleration of wrongful conduct of Defendants YEE, WILLIAMS, SANCHEZ,

DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, WILSON, GODOWN or DOE 1, and DOES 2-10, were a moving

force and/or proximate cause of the deprivations of the clearly established and well-

settled constitutional rights of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as

more fully set forth in ¶ 60 above.

99.

Defendants subjected Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ to their wrongful conduct, depriving

Plaintiff of rights described herein, knowingly, maliciously, and with conscious and

reckless disregard for whether the rights and safety of Plaintiff and others would be

violated by their acts and/or omissions.

100. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional actions, omissions,

customs, policies, practices, and procedures of Defendants YEE, WILLIAMS,

SANCHEZ, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, WILSON, GODOWN, and DOES 2-10, as described

above, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ 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.



23/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

COUNT THREE

––VIOLATION OF TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

(ADA) AND THE REHABILITATION ACT (RA)––

AGAINST DEFENDANTS OUSD and OSPD

101.

Plaintiff realleges each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth

here.

102. Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) upon a finding,

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).

103. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ is a “qualified individual” suffering from disabilities

including, but not limited to, emotional disturbance, a disability that substantially limits

his ability to perform major life activities, including but not limited to, learning, reading,

concentrating, thinking, and communicating. 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2); Section 504 of the

RA of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794; 28 C.F.R. 42.540(k).

104.

Defendants OUSD and OSPD are public entities under Title II of the ADA. 42

U.S.C. § 12131(1)(A). Title II of the ADA applies generally to a public entity’s “services,

programs, or activities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Specifically, Title II of the ADA applies to

the services of Defendants OUSD and OSPD, including detentions and arrests.

Furthermore, respondeat superior liability applies to Title II claims.

105. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ is informed, and believes, and thereon alleges, that

Defendants OUSD and OSPD receive federal assistance and funds, and are therefore

subject to the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. Defendants OUSD and OSPD are

within the mandate of the RA that no person with a disability may be “excluded from



24/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any

program or activity. 29 U.S.C. § 794.

106. As described herein, Defendants arrested Plaintiff because of his disabilities and

characteristics related to his disabilities. Defendants also failed to reasonably

accommodate Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s 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

OUSD’s and OSPD’s violations of the ADA and RA, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ sustained

serious injuries and is entitled to damages, penalties, costs, and attorneys’ fees as set forth

in ¶¶ 86-87, above.

COUNT FOUR

––VIOLATION OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION

ACT (IDEA)––

AGAINST DEFENDANT OUSD and OSPD

107. Plaintiff realleges each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth

here.

108. Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) upon a finding

that schools must “provid[e] incentives for whole-school approaches… [and] positive

behavioral interventions and supports” to students with disabilities and that “[g]reater

efforts are needed to prevent the intensification of problems connected with mislabeling

and high dropout rates among minority children with disabilities. 20 U.S.C. § 1400.

109. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ suffers from disabilities including, but not limited to,

emotional disturbance and is protected under the IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A)(i).

110. Defendant OUSD is an educational service agency under 20 U.S.C. § 1401(5).

Defendant OUSD owns, operates, manages, directs, and controls the Defendant OSPD,



25/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

and employs and/or is responsible for other Defendants in this action. Furthermore,

respondeat superior liability applies to IDEA claims.

111. As described herein, Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed under his

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 RODRIGUEZ’s 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 OUSD’s and OSPD’s violations of the IDEA, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ

sustained serious injuries and is entitled to damages, penalties, costs, and attorneys’ fees

as set forth in ¶¶ 86-87, above.

COUNT FIVE

––DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION––

ALL DEFENDANTS

112.

Plaintiff realleges each and every paragraph in this complaint as if fully set forth

here.

113. Through their actions, omissions, customs, and policies as described above, each

Defendant, acting in concert/conspiracy as described above, violated the rights, protected

by the California Constitution, of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, including but not limited to the

following:

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 theCalifornia Constitution, Article 1, § 1;

b. The right to be free from unlawful and/or unreasonable seizure of one’s

person as secured by the California Constitution, Article 1, § 13.



26/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

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


here.

116. By their acts, omissions, customs, and policies, each Defendant, acting in

concert/conspiracy, as described above, violated Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s rights under

California Civil Code § 52.1, and the following clearly established rights under the

United States Constitution and California Constitution:

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 ofarrest 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 forexercise 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;



27/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

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 one’s personas 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.

117. Separate from, and above and beyond, Defendants’ attempted interference,

interference with, and violation of, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s rights, Defendants violated

Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s rights by the following conduct constituting threats,

intimidation, or coercion:

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 violenceagainst a specific person . . . and the person . . . against whom the threat is

directed reasonably fears that, because of his speech, violence will becommitted 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” andforcing him to sit back down in his wheelchair;

c. detaining Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ without reasonable suspicion;

d. arresting Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ without probable cause;

e. continuing Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s 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



28/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

f. violating Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s rights to be free, under Cal. Const. Art.

1, § 13, from unlawful seizures by both wrongful arrest and excessiveforce.

118. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of California Civil Code

§ 52.1 and of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s 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.

COUNT SEVEN

––CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 51.7––DEFENDANTS ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, OUSD AND OSPD

119. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ realleges each and every paragraph in this Complaint as if

fully set forth here.

120. By their acts, omissions, customs, and policies, each Defendant acting in

concert/conspiracy, as described above, violated Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s rights secured

by California Civil Code § 51.7 to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of

violence, committed against his person or property because of his disability, race, color,

or national origin.

121. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of California Civil Code

§ 51.7. 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 §§ 51.7, 52,

52.1, and California law, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees, costs, treble

damages, and civil penalties.



29/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

COUNT EIGHT

––ASSAULT AND BATTERY––

DEFENDANTS ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, OUSD AND OSPD

122. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ realleges each and every paragraph of this complaint as if


123. The actions, omissions, customs, and policies of Defendants, as described above,

were intentional and/or reckless, harmful, threatening, and/or offensive, and a proximate

cause of Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s damages.

124. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ assault and battery, Plaintiff

RODRIGUEZ sustained injuries and damages, and is entitled to relief as set forth above

at ¶¶ 86-87.

COUNT NINE

––NEGLIGENCE; PERSONAL INJURIES––

ALL DEFENDANTS

125. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ realleges each and every paragraph in this complaint as if


126.

At all times, each Defendant owed Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ the duty to act with

due care in the execution and enforcement of any right, law, or legal obligation.

127. At all times, each Defendant owed Plaintiff the duty to act with reasonable care.

128. These general duties of reasonable care and due care owed to Plaintiff

RODRIGUEZ by all Defendants include but are not limited to the following specific

obligations:

a. To properly and adequately screen, investigate, background-check, hire,

train, monitor, supervise, discipline and terminate school security officers;

b. To refrain from releasing Plaintiff’s identity, private information, medicalcondition, and video recordings of Plaintiff to the public and the media;

c. To refrain from violating Plaintiff’s privacy;



30/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

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/orunreasonable 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 Plaintiff’s 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;

k. To refrain from abusing their authority granted them by law; and

l. To refrain from violating Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s rights guaranteed bythe United States and California Constitutions, as set forth above, and as

otherwise protected by law.

129.

Additionally, these general duties of reasonable care and due care owed to

Plaintiffs by Defendants OUSD, OSPD, YEE, WILLIAMS, SANCHEZ, DUBOIS,

VASQUEZ, WILSON, GODOWN, and DOES 2-10, include but are not limited to the

following specific obligations:

a. to use reasonable care to discover whether a potential employee is unfit orincompetent; 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



31/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

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 causeharm 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;

d.

to exercise reasonable care in supervising persons to perform work orother 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; orwho 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 appropriatecorrective action, or to suspend or terminate an incompetent or unfitemployee 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 thework 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, includingPlaintiff’s.

130. Defendants, through their acts and omissions, breached each and every one of the

aforementioned duties owed to Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ.

131. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff

RODRIGUEZ sustained injuries and damages, and is entitled to relief as set forth above

at ¶¶ 86-87.



32/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

COUNT TEN

––False Arrest or Imprisonment––

DEFENDANTS ANGELO, JOHNSON, DUBOIS, VASQUEZ, SANCHEZ, 2-10,

OUSD, AND OSPD

132.

Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ realleges each and every paragraph in this complaint as if


133. At no time during the events described above, or at all other pertinent times, did

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

suspicion to detain Plaintiff at any time, and Defendants were not engaged in a lawful

investigative detention of Plaintiff.

134. Defendants, and each of them, intentionally and unlawfully exercised force to

restrain, detain, and confine Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, putting restraint on Plaintiff

RODRIGUEZ’s freedom of movement, and compelled Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ to remain

and/or move against his will. Defendants authorized, directed, and assisted in procuring,

without process, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s unlawful arrest and imprisonment.

135. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and/or omissions as set forth

above, Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ sustained injuries and damages and is entitled to relief as

set forth at ¶¶ 86-87, above.

COUNT ELEVEN

––Abuse of Process––DEFENDANT DUBOIS, DOES 2-10, AND OUSD



137. Knowing about Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s disability, Defendant DUBOIS



33/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

unlawfully took Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s cell phone, called police against Plaintiff

RODRIGUEZ, and made false and misleading statements to police officers to effect

Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s 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. Defendant DUBOIS had the ulterior purpose and motive of acting on his personal

animus toward Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ, based on Plaintiff’s disability and his race.

139. Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ suffered severe emotional distress from this unjust abuse

of Defendant DUBOIS’ authority and power, including the exacerbation of Plaintiff’s

emotional disturbance and difficulty engaging with his education.




COUNT TWELVE

––Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress––

DEFENDANTS ANGELO,JOHNSON, DUBOIS, DOES 2-10, OUSD AND OSPD



142. Defendants’ conduct was outrageous, and it was so extreme that it went beyond

all possible bounds of decency. Defendants abused their positions of authority that gave

them real or apparent power to affect Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s interests. Defendants

knew or must have known that Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ had emotional disturbance was

particularly vulnerable to emotional distress. Defendants further knew or must have

known that their conduct would likely result in harm due to mental distress. Defendants

intended to cause Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ emotional distress.



34/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

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. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s

severe emotional distress.




COUNT THIRTEEN

––Intrusion into Private Affairs––

DEFENDANTS WILSON, GODOWN, OUSD, OSPD, AND DOES 1-10



147. Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the events that occurred on or

about January 22, 2014 because only those students, faculty and other employees/agents

of the OUSD and/or OSPD who were present during the events, or who would later

investigate the events, would see or hear about them. Further, Plaintiff had a reasonable

expectation that Defendants would not disseminate to anyone outside of Defendants

OUSD and OSPD information about the events, including but not limited to: Plaintiff’s

name, his beating at the hands of OUSD and OSPD staff, and the surveillance video that

captured portions of these events.

148. Defendants intentionally intruded upon this expectation of privacy in the events

that occurred on or about January 22, 2014 by releasing information about the events—

including but not limited to Plaintiff’s name; his beating at the hands of OUSD and



35/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

OSPD staff, and the surveillance video that captured portions of these events—to various

local, national and international news media outlets and to all staff, students, and parents

of students in OUSD.

149.

Defendants’ intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, because a

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. As a result of Defendants’ intrusion, Plaintiff has suffered serious 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, and Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor

in causing his harm.




COUNT FOURTEEN––Public Disclosure of Private Facts––

DEFENDANTS WILSON, GODOWN, OUSD, OSPD, AND DOES 1-10



153. Defendants publicized private information about Plaintiff, a minor, including but

not limited to: his name, his beating at the hands of , and the video . This private

information was not of legitimate public concern, nor did it have a substantial connection

to a matter of public concern; rather, the publicity was a morbid and sensational prying

into Plaintiff’s private life for its own sake. Further, Defendants made this information

public both by communicating it to the public at large and by communicating it to local



36/37



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

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. A reasonable person in Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s position would consider this

publicity highly offensive. Neither Plaintiff nor his parents consented to the publicity

explicitly by voluntarily seeking public attention.

155. Defendants knew, or acted with reckless disregard of the fact, that a reasonable

person in Plaintiff RODRIGUEZ’s position would consider the publicity highly

offensive.

156. As a result of Defendants’ intrusion, Plaintiff has suffered serious 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, and Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor

in causing his harm.




JURY DEMAND

158. Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial in this action.

PRAYER

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;



37/37

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

3. All other damages, treble damages, penalties, costs, interest, andattorneys’ 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 otherwisemay be allowed by California and/or federal law;

4. Injunctive relief, including but not limited to the following:

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 searchesand seizures and excessive and unreasonable force;

b. an order requiring Defendants to institute and enforce appropriateand lawful policies, procedures, and supervision concerning

detentions, arrests, and the use of force;

c. an order prohibiting Defendants and their officers and securityguards 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 officersconcerning the Court’s orders in this matter, including the issues

raised in injunctive relief requests (a)–(d), above.

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.

By Plaintiff’s Attorneys,UNITED FOR EQUALITY AND AFFIRMATIVE

ACTION LEGAL DEFENSE FUND (UEAALDF)

BY: _/s/ Ronald Cruz_____________________ Ronald Cruz (State Bar No. 267038)

1985 Linden Street

Oakland, California 94607(510) 384-8859 (Ronald Cruz)

Dated: January 22 2016


Documents

Rodriguez v. Oakland Unified School District et al