Case 2:20-cv-00832 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:1

1 Antoine D. Williams, Esq. (SBN 255716 )

Law Offices of A.D. Williams, A.P.C
2 5900 Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 260
Sherman Oaks CA 91411
3 (818)898-3300
4 Bart A. Seemen Esq. (SBN 261895 )
Law Offices of Bart Alan Seemen
5 5900 Sepulveda Blvd. Suite 260
Sherman Oaks CA 91411
6 (310) 975-8512
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Erick Wallace
8

9
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION
11
12 ERICK WALLACE, as an individual; Case No.:
13 PLAINTIFF, CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT:
14 v.
42 U.S.C. § 1983: FOURTH, FIFTH,
15 AND FOURTEENTH
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS
16 ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S AMENDMENTS;
17 DEPARTMENT; LOS ANGELES
COUNTY SHERIFF JIM MCDONNELL;
18 and DOES 1-10 INCLUSIVE; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
19
DEFENDANTS.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 1

27
28
 Case 2:20-cv-00832 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 11 Page ID #:2

1
2 Jurisdiction and Venue
3 1. This action is brought by Plaintiff Erick Wallace (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) pursuant
4 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, California Constitution Art. I §7(a), and California Civil Code §§ 51
5 et. seq., and 52.1.
6 2. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(4) for violations of the 1871
7 Civil Rights Enforcement Act, as amended, including 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and under 28
8 U.S.C. § 1331.
9 3. The acts and omissions complained of took place on January 26, 2018 within the
10 Central District of California. Therefore, venue lies in the Central District of California
11 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
12 Parties
13 4. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff is a resident of the State of California and
14 resided within the jurisdiction of the State of California.
15 5. At all times relevant herein, Defendant County of Los Angeles was a public
16 entity, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. The Los Angeles
17 Sheriff’s Department is, and at all times alleged herein, was an agency of Defendant
18 County of Los Angeles.
19 6. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Los Angeles County Sheriff, Jim
20 McDonnell (hereinafter “McDonnell”), was employed by and working on behalf of the Los
21 Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and resided within the jurisdiction of the State of
22 California. In his capacity as Sheriff for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, he
23 participated and ratified the policies, customs and/or practices resulting in the
24 investigation, prosecution and wrongful conviction of Plaintiff and other similarly situated
25 criminal defendants. Defendant McDonnell is sued in his individual and official capacity.
26 2

27
28
 Case 2:20-cv-00832 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 3 of 11 Page ID #:3

1 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants sued herein
2 as Does 1 through 10, inclusive, were employees of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
3 Department, and were at all times relevant times acting in the course and scope of their
4 employment and agency. Each Defendant is the agent of the other. Plaintiff alleges that
5 each of the Defendants named as a “Doe” was in some manner responsible for the acts and
6 omissions alleged herein, and Plaintiff will seek leave of this Court to amend the
7 Complaint to allege such names and responsibility when that information is ascertained.
8

9 General Allegations
10
11 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that, at all times herein
12 mentioned, each of the Defendant was the agent and/or employee and/or co-conspirator of
13 each of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, was acting
14 within the scope of such agency, employment and/or conspiracy, and with the permission
15 and consent of other co-defendants.
16 8. Each paragraph of this Complaint is expressly incorporated into each cause of
17 action which is a part of this Complaint.
18 9. The acts and omissions of all Defendants were engaged in maliciously, callously,
19 oppressively, wantonly, recklessly, and with deliberate indifference to the rights of
20 Plaintiff.
21 Statement of Facts
22 10. The incident that gives rise to the claims herein arose on Friday, January 26,
23 2018 in Altadena, California, an unincorporated area of Los Angeles County.
24 11. At the date and time of the incident, Plaintiff was with his girlfriend, Vickee
25 Escalera were in the area of their joint residence, 2283 Lake Avenue Altadena, California
26 3

27
28
 Case 2:20-cv-00832 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 4 of 11 Page ID #:4

1 91001.
2 12. Ms. Escalera and Plaintiff were involved in what was initially a verbal
3 altercation Plaintiff’s former employee, Gary Van Ostrand.
4 13. Mr. Van Ostrand escalated the argument and viciously attacked Plaintiff and Ms.
5 Escalera. Mr. Van Ostrand poured hot coffee on Plaintiff, punched him several times and
6 also attacked Ms. Escalera and punched her in the face.
7 14. Mr. Van Ostrand is Caucasian, and Plaintiff is African- American.
8 15. In desperate need of protection, Ms. Escalera called 911 for assistance. Ms.
9 Escalera clearly reported to the 911 operator that she and Plaintiff were the victims of the
10 vicious assault and battery of Mr. Van Ostrand. Ms. Escalera clearly identified the
11 perpetrator of the attack as a white male and the victim of the attack as an African
12 American male.
13 16. Shortly after Ms. Escalera called 911, a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
14 Department patrol vehicle arrived at the location of the altercation. Two Deputy Sheriffs
15 assigned to the Altadena Sheriff’s Station arrived in the patrol car. When the deputies
16 arrived, Mr. Van Ostrand, Ms. Escalera and Plaintiff were still present at the scene.
17 17. Immediately upon arrival, the deputies violently grabbed Plaintiff, forcibly
18 restrained his movement, placed him in handcuffs and placed him in the back of their
19 patrol vehicle. When the deputies arrived, Plaintiff was seated, clearly injured and bleeding
20 from his face. The attack by Mr. Van Ostrand had concluded and there was no on-going
21 situation that required the deputies’ violent intervention.
22 18. In the process of forcibly restraining Plaintiff and placing him in the patrol
23 vehicle, the deputies caused Plaintiff tremendous pain and caused lasting injury.
24 19. During the violent, excessive and illegal detention of Plaintiff, Ms. Escalera was
25 pleading with the deputies that she and Plaintiff were the victims and that she was the
26 4

27
28
 Case 2:20-cv-00832 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 5 of 11 Page ID #:5

1 person that called 911 to report Mr. Van Ostrand’s crimes.

2 20. Despite the fact that Plaintiff was bleeding from his face as a result of being the
3 victim of a vicious assault, the deputies immediately assumed that he, as an African
4 American male was the perpetrator and Mr. Van Ostrand as a Caucasian male was the
5 victim of a crime.
6 21. Shortly after violently placing Plaintiff in the patrol car, the deputies realized that
7 detained the wrong person and released Plaintiff from custody.
8

9 First Cause of Action

10 Violation of Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution
11 (42 U.S.C. §1983)
12 (Against All Defendants)
13
14 22. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 21 of
15 this complaint.
16 23. Defendants’ above-described conduct violated Plaintiff’s right, as provided for
17 under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, to be free from excessive
18 and/or arbitrary and/or unreasonable use of force against him.
19 24. Plaintiff was forced to endure great conscious pain and suffering because of
20 the Defendants’ conduct.
21 25. Defendants acted under color of law by subjecting Plaintiff to excessive force
22 thereby depriving the Plaintiff of certain constitutionally protected rights, including, but
23 not limited to:
24 a. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as guaranteed
25 by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
26 5

27
28
 Case 2:20-cv-00832 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 6 of 11 Page ID #:6

1 26. Defendants each engaged in, knew or should have known of the unconstitutional
2 conduct alleged herein and failed to prevent it, which each had a responsibility to do, and
3 each ratified, approved or acquiesced in it.
4 27. As a result of the defendants’, and each of their violations of Plaintiff’s
5 constitutional rights, Plaintiff was damaged as alleged above.
6 28. Due to the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has been required
7 to incur attorneys' fees, and will continue to incur attorneys' fees, all of Plaintiff's damage
8 in a sum to be proven at trial and recoverable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.
9 29. In acting as alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them, caused Plaintiff severe
10 physical and emotional injuries, and caused Plaintiff other damages, all in an amount to be
11 determined at the time of trial.
12 30. The individual Defendants named herein acted with a conscious disregard of
13 Plaintiff’s rights, conferred upon him by Section 1983, Title 42 of the United States Code,
14 the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and California
15 Civil Code Section 3333, by virtue of ensuring Plaintiff was illegally detained, subject to
16 improper police investigation, and subject to the use of excessive and unnecessary force.
17 Such conduct constitutes malice, oppression and/or fraud under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
18 California Civil Code Section 3294, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages against the
19 individual Defendants in an amount suitable to punish and set an example of.
20
21 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
22 Municipal Liability for Violation of Constitutional Rights
23 (Monell Violations – 42 U.S.C. Section 1983)
24 31. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs 1
25 through 30 of this Complaint.
26 6

27
28
 Case 2:20-cv-00832 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 7 of 11 Page ID #:7

1 32. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times herein
2 mentioned, Defendants County of Los Angeles, McDonnell, and Does 1 – 10, with
3 deliberate indifference, and conscious and reckless disregard to the safety, security and
4 constitutional and statutory rights of Plaintiff and others similarly situated, engaged in the
5 unconstitutional conduct and omissions as set forth above, which consist of the following
6 customs and/or policies:
7 33. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times herein
8 mentioned, Defendants County of Los Angeles, McDonnell, and Does 1 – 10, acting within
9 the course and scope of their duties as a police officers, employees, and representatives of
10 the County of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department, deprived
11 Plaintiff of his right to be free from unreasonable seizure and excessive force as alleged in
12 the above.
13 34. At the time of the above detailed incident, Defendants County of Los Angeles
14 and McDonnell, had in place, and had ratified, policies, procedures, customs and practices
15 which permitted and encouraged their police officers while on duty and while off duty to
16 unjustifiably, unreasonably and in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, use
17 excessive force, and specifically against individuals of African- American ancestry as well
18 as members of other minority groups.
19 35. Said policies, procedures, customs and practices also called for Defendants
20 County of Los Angeles and McDonnell, to refrain from disciplining, prosecuting or in any
21 way deal with or respond to known incidents, complaints, of excessive force by said its
22 police officers, or the related claims and lawsuits made as a result of such incidents.
23 36. Said policies, procedures, customs and practices called for the refusal of said
24 defendant, and their agents, employees and representatives, including the supervising
25 officers of the Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department, to investigate complaints of
26 7

27
28
 Case 2:20-cv-00832 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 8 of 11 Page ID #:8

1 previous incidents of wrongful use of vehicles as other allegations of excessive force made
2 against on-duty and off-duty officers and, instead, officially claim that such incidents were
3 justified and proper.
4 37. Said policies, procedures, customs and practices called for said defendants, by
5 means of inaction and coverup, to encourage said officers of the Los Angeles County
6 Sherriff’s Department to believe that excessive use of unnecessary force upon suspects,
7 including members of minority groups, was permissible.
8 38. Said policies, procedures, customs and practices evidenced a deliberate

9 indifference to the violations of the constitutional rights of Plaintiff. This indifference was

10 manifested by the failure to change, correct, revoke, or rescind said policies, procedures,

11 customs and practices in light of prior knowledge by defendants and their policymakers of

12 indistinguishably similar incidents of unjustified and unreasonable police use of vehicles.

13 39. Deliberate indifference to the civil rights of minority groups and other victims of

14 excessive force was also evidenced by said defendant by the ignoring of the history and

15 pattern of prior civil lawsuits alleging civil rights violations and the related payment of

16 judgments to such individuals.

17 40. Deliberate indifference is also evidenced by Defendants County of Los Angeles,

18 McDonnell, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s department having maintained an

19 inadequate system of incidences of excessive force which failed to identify instances of

20
improper use of equipment, vehicles, or other police tools, as well as defendants' failure to

21
more closely supervise or retrain officers who in fact improperly used such equipment,

22
tools and weapons by on-duty and off-duty officers.

23
41. Deficiencies which indicated, and continue to indicate, a deliberate indifference
to the violations of the civil rights by the deputy sheriffs of the Los Angeles County
24
Sherriff’s Department:
25
26 8

27
28
 Case 2:20-cv-00832 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 9 of 11 Page ID #:9

1 a. preparation of investigative reports designed to vindicate the use of

2 vehicles, regardless of whether such use was justified,
3 b. preparation of investigative reports which uncritically rely solely on the
4 word of police officers involved in the use of force and which systematically
5 fail to credit testimony by non-police witnesses,
6 c. preparation of investigative reports which omit factual information and
7 physical evidence which contradicts the accounts of the officers involved,
8 d. issuance of public statements exonerating officers involved in such

9 incidents prior to the completion of investigations of the excessive use of

10 force,

11 e. failure to review investigative reports by responsible superior officers

12 for accuracy or completeness and by the acceptance of conclusions which are

13 unwarranted by the evidence of the use of excessive force or which contradict

14 such evidence; and,

15 f. failure to enact and implement policies, practices and procedures as

16 well as training relating to the use of excessive force.

17 42. The foregoing acts, omissions, and systemic deficiencies are policies and

18 customs of said defendants and such caused defendants' police officers to be unaware of

19 the rules and laws governing permissible use of force while on duty and to believe that the

20
use of excessive force was entirely within the discretion of the police officers and that

21
improper use of force would not be honestly and properly investigated, all with the

22
foreseeable result that defendants' officers would use deadly force in situations where such

23
force is neither necessary, reasonable nor legal, thereby violating the civil rights of the
citizens of this state.
24
43. As a result of the aforementioned acts, omissions, systematic deficiencies,
25
26 9

27
28
 Case 2:20-cv-00832 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 10 of 11 Page ID #:10

1 policies, procedures, customs and practices of Defendants County of Los Angeles,

2 McDonnell, its Sheriff’s Department, and DOES 1 through 10, acting within the course and
3 scope of their duties as a police officers, employees, and representatives of the County of
4 Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, deprived Plaintiff of his
5 right to be free from excessive force as alleged in the above.
6 44. As a result of each of Defendants violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, as
7 set forth herein, Plaintiffs sustained injury and damage.
8 45. In acting as alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them, caused Plaintiff severe

9 physical and emotional injuries, and caused Plaintiff other damages, all in an amount to be

10 determined at the time of trial.

11 46. Due to the conduct of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has been required

12 to incur attorneys' fees, and will continue to incur attorneys' fees, all to Plaintiff's damage

13 in a sum to be proven at trial and recoverable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.

14
15 Demand for Jury Trial
16
17 Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial.
18
19 Request for Relief
20 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Erick Wallace, requests relief on his own behalf as follows, and
21 according to proof, against each Defendant:
22
23 1. General and compensability damages in any amount according to proof;
24 2. Special damages in any amount according to proof;
25 3. Exemplary and punitive damages against each Defendant in their individual
26 10

27
28
 Case 2:20-cv-00832 Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 11 of 11 Page ID #:11

1 capacities, other than the County of Los Angeles, in an amount according to proof;
2 4. Cost of suit, including attorney’s fees, under 42 U.S.C. 1988 and California Civ.
3 Code §52.1 plus a multiplier of four (4);
4 5. Interest as allowed by law;
5 6. Such other relief as may be warranted or as is just and proper.
6
7
8

9 DATED: January 27, 2020 LAW OFFICES OF A.D. WILLIAMS,

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
10
11
12 By: ANTOINE D. WILLIAMS, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
13 Erick Wallace

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 11

27
28