1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

LAW OFFICE OF STEWART KATZ STEWART KATZ, State Bar #127425 555 University Avenue, Suite 270 Sacramento, California 95825 Telephone: (916) 444-5678 Attorney for Plaintiff RICHARD MALOTT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RICHARD MALOTT, Plaintiff, vs. PLACER COUNTY; NEVADA COUNTY; SACRAMENTO COUNTY; Placer County Sheriff’s Department Deputy KEN ADDISON; Placer County Sheriff’s Department Undersheriff DEVON BELL; Placer County Sheriff EDWARD BONNER; Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Deputy JAVIER BUSTAMANTE; Nevada County Sheriff’s Department Deputy DAVE DEVOGELAIRE; Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Deputy DARIN EPPERSON; Placer County Sheriff’s Department Deputy MARK FAIN; Placer County Sheriff’s Department Detective MATT HARDCASTLE; Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Detective MICHELLE HENDRICKS; Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Sheriff SCOTT JONES; Nevada County Sheriff’s Department Administrative Assistant DONNA NELSON; Nevada County Sheriff’s Department Sheriff KEITH ROYAL; Nevada County Sheriff’s Department Undersheriff JOE SALIVAR; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants. ___________________________________/ NO. COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Malott - Complaint for Damages

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff Richard Malott complains and alleges as follows: I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is a civil rights action with supplemental state law claims arising from

multiple violations of Plaintiff Richard Malott’s (hereinafter “Malott”) rights under the United States Constitution, California Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of California. All claims alleged herein flow directly, albeit unexpectedly, from Malott’s misdemeanor arrest for illegally carrying a concealed handgun after he was pulled over for rolling through a stop sign on April 25, 2013 in Sacramento County. While in the back of the patrol car, Malott experienced a medical emergency which resulted in his being taken to the hospital by ambulance and admitted into the hospital. Prior to the arrival of the ambulance, in an attempt to prove to his partner that Malott was faking, one of the deputies decided to gratuitously apply unwarranted pain compliance techniques in a manner akin to kicking away someone’s crutches to see if they will fall down. Following his arrest, Malott’s personal diary was illegally removed from his vehicle and illegally read by the officers. As a result of a fanciful misreading that defies rational explanation, detectives from Sacramento and Placer Counties working in conjunction embraced a delusional interpretation of the diary and subsequently published patently libelous statements about Malott to his friends, acquaintances and employees, causing a restraining order to be filed against him. Malott’s attempts to contest the restraining order were thwarted by various law enforcement officers and agencies who ignored court issued subpoenas for witnesses and documents that were necessary for his case. Malott subsequently complained to appropriate governmental agencies about his treatment by the arresting officers and other officials’ conduct in connection with the restraining order. As a result of these complaints, Placer County repeatedly sent deputies acting as enforcers to Malott’s property to deter any further complaining to officials. On one occasion, deputies climbed over a locked gate and on at least one other occasion they entered Malott’s home. Subsequently, the Nevada County Sheriff’s Department was made aware of the nature of these illegal acts and chose to ignore their illegal nature and assist in a cover up.

Malott - Complaint for Damages

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2.

Malott’s rights as described herein were violated by each of the defendants Ken

Addison, Devon Bell, Edward Bonner, Javier Bustamante, Dave DeVogelaere, Darin Epperson, Mark Fain, Matt Hardcastle, Michelle Hendricks, Scott Jones, Donna Nelson, Keith Royal, Joe Salavar and by the Counties of Nevada, Placer and Sacramento. II. JURISDICTION 3. This Complaint seeks damages and attorney’s fees pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §§

1983 and 1988 for multiple violations of Malott’s civil rights. Jurisdiction is founded upon Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Malott’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367. III. VENUE 4. Malott’s claims arose in the counties of Nevada, Placer and Sacramento, in

California. Venue lies in the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2). IV. PARTIES 5. 6. Richard Malott is a resident of Nevada City, California. Defendant Nevada County is a public entity organized and existing under the laws

of the State of California. 7. Defendant Placer County is a public entity organized and existing under the laws of

the State of California. 8. Defendant Sacramento County is a public entity organized and existing under the

laws of the State of California. 9. Defendant Javier Bustamante was a Sheriff’s Deputy with the Sacramento County

Sheriff’s Department and was acting in the scope and course of his employment at all times mentioned in this complaint. 10. Defendant Darin Epperson was a Sheriff’s Deputy with the Sacramento County

Sheriff’s Department and was acting in the scope and course of his employment at all times mentioned in this complaint. 11. Defendant Matt Hardcastle was a Detective with the Placer County Sheriff’s

Malott - Complaint for Damages

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Department and was acting in the scope and course of his employment at all times mentioned in this complaint. 12. Defendant Michelle Hendricks was a Detective with the Sacramento County

Sheriff’s Department and was acting in the scope and course of her employment at all times mentioned in this Complaint. 13. Defendant Scott Jones was the Sheriff of Sacramento County, California and was

acting in the scope and course of his employment at all times mentioned in this complaint. 14. Defendant Keith Royal was the Sheriff of Nevada County, California and was

acting in the scope and course of his employment at all times mentioned in this complaint. 15. Defendant Joe Salavar was the Undersheriff of Nevada County, California and

was acting in the scope and course of his employment at all times mentioned in this complaint. 16. Defendant Donna Nelson was the Administrative Assistant to Defendant Royal

and was acting in the scope and course of her employment at all times mentioned in this complaint. 17. Defendant Mark Fain was a Sheriff’s Deputy with the Placer County Sheriff’s

Department and was acting in the scope and course of his employment at all times mentioned in the complaint. 18. Defendant Edward Bonner was the Sheriff of Placer County and was acting in

the scope and course of his employment at all times mentioned in the complaint. 19. Defendant Devon Bell was the Undersheriff of Placer County Sheriff’s

Department and was acting in the scope and course of his employment at all times mentioned in the complaint. 20. Defendant Ken Addison was a Sheriff’s Deputy with the Placer County Sheriff’s

Department and was acting in the scope and course of his employment at all times mentioned in this complaint.

Malott - Complaint for Damages

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

21.

Defendant Dave DeVogelaere was a Sheriff’s Deputy with the Nevada County

Sheriff’s Department and was acting in the scope and course of his employment at all times mentioned in this complaint. 22. The true names and identities of Does 1 through 10 are presently unknown to

Malott. Malott alleges on information and belief that each of Defendants Does 1 through 10 were employees of either the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department or the Placer County Sheriff’s Department. Malott alleges that each of Does 1 through 10 violated his rights when each participated in a vague “joint investigation” between Sacramento and Placer Counties as described herein, targeting Malott specifically so as to violate his rights under the Fourth Amendment, as opposed to investigating any identifiable criminal conduct. Malott will seek to amend this complaint as soon as the true names and identities of Does 1 through 10 have been ascertained. 23. The true names and identities of Does 11 through 15 are presently unknown to

Malott. Malott alleges on information and belief that each of Does 11 through 15 was an employee of the Placer County Sheriff’s Department. Malott alleges that each of Defendant Does 11 through 15 violated Malott’s rights when each accompanied Defendant Addison in unlawfully entering the Malott ranch on multiple occasions between August 13, 2013 and August 21, 2013 as alleged herein. Malott will seek to amend this complaint as soon as the true names and identities of Does 11 through 15 have been ascertained. 24. The true names and identities of Does 16 through 20 are presently unknown to

Malott. Malott alleges on information and belief that each of Does 16 through 20 was an employee of the Nevada County Sheriff’s Department. Malott alleges that each of Defendant Does 16 through 20 violated his rights when each participated in a cover up and active concealment of the illegal conduct of Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15. Malott will seek to amend this complaint as soon as the true names and identities of Does 16 through 20 have been ascertained. 25. The true names and identities of Does 21 through 25 are presently unknown to

Malott. Malott alleges on information and belief that each of Does 21 through 25 was an

Malott - Complaint for Damages

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

employee of the Placer County Sheriff’s Department. Malott alleges that each of Does 21 through 25 violated his rights when each either assisted or directed Defendant Addison to threaten Malott, as described herein. Malott will seek to amend this complaint as soon as the true names and identifies of Does 20 through 25 have been ascertained. 26. Defendants Addison, Bell, Bonner, Bustamante, DeVogelaere, Epperson, Fain,

Hardcastle, Hendricks, Jones, Nelson, Royal, Salavar and Does 1 through 25 engaged in the acts or omissions alleged herein under color of state law. V. COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT TORT CLAIM PROCEDURES 27. Plaintiff filed a timely claim with Nevada County on January 3, 2014 as a pre-

requisite to the state law claims alleged herein pursuant to California Government Code § 810, et seq. By correspondence dated January 30, 2014, Malott’s Nevada County governmental tort claim was rejected. This action has been filed within six months of that rejection, as required by law. 28. Plaintiff filed a timely claim with Sacramento County on October 18, 2013 as a

pre-requisite to the state law tort claims alleged herein pursuant to California Government Code § 810, et seq. Forty-five days have passed since the claims were filed and the claim is deemed rejected as a matter of law. This action has been timely filed within six months of the rejection, as required by law. 29. Plaintiff filed a timely claim with Placer County on December 23, 2013 as a pre-

requisite to the state law claims alleged herein pursuant to California Government Code § 810, et seq. By correspondence dated February 11, 2014, Malott’s Placer County governmental tort claim was rejected. This action has been filed within six months of the rejection, as required by law. VI. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 30. Plaintiff Richard Malott is a forty-four year old divorced male who, at all times

relevant and for most of his life, was a Nevada City resident in Nevada County, California. Malott lives in a detached single family home on one of five contiguous parcels of land all owned by his immediate family and the family trust. These five parcels comprise a 129 acre

Malott - Complaint for Damages

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

property commonly called and referred to hereinafter as the “Malott ranch.” There are five single family residences and two guest houses on the Malott ranch. Malott’s residence sits on a private road that is protected by multiple electronically coded gates as well as over a dozen conspicuously displayed signs indicating that the ranch is private property and not open to the public. 31. Malott is currently the Chief Executive Officer of a privately held real estate

development and holding company. He is a college graduate, a licensed California state real estate broker, and holds a commercial pilot’s license. Previously, he has contracted with numerous federal agencies including the Department of Defense and has served as a reserve police officer and United States Senate intern. 32. On the evening of April 25, 2013, Malott was driving one of several family ranch

vehicles, a Jeep Cherokee, in Fair Oaks, California. 33. Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputies Javier Bustamante and Darin Epperson

conducted a traffic stop on Malott for rolling through a stop sign. 34. 35. Defendant Epperson requested that Malott exit his vehicle and Malott complied. Defendant Epperson placed Malott in handcuffs and conducted a pat-down

search of Malott. 36. During the search, Defendant Epperson located a .22 caliber Derringer handgun

which Malott carried for self-protection. The handgun was in Malott’s pocket. 37. At that time, Malott did not have a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon,

although he had previously held a concealed carry weapons permit and was not statutorily ineligible from holding a concealed carry weapons permit. 38. Immediately after finding the handgun, Defendants Bustamante and Epperson

placed Malott under arrest for carrying a concealed firearm without a permit, a misdemeanor offense. 1 39. Malott was handcuffed and placed in the back of the police patrol car.

The charges were later refiled as felonies based upon the claim that the Derringer was registered to Malott’s deceased father 25 years ago and not Malott.

1

Malott - Complaint for Damages

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

40.

The elements of the offense of carrying a concealed firearm without a permit

require simply that the person knowingly carry a firearm without having a permit. Accordingly, there was no need to further “investigate” the crime. 41. patrol car. 42. In Malott’s Jeep Cherokee, Defendant Bustamante located a hard covered, Defendant Bustamante searched Malott’s Jeep while Malott sat in the back of the

ordinary looking, commercially sold red book with the words “Daily Reminder Standard Diary” printed on the cover. The book is hereinafter referred to as “Malott’s diary.” 43. Malott’s diary was closed and sitting on the passenger seat. Its contents were not

viewable without opening the book. 44. Defendants Bustamante and Epperson removed the diary from the car and read

portions of it out of boredom. 45. Subsequently, Defendants Bustamante and/or Epperson booked the diary and

several selectively chosen items from the Jeep and booked them into evidence. 46. While Malott was in the back of the police car, he began to experience extreme

physical distress including chest pain, pain in his left arm, nausea, lightheadedness, profuse sweating and difficulty breathing. 47. distress. 48. Defendants Bustamante and Epperson asked Malott multiple times if he was Malott alerted Defendants Bustamante and Epperson to the onset of his physical

okay. Malott told them that he was not okay and that he thought he was having heat stroke or some other medical emergency. 49. Malott pleaded for emergent medical care, however Defendants Bustamante and

Epperson ignored his request for a substantial amount of time and told Malott they believed he was faking his symptoms and that he was still going to jail. 50. While Malott’s head was resting on the passenger’s side back seat door,

Defendant Bustamante opened the door, causing Malott’s head to fall out of the car.

Malott - Complaint for Damages

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendant Bustamante then closed the door on Malott’s head and then pushed his head back into the police car. 51. Defendant Bustamante told Defendant Epperson that Malott was “playing them”

and decided to attempt to prove that to Epperson by deliberately causing Malott pain for the purpose of seeing his reaction in a matter akin to kicking away someone’s crutches to see if they fall down. 52. While Malott was leaning forward with his head against the back of the front

passenger’s seat, Defendant Bustamante used a small hard, narrow object to make contact with Malott’s sternum. Upon information and belief, the object was a Kubaton. 53. Defendant Bustamante dug the Kubaton against Malott’s sternum forcefully for

10 to 25 seconds. Upon information and belief, Defendant Bustamante was administering a pain compliance technique called a “sternum rub.” 54. Defendant Bustamante used the object against Malott’s sternum a second time,

pushing even harder and more forcefully for another 10 to 25 seconds, causing great pain and bruising. 55. At both times Defendant Bustamante used the Kubaton on Malott, there was no

objective justification for the use of a pain compliance technique or for the application of force aside from Bustamante’s desire to show Epperson that Malott was not having a medical emergency. Malott had been compliant with all requests and directions of the deputies. Malott did nothing to reasonably suggest that he posed any threat to the deputies as he sat handcuffed in the back of the police car. 56. The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff Scott Jones were on

actual notice of Defendant Bustamante’s propensity to use unreasonable force as a result of, among other things, the County’s monetary settlement on the eve of trial, and after the denial of Bustamante’s motion for summary judgment, a civil rights suit in case number CIV S-09-2245 GEB EFB, arising from Bustamante’s shooting multiple times at point blank range and killing an unarmed citizen named Damian McMurray in front of his mother and other family members in October of 2008.

Malott - Complaint for Damages

9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

57.

Malott reported the injuries he sustained from Defendant Bustamante’s use of the

Kubaton to medical staff upon admission to the hospital later that evening. Medical staff documented the injuries. The injuries were further documented by still and video photographs taken at various times. 58. It has been commonly known among law enforcement administrators since at

least 1991 and the publication of the Christopher Report that a strong positive correlation exists between the number of reported uses of force and the likelihood of an officer using excessive force. Despite having this knowledge, the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department consciously declines to track the number of reported uses of force per officer. As a result, the Sheriff’s Department fails to take appropriate corrective measures including supervision, training and discipline of officers’ whose conduct has identified them as being at a greatly higher risk of using excessive force. Upon information and belief, Defendant Bustamante has reported uses of force at such a level that would have put any reasonable supervisor on notice of his need for training, supervision and discipline. Had this been done, Malott’s physical injuries would have been avoided. 59. It finally dawned upon Defendants Bustamante and Epperson that Malott was

actually in the throes of a real medical emergency. After substantial delay, they requested emergency medical care. 60. Paramedics responded and took Malott by ambulance to the emergency room at

Mercy San Juan Hospital. 61. Hours later that same evening, Malott was admitted to the hospital for a possible

cardiac event based upon the observations and test results obtained while he was in the emergency room. 62. Once Malott was admitted to the hospital, and likely in order to avoid county

liability for Malott’s medical bills, Defendants Bustamante and/or Epperson decided to cite Malott for his alleged Penal Code violations and “release him from custody.” 63. Subsequently Defendants Bustamante and/or Epperson forwarded the diary to

Defendant Michelle Hendricks, a Detective with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s

Malott - Complaint for Damages

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Department, and/or Defendant Matt Hardcastle, a Detective with the Placer County Sheriff’s Department. Defendants Hendricks and Hardcastle also read the diary. 64. Upon information and belief, Defendants Hendricks, Hardcastle and Does 1

through 10 were acting as part of some vague “joint investigation” between Sacramento and Placer Counties. The purpose of this “joint investigation” was to target Malott specifically as opposed to investigating any particular alleged criminal conduct. 65. Malott’s diary contained the type of entries that are typically found in a person’s

private journal, such as those regarding his going on charitable aid missions, making substantial donations to his church, foreign travels and travel plans, past, present and potentially future girlfriends, recollection of dreams, ideas for self-improvement, trials and tribulations of daily life, metaphysical musings and thoughts and speculations on the meaning and nature of life. 66. Noticeably absent from the diary were any bases for the subsequent

misrepresentations and gross mischaracterizations that would be made by Defendants Hendricks and Hardcastle. That is, the diary contained no threats, ideations of violence towards any person, indications of illegal or perverse sexual activities, or of an interest or proclivity for any criminal conduct. 67. Defendant Hendricks, acting in conjunction with Defendant Hardcastle and Does

1 through 10, proceeded to photocopy the diary and maliciously published the diary to at least three persons with whom Malott had long term relationships. Specifically, Hendricks and Hardcastle published the diary to Malott’s former girlfriend (hereinafter referred to as “C.C.”), and his long-time friend Julie Ferneyhough (hereinafter “Ferneyhough”), who, although a registered nurse by training and licensure, was working for the Malott family and living with her family in one of the houses on the Malott ranch at the time. 68. Although they acted in conjunction, Defendants Hendricks and Hardcastle

conducted separate interviews during which each published the contents of Malott’s diary and relayed false, erroneous or fictional information regarding Malott which placed him in a false light.

Malott - Complaint for Damages

11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

69.

In an interview at C.C.’s home that was partially recorded, Defendant Hendricks

showed both C.C. and Ferneyhough portions of Malott’s diary that contained entries about them while asking questions in a way that clearly and falsely implied that the diary contained evidence of sexual perversion, cross-dressing, human trafficking and alcohol and gambling addictions. 70. During an interview with Ferneyhough, in regard to entries in the diary that

referenced Ferneyhough, Defendant Hendricks stated “I thought you’d be curious about what he’d written about you,” and “Don’t you want to read it?” 71. During this same interview, Defendant Hendricks would, at times, turn the tape

recorder off, engage in witness coaching, and then turn the recorder back on and resume the interview. 72. During their respective interviews, both Defendants Hendricks and Hardcastle

asked C.C. and Ferneyhough about various other women who were referenced in the diary. Defendant Hardcastle attempted to show Ferneyhough portions of the diary and question her about her knowledge of a former female friend of Malott who is from Denmark. 73. Defendant Hendricks and Hardcastle knowingly, intentionally and maliciously

published to C.C. and Ferneyhough false, erroneous or fictionalized information about Malott. The nature of the false, erroneous or fictionalized information published was highly offensive and placed Malott in a false and derogatory light. Moreover, Defendants Hendricks and Hardcastle did so with the specific intent that the information given to Ferneyhough would be further disseminated to Malott family members, neighbors, mutual friends and other employees of the Malott family. 74. Upon information and belief, the false, erroneous or fictionalized information

about Malott published to C.C. by Defendant Hendricks and Hardcastle includes, but is not limited to the following: that Malott had alcohol and gambling addictions, that he was probably following C.C., that he was trying to intimidate C.C., that he intended to harm C.C., that he was a “toddler having a temper tantrum” and that he had been unhelpful and evasive in regard to Defendant Hendricks’ “investigation.”

Malott - Complaint for Damages

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

75.

Defendant Hendricks told both C.C. and Ferneyhough that Malott had a

“kidnapping and rape kit” in the car when he was arrested. This is untrue. There is not a scintilla of evidence that Malott ever planned, intended, attempted or even fantasized about kidnapping or raping anyone. However, this falsehood was stated to both C.C. and Ferneyhough for the specific purpose of encouraging either to initiate a legal action against Malott. 76. At a later recorded interview at the Placer County Sheriff’s Department,

Defendant Hardcastle questioned Ferneyhough and Ferneyhough’s husband, John, who were both friends of Malott’s dating back to college. Defendant Hardcastle advised the Ferneyhoughs that Placer County had Malott and his ranch under surveillance and informed them that their family needed to move out of the ranch because their lives were in danger and Placer County was going to be raiding the ranch. Hardcastle implied there was going to be a gunfight and told Julie Ferneyhough that if children were killed in the process, it would be “on her.” 77. Defendant Hardcastle also involved Placer County “victim’s advocate” Paula

Michels, who likewise contacted Ferneyhough and told Ferneyhough her life was in danger. 78. Defendant Hardcastle and Paula Michels both insinuated that Placer County

would be eager to provide monetary victim assistance funds if Ferneyhough would cooperate by pressing false criminal charges against Malott for threatening behavior. 79. Malott. 80. On May 23, 2012, as a result of Defendant Hendricks’ prodding and intentional Defendant Hendricks similarly urged C.C. to file a restraining order against

dissemination of false information, C.C. filed a request for a family court restraining order against Malott in the Placer County Superior Court. 81. A hearing was scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on July 8, 2013 in the Placer County

Historic Courthouse at 101 Maple Street, Auburn, CA 95603. 82. On July 1, 2013, Malott obtained from the Placer County Superior Court a

subpoena which the court issued for Defendant Keith Royal, Nevada County Sheriff, to

Malott - Complaint for Damages

13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

appear in person on July 8, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. as a witness and to produce records described as “any and all law enforcement reports and notes as it [sic] relates to Richard Malott….” A true copy of the subpoena is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 83. The subpoena explicitly ordered Defendant Royal to appear in person and

explicitly stated that “[t]he procedure authorized by Evidence Code §§ 1560(b), 1561, and 1562 will not be deemed sufficient compliance with this subpoena.” 84. On July 2, 2013, Malott delivered the court issued subpoena to the Nevada

County Sheriff’s Department. Defendant Donna Nelson, Administrative Assistant to Defendant Royal, stamped the subpoena “received” in the Nevada County Sheriff’s Office at 8:12 a.m. on July 2, 2013. 85. Malott also attempted to provide the statutorily required fees to the Nevada

County Sheriff’s Department; however, Defendant Nelson refused to tell Malott the required amount and refused to take a check in any amount at that time. 86. On July 3, 2013, Malott delivered a personal check in the amount of $275 to the

Nevada County Sheriff’s Office to pay for the requisite fees for Defendant Royal to appear as a witness in Malott’s case. 87. Sometime between July 2, 2013 and July 8, 2013, Defendants Nelson and Royal

conspired to fabricate a pre-textual and false basis upon which they could claim either (1) that Malott had insufficiently attempted to serve the subpoena himself, or (2) that Malott’s delivery of the subpoena to the Nevada County Sheriff’s Department was deficient such that subpoena could not be served on Defendant Royal in accordance with the Sheriff’s Department’s mandatory, non-discretionary duties under California law. 88. On July 8, 2013, Defendant Royal failed to personally appear at the hearing as

required by the subpoena. 89. subpoena. 90. Subsequently, Malott received a letter from Defendant Nelson dated July 16, Defendant Royal also failed to produce any documents as required by the

2013. A true copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

Malott - Complaint for Damages

14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

91.

Defendant Nelson’s July 16, 2013 letter purported to return Malott’s subpoena

properly issued subpoena to Defendant Royal and Malott’s check for $275.00 on the claimed basis that the subpoena was “insufficiently served.” 92. Defendant Nelson’s letter falsely claimed, first, that service was insufficient

under § 414.10 of the California Code of Civil Procedure “[s]ince you [Richard Malott] served the subpoena and are a party in the action….” 93. Upon information and belief, both Defendants Royal and Nelson were personally

aware that Malott did not himself serve the subpoena on Defendant Royal; rather, Malott delivered the subpoena and fees to the Nevada County Sheriff’s Office for service upon Defendant Royal in accordance with § 26608 of the California Government Code and § 262.1 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. 94. Defendant Nelson’s letter falsely claimed, second, that service was insufficient

because “California Evidence Code 1560 requires at least a 15-day notice for service of civil subpoenas duces tecum….” In fact, as stated on the face of the subpoena, the 15 day notice period of § 1560 did not apply to the subpoena. 95. Upon information and belief, both Defendants Royal and Nelson were personally

aware that the subpoena explicitly ordered that the procedures of § 1560(b) “will not be deemed sufficient compliance with this subpoena.” 96. Malott also obtained a properly issued subpoena for Defendant Mark Fain, Placer

County Sheriff’s Deputy, to appear in person on July 8, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. as a witness. A true copy of this subpoena is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 97. subpoena. 98. Defendant Fain failed to appear at the July 8, 2013 hearing in compliance with On information and belief, Defendant Fain was properly served with the

the properly served subpoena. 99. Malott additionally subpoenaed and tendered the proper fees for four Sacramento

County sheriff’s deputies to attend the July 8, 2013 hearing. Malott did not, however, serve those subpoenas on the correct sheriff’s office, although he is informed and believes that the

Malott - Complaint for Damages

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

subpoenas were forwarded to the correct sheriff’s office. The four sheriff’s deputies from Sacramento County failed to appear at the hearing. Malott’s check to Sacramento County was never cashed. 100. As a direct and proximate result of each of Defendants Royal and Fain failing to

appear and/or produce documents at the July 8, 2013 hearing, Malott was unable to effectively present his defense and the court entered a restraining order against him in that case. 101. Malott submitted complaints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and

Department of Justice complaining that (1) Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputies Bustamante and Epperson had used excessive force against him on April 25, 2013; (2) employees of Nevada, Placer and Sacramento Counties had failed to comply with his court issued subpoenas for the July 8, 2013 hearing; and (3) that Placer County officials had participated in an ex parte communication with Commissioner Dirk Amara, who presided over the July 8, 2013 hearing. 102. On or about August 8, 2013 during a break in proceedings at a subsequent and

unrelated hearing, Malott informed Commissioner Amara that he had filed said complaints with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice. Malott requested that Commissioner Amara recuse himself, and Amara did in fact recuse himself from the case. 103. Subsequently, on at least three occasions between August 13, 2013 and August

21, 2013, and possibly as many as five occasions during that time period, Defendant Addison, Placer County Sheriff’s Deputy, and at least one other sheriff’s deputy, identified herein as Does 11 through 15, went to the Malott ranch. The purpose of the visit was purportedly to speak with Malott, but in reality, to threaten Malott that there would be further consequences to his complaining about Placer County officials. 104. Upon information and belief, Defendant Addison in particular was selected for

this job because of his physically intimidating appearance. Defendant Addison stands six feet and three inches tall and weighs approximately 300 pounds. In earlier deposition

Malott - Complaint for Damages

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

testimony (Farias v. State of California, et al., No. 08-cv-1493 E.D. Cal.), he readily acknowledged that he is often assigned to search warrant details as the door breaker. 105. Defendant Addison and Does 11 through 15 wore black swat-type technical gear

which bore little or no indicia that they were law enforcement. 106. Upon information and belief, on at least one occasion, Defendant Addison and/or

Does 16 through 20 entered into Malott’s unlocked residence. 107. Defendant Addison and Does 11 through 15 did not have a warrant, probable

cause, or consent authorizing their entry onto the Malott ranch on any occasion between August 13, 2013 and August 21, 2013, nor were any exigent circumstances present. 108. Upon information and belief, neither Defendant Addison nor any Doe believed

that a warrant, probable cause or consent had authorized their entry onto the Malott ranch on any occasion between August 13, 2013 and August 21, 2013, nor did they believe that exigent circumstances existed in regard to Malott, Malott’s residence or the Malott ranch. 109. Malott reported to Nevada County Sheriff’s Department the illegal conduct by

Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15 in conducting multiple unreasonable searches and making threats. Defendant Dave DeVogelaere, Nevada County Sheriff’s Deputy, thus became aware of the illegal conduct by Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15. 110. Defendants Addison, DeVogelaere, Does 11 through 15 and, additionally, Does

16 through 20, who are other employees of Nevada County, conspired to fabricate a false and pre-textual reason for the unlawful entry by Defendant Addison and Does 11 through 15 onto the Malott ranch. 111. Subsequently, Defendant Addison falsely claimed that he and Defendant Does 11

through 15 had entered the Malott ranch on each occasion between August 13, 2013 and August 21, 2013 for the purpose of conducting “welfare checks.” 112. On information and belief, neither Defendant Addison nor any Doe relayed any

purported concerns about the well-being of any person at the Malott ranch to any law enforcement official in Nevada County, which is where the ranch is located. The claimed “welfare checks” were purely pre-textual.

Malott - Complaint for Damages

17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

113.

Although Placer County is contiguous to Nevada County, the county in which the

Malott ranch is located, the distance from the Placer County Sheriff’s Department to the Malott ranch is approximately 35 miles. 114. Upon information and belief, Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15

entered Malott’s property on each occasion between August 13, 2013 and August 21, 2013 for the purpose of harassing, intimidating, and/or threatening Malott. 115. On information and belief, on one of these occasions, Nevada County Sheriff’s

Deputies responded to the Malott ranch on a report relayed through the California Highway Patrol dispatch of unknown black-clad armed subjects prowling around. This led to an unusual confrontation between six Nevada County Sheriff’s Deputies and the Placer County interlopers which was later explained away in Nevada County Sheriff’s Department documentation as a “failure to communicate” between the sheriff’s departments of the two counties, as opposed to Nevada County deputies responding to an unlawful invasion of the Malott ranch. 116. On information and belief, on the final occasion that Defendant Addison and

Does 11 through 15 went to the Malott ranch, they were unable to enter the property by way of the electronic gates through which they had previously obtained unauthorized access. On this final occasion, said defendants entered the Malott ranch by climbing over a locked gate. 117. Defendant DeVogelaere, Defendant Royal and Does 16 through 20 knew about

the illegal conduct of Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15 in conducting multiple unreasonable searches while trespassing on the Malott ranch. 118. Defendant DeVogelaere and Does 16 through 20 assisted in a cover up of the

illegal actions of Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15 by failing to properly document or act upon the illegal actions of Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15. 119. On or about August 20, 2013, Defendant Addison initiated telephone contact

with Richard Malott’s brother, Russell Malott (hereinafter “Russell”). 120. Russell has been a peace officer for 25 years and a member of the California

State Bar for more than 20 years.

Malott - Complaint for Damages

18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

121.

Defendant Addison told Russell that he was tired of chasing Malott. Defendant

Addison threatened to have a Placer county arrest warrant issued for Malott’s arrest should Malott refuse to meet with Defendant Addison to Addison’s satisfaction. Upon information and belief, Deputy Addison made this threat with the agreement of, or at the direction of, defendant Does 21 through 25, who are employees of Placer County. See Declaration of Russell Malott, attached hereto as Exhibit D. 122. On April 29, 2013, Malott initiated a citizen’s complaint in Sacramento County

pursuant to § 832.5 of the California Penal Code complaining of the conduct of Defendants Bustamante and Epperson on April 25, 2013 and injuries they caused. 123. Sergeant Robin Kolb with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department sent

Malott a letter requesting a signed authorization for release of medical records and photographs related to the injuries Malott sustained on April 25, 2013. 124. Malott attempted repeatedly and unsuccessfully to contact Sergeant Kolb to

provide the requested records, as well as still photographs and video depicting his injuries. 125. Malott also tried unsuccessfully to personally deliver the information requested

about his injuries to Sergeant Kolb. 126. In a letter dated October 10, 2013, Defendant Scott Jones, Sacramento County

Sheriff, rejected Malott’s Sacramento County citizen’s complaint. Defendant Jones informed Malott that the Internal Affairs’ investigation was completed. Defendant Jones claimed the information obtained in the investigation revealed a lack of substantial evidence to support Malott’s claims. This was despite the fact that the medical records requested by Sergeant Kolb had not been received or reviewed by anyone in Internal Affairs. Malott, through his attorney, responded to Defendant Jones expressing disappointment that a decision had been rendered without reviewing the requested medical records and photographs, and renewing his offer to make those available to Jones and/or subordinates for their review and consideration, however this communication fell on deaf ears. True copies of Defendant Jones’ October 10, 2013 letter and Malott’s responsive letter are attached hereto as Exhibit E.

Malott - Complaint for Damages

19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

127.

On January 15, 2014, Malott initiated a citizen’s complaint in Nevada County

pursuant to § 832.5 of the California Penal Code complaining of the misconduct alleged herein by Defendants Nelson, Royal and DeVogelaere. 128. In a letter dated March 13, 2014, Defendant Joe Salivar, Nevada County

Undersheriff, rejected Malott’s Nevada County citizen’s complaint as “unsubstantiated.” 129. On January 15, 2014, Malott initiated a citizen’s complaint in Placer County

pursuant to § 832.5 of the California Penal Code complaining of the misconduct alleged herein by Defendants Addison, Fain and Does 16 through 20. 130. On February 5, 2014, Defendant Devon Bell, Placer County Undersheriff and/or

Defendant Edward Bonner, Placer County Sheriff, rejected Malott’s Placer County citizen’s complaint as “frivolous.” VII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Unreasonable Seizure/ Excessive Force (Violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) (Against Defendants Bustamante and Epperson) 131. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 130 as

though fully set forth herein. 132. The actions of Deputies Bustamante and Epperson interfered with the exercise

and enjoyment of Malott’s civil rights as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, Defendants, and each of them, interfered with Malott’s rights when Defendant Bustamante closed Malott’s head in the police car door and forcefully applied a Kubaton against Malott’s sternum while Malott was seated handcuffed in the back of the police car while Defendant Epperson stood by and failed to intervene. 133. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions and/or omissions, Malott

suffered unreasonable interference with his personal liberty, physical injury, pain and suffering, humiliation, emotional distress and other injuries.

Malott - Complaint for Damages

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

134.

The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of said Defendants were willful,

intentional, wanton, reckless and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of Malott’s rights entitling Malott to an award of punitive damages. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Unreasonable Seizure/ Excessive Force (Violation of the Cal. Constitution Art. I §§ 1, 13 and Cal. Civil Code § 43: Actionable under Cal. Civil Code § 52.1(b)/Bane Act) (Against Defendants Bustamante and Epperson) 135. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 134 as

though fully set forth herein. 136. The actions of Defendants Bustamante and Epperson, as alleged herein,

interfered with the exercise and enjoyment of Malott’s civil rights as guaranteed by Article I, §§ 1 and 13 of the California Constitution. Specifically, Defendants, and each of them, interfered with Malott’s rights when Defendant Bustamante closed Malott’s head in the police car door and forcefully applied a Kubaton against Malott’s sternum while Malott was seated handcuffed in the back of the police car and while Defendant Epperson stood by and failed to intervene. 137. Defendants’ actions constituted an excessive use of force, a violation of Malott’s

right to bodily integrity, and further interfered with Malott’s personal rights as guaranteed by California Civil Code § 43. 138. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions and/or omissions, Malott

suffered unreasonable interference with his personal liberty, physical injury, pain and suffering, humiliation, emotional distress, and other injuries. 139. Defendants’ violations of Malott’s rights as guaranteed by California Civil Code

§ 52.1 (Bane Act) entitles Malott to compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees as provided for in §§ 52.1(b) and 52 and requested herein. 140. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of said Defendants were willful,

intentional, wanton, reckless, and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard for Malott’s

Malott - Complaint for Damages

21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

rights as secured by Civil Code § 51.2, thereby entitling Malott to an award of punitive damages under § 52(b)(1). THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Battery- Cal. State law (Against Defendants Sacramento County and Bustamante) 141. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 140 as

though fully set forth herein. 142. The conduct of Defendant Bustamante as alleged herein, including but not

limited to Defendant Bustamante’s actions of closing Malott’s head in the door of the police car and forcefully applying a Kubaton to his sternum constituted a battery. 143. herein. 144. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions by Defendant Bustamante were Said conduct was a proximate cause of Malott’s injuries and damages alleged

willful, intentional, wanton, reckless, and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of Malott’s rights entitling Malott to an award of punitive damages. 145. Defendant Sacramento County is vicariously liable for the Defendant

Bustamante’s conduct under California Government Code § 815.2. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Furnish/Summon Medical Care (Cal. Govt. Code § 845.6) (Against Defendants Sacramento County, Bustamante and Epperson) 146. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 145 as

though fully set forth herein. 147. Defendants Bustamante and Epperson knew or had reason to know that Malott

was in need of immediate medical care and failed to take reasonable action to summon such medical care or provide that care, resulting in the exacerbation of Malott’s injuries and a violation of California state law and specifically California Government Code § 845.6. This conduct proximately caused damage and injuries to Malott. 148. Defendant Sacramento County is vicariously liable for the conduct of

Bustamante and Epperson.

Malott - Complaint for Damages

22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

149.

The actions of Defendants Bustamante and Epperson were malicious, reckless,

and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of Malott’s rights thereby entitling him to an award of exemplary and punitive damages according to proof and as permitted by law. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Supervise, Investigate and Discipline (Actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) (Against Defendants Nevada County, Placer County, Sacramento County and Jones) 150. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 149 as

though fully set forth herein. 151. The aforementioned violation of Malott’s federal constitutional rights by

Defendants Addison, Bustamante, DeVogelaere, Epperson, Fain, Nelson, Royal and Does 11 through 25 occurred as a result of the failure of Defendants Nevada County, Placer County, Sacramento County, Bonner, Jones and Royal to adequately supervise, investigate and discipline employee conduct. a. Sacramento County and Jones The violations of Malott’s federal constitutional rights by Defendants Bustamante and Epperson occurred as a result of the failure by Defendants Sacramento County and Jones to adequately supervise, investigate and discipline officers’ use of force and excessive force. The failure by Defendant Sacramento County andJones to supervise, investigate and discipline officers’ use of force and excessive force amounted to deliberate indifference to the rights and privileges of citizens of Sacramento County to be free of excessive force. b. Nevada County and Royal The violations of Malott’s federal constitutional rights by Defendants DeVogelaere, Nelson, Royal and Does 16 through 20 ooccurred as a result of the failure by Defendants Nevada County and Royal to adequately supervise, investigate and discipline employees’ violations of individual rights under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment in regard to the service of subpoenas, and under the Fourth Amendment in regard to the right to be free of

Malott - Complaint for Damages

23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

unreasonable searches. Said Defendants’ failure to supervise, investigate and discipline its employees amounted to deliberate indifference to the rights and privileges of citizens of Nevada County under the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment and under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. c. Placer County and Bonner The violations of Malott’s federal constitutional rights by Defendants Addison, Fain and Does 11 through 15 and 21 through 25 occurred as a result of the failure by Defendants Placer County and Bonner to adequately supervise, investigate and discipline employees’ violations of individual rights under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment in regard to the service of subpoenas, and under the Fourth Amendment in regard to the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. Said Defendants’ failure to supervise, investigate and discipline its employees amounted to deliberate indifference to the rights and privileges of citizens of Placer County under the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment and under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants’ failure to supervise, investigate and discipline in regard to Fourth Amendment violations is further underscored by the fact that the unreasonable searches by Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15 occurred on multiple days and involved substantial officer hours. 152. The inaction of said Defendants was a direct and proximate cause of the injuries

suffered by Malott in that said Defendants tacitly encouraged and/or approved of the violation of Malott’s rights and/or failed to adequately supervise, investigate or discipline employees to prevent the constitutional violations alleged above. 153. Said Defendants knew or should have known that such conduct was unjustified

and would result in violations of Malott’s constitutional rights. 154. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned practices, Malott suffered

injuries and damages as alleged herein.

Malott - Complaint for Damages

24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

155.

The actions of the individually named defendants were malicious, reckless,

and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of Malott’s rights thereby entitling him to an award of exemplary and punitive damages according to proof and as permitted by law. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unreasonable Search/ Right to Privacy (Violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) (Against Defendants Bustamante, Epperson, Hardcastle, Hendricks and Does 1 through 10) 156. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 155 as

though fully set forth herein. 157. The actions by Defendants Bustamante, Epperson, Hardcastle, Hendricks and

Does 1 through 10 of performing an unauthorized warrantless search of the contents of the diary without probable cause and without consent constituted an illegal and unreasonable search and seizure that violated Malott’s rights under the Fourth Amendment. 158. As a direct and proximate result of said acts and/or omissions by said defendants,

Malott suffered unreasonable interference with his property, humiliation, physical upset, emotional distress and other injuries. 159. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of said Defendants were willful,

intentional, wanton, reckless and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of Malott’s rights entitling Malott to an award of punitive damages. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unreasonable Search/ Right to Privacy (Violation of the Cal. Constitution Art. I §§ 1, 13: Actionable under Cal. Civil Code § 52.1/Bane Act) (Against Defendants Sacramento County, Placer County, Bustamante, Epperson, Hardcastle, Hendricks, and Does 1 through 10) 160. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 159 as

though fully set forth herein. 161. The actions of Defendants Bustamante, Epperson, Hardcastle, Hendricks and

Does 1 through 10 in performing an unauthorized warrantless search of the contents of the diary without probable cause and without consent constituted an illegal and unreasonable

Malott - Complaint for Damages

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

search that violated Malott’s civil rights as guaranteed by Article I, §§ 1 and 13 of the California Constitution. 162. As a direct and proximate result of said acts and/or omissions by Defendants,

Malott suffered unreasonable interference with his personal property, mental anguish and physical upset. 163. Defendants’ violations of Malott’s rights as guaranteed by § 52.1 of the Civil

Code (Bane Act) entitles Malott to compensatory and punitive damages and attorney fees, all of which are provided for in Civil Code §§ 52.1(b) and 52, and are requested herein. 164. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of Defendants Bustamante, Epperson,

Hardcastle and Hendricks were willful, intentional, wanton, reckless and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of Malott’s rights, thereby entitling Malott to an award of punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code § 52(b)(1). 165. Defendant Sacramento County is liable for the injuries caused by Defendants

Addison and Does 1 through 10 under § 815.2 of the California Government Code. 166. Defendant Placer county is liable for the injuries caused by Defendant Hardcastle

under § 815.2 of the California Government Code. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION False Light Invasion of Privacy- Cal. State Law (Violation of the Cal. Constitution Art. I §§ 1, self-executing) (Against Defendants Sacramento County, Placer County, Hardcastle, Hendricks, and Does 1 through 10) 167. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 166 as

though fully set forth herein. 168. Defendants Hardcastle, Hendricks and Does 1 through 10 also knowingly,

intentionally and maliciously published to C.C. and Ferneyhough false, erroneous or fictionalized information purported to have been gleaned from Malott’s diary, but which was not actually contained in the diary.

Malott - Complaint for Damages

26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

169.

The nature of the false, erroneous or fictionalized information published by

Defendants Hardcastle and Hendricks to C.C. and Ferneyhough was highly offensive and placed Malott in a false and derogatory light. 170. The actions of Defendants Hardcastle and Hendricks in publishing false,

erroneous or fictionalized information to a third party as described herein constituted a violation of Malott’s right to privacy as guaranteed by Article I, § 1 of the California Constitution. 171. As a proximate result of said publication by Defendants Hardcastle and

Hendricks, Malott has suffered damages, including but not limited to, extreme embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, physical upset and emotional distress. 172. Defendant County of Sacramento is liable for the injuries caused by Defendant

Hendricks under § 815.2 of the California Government Code. 173. Defendant County of Placer is liable for the injuries caused by Defendant

Hardcastle. 174. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of Defendants Hardcastle, Hendricks

and/or Does 1 through 10 were willful, intentional, wanton, reckless and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of Malott’s rights, thereby entitling Malott to an award of punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code § 52(b)(1). NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION Interference with Malott’s Right of Access to Courts (Violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV: Actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) (Against Defendants Nelson, Royal, Fain, and Does 1 through 10) 175. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 174 as

though fully set forth herein. 176. The actions of Defendants Nelson, Royal, Fain and Does 1 through 10 as alleged

herein, interfered with the exercise and enjoyment of Malott’s civil rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, Defendant Royal interfered with Malott’s right of access to courts when he intentionally and unlawfully disregarded the

Malott - Complaint for Damages

27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

properly issued subpoena ordering his attendance at a July 8, 2013 hearing in Placer County Case No. S-DR-0043475. Both Defendants Royal and Nelson interfered with Malott’s right of access to courts when they conspired to return the properly issued subpoena to Malott and did so, falsely claiming that it was insufficiently served. 177. As a direct and proximate result of said acts and/or omissions by said defendants,

Malott suffered unreasonable interference with his First Amendment right to access the courts and to sue and defend in court. 178. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of said defendants were willful,

intentional, wanton, reckless and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of Malott’s rights entitling Malott to an award of punitive damages. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Denial of Equal Protection (Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) (Against Defendants Nelson and Royal) 179. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 178 as

though fully set forth herein. 180. Under § 26608 of the California Government Code and § 262.1 of the California

Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant Royal has a mandatory, non-discretionary duty to serve all process, orders and notices regular on their face and issued by competent authority in the manner prescribed by law. 181. For purposes of this equal protection claim, individuals similarly situated to

Malott are those who have likewise delivered properly issued subpoenas to the Nevada County Sheriff’s Office for service upon Defendant Royal and who have likewise paid the requisite witness and service fees. 182. Upon information and belief, Defendant Royal does not intentionally and

unlawfully disregard and fail to comply with properly issued subpoenas delivered to the Nevada County Sheriff’s Office by individuals similarly situated to Malott. 183. Upon information and belief, Defendants Royal and Nelson do not unlawfully

Malott - Complaint for Damages

28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

return properly issued subpoenas delivered to the Nevada County Sheriff’s Office to individuals similarly situated to Malott falsely claiming that the subpoenas were “insufficiently served.” 184. There exists no rational basis for the difference in treatment between Malott and

the similarly situated individuals identified and described herein. 185. The actions of Defendants Nelson and Royal, as alleged herein, interfered with

the exercise and enjoyment of Malott’s equal protection rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 186. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of said defendants were willful,

intentional, wanton, reckless and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of Malott’s rights entitling Malott to an award of punitive damages. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Procedural Due Process (Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) (Against Defendants Nelson and Royal) 187. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 186 as

though fully set forth herein. 188. Malott had a legitimate claim of entitlement under California law to have his

properly issued subpoena served on Defendant Royal pursuant to § 26608 of the California Government Code and § 262.1 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. 189. The actions of Defendants Nelson and Royal in returning the properly issued

subpoena to Malott unserved in the manner described herein deprived Malott of his property interest in having the served in accordance with California law and constituted a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process. TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unreasonable Search (Violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) (Against Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15) 190. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 189 as

Malott - Complaint for Damages

29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

though fully set forth herein. 191. Upon information and belief, Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15

conducted their unauthorized search of Malott’s private property to harass and/or intimidate Malott. 192. The actions of Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15 in unlawfully

entering Malott’s private property without a warrant, without probable cause, without consent and absent exigent circumstances as described herein constituted an illegal and unreasonable search that violated Malott’s rights under the Fourth Amendment. 193. As a direct and proximate result of said acts and/or omissions by Defendants

Addison and Does 11 through 15, Malott suffered unreasonable interference with his personal liberty, property humiliation, emotional distress and other injuries. 194. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of said Defendants were wilful,

intentional, wanton, reckless and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of Malott’s rights entitling Malott to an award of punitive damages. THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unreasonable Search (Violation of the Cal. Constitution Art. I §§ 1, 13: Actionable under Cal. Civil Code § 52.1/Bane Act) (Against Defendants Placer County, Addison, and Does 11 through 15) 195. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 194 as

though fully set forth herein. 196. The actions of Defendants Addison and Doe in unlawfully entering the curtilage

of Malott’s property without a warrant, without consent, and absent exigent circumstances as described herein constituted an illegal and unreasonable search that violated Malott’s civil rights as guaranteed by Article I §§ 1 and 13 of the California Constitution. 197. As a direct and proximate result of said acts and/or omissions by Defendants

Addison and Does 11 through 15, Malott suffered unreasonable interference with his personal liberty and property, physical upset, emotional distress and mental anguish. 198. Defendants’ violations of Malott’s rights as guaranteed by Civil Code § 52.1

Malott - Complaint for Damages

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(Bane Act) entitles Malott to compensatory and punitive damages and attorney fees, all of which are provided for in Civil Code §§ 52.1(b) and 52, and are requested herein. 199. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of Defendants Addison and Does 11

through 15 were willful, intentional, wanton, reckless and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of Malott’s rights, thereby entitling Malott to an award of punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code § 52(b)(1). 200. Defendant Placer County is liable for the injuries caused by Defendants Addison

and Does 11 through 15 under § 815.2 of the California Government Code. FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Trespass- Cal. State Law (Against Defendants Placer County, Addison, and Does 11 through 15) 201. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 200 as

though fully set forth herein. 202. Defendant Addison and Does 11 through 15 intentionally or recklessly entered

Malott’s property without permission. 203. As a direct and proximate cause of defendants’ entry onto Malott’s land without

permission, Malott suffered anxiety, physical upset and emotional distress. 204. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of Defendants Addison and Does 11

through 15 were willful, intentional, wanton, reckless, and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of Malott’s rights entitling Malott to an award of punitive damages. 205. Defendant Placer County is liable for the injuries caused by Defendants Addison

and Does 11 through 15 under California Government Code § 815.2. FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unreasonable Seizure by Threat (Violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) (Against Defendant Addison and Does 21 through 25) 206. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 205 as

though fully set forth herein.

Malott - Complaint for Damages

31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

207.

Based on Defendant Addison’s August 20, 2013 threat, a reasonable person

would have believed that he or she was not free to refuse to meet with Defendant Addison. 208. Malott did in fact meet with Defendant Addison in front of the Sacramento office

of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 209. The actions of Defendant Addison and Does 21 through 25 in threatening to have

an arrest warrant issued from Placer County for Malott’s arrest should Malott refuse to meet with Defendant Addison to Defendant Addison’s satisfaction as described herein constituted an unreasonable seizure that violated Malott’s rights under the Fourth Amendment. 210. As a direct and proximate result of said acts and/or omissions by defendants,

Malott suffered unreasonable interference with his personal liberty, humiliation, emotional distress, physical upset and other injuries. 211. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of said Defendants were willful,

intentional, wanton, reckless, and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of Malott’s rights entitling Malott to an award of punitive damages. SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unreasonable Seizure by Threats, Intimidation or Coercion (Violation of the Cal. Constitution Art. I §§ 1, 13: Actionable under Cal. Civil Code § 52.1/Bane Act) (Against Defendants Placer County, Addison, and Does 21 through 25) 212. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 211 as

though fully set forth herein. 213. The actions of Defendants Addison and Does 21 through 25 in threatening to

have an arrest warrant issued from Placer County for Malott’s arrest should Malott refuse to meet with Defendant Addison to Defendant Addison’s satisfaction as described herein constituted an illegal and unreasonable search that violated and interfered with Malott’s civil rights as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I §§ 1 and 13 of the California Constitution. 214. As a direct and proximate result of said acts by Defendants Addison and Does 21

through 25, Malott suffered unreasonable interference with his personal liberty, mental

Malott - Complaint for Damages

32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

anguish and physical upset. 215. Said individual defendants’ violations of Malott’s rights as guaranteed by Civil

Code § 52.1 (Bane Act) entitles Malott to compensatory and punitive damages and attorney fees as provided for in Civil Code §§ 52.1(b) and 52 and as requested herein. 216. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of Defendants Addison and Does 21

through 25 were willful, intentional, wanton, reckless and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of Malott’s rights, thereby entitling Malott to an award of punitive damages under § 52(b)(1). 217. Defendant Placer County is liable for the injuries caused by Defendant Addison

under § 815.2 of the California Government Code. SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Conspiracy to Violate Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights (Diary): Actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Against Defendants Bustamante, Epperson, Hardcastle, Hendricks, and Does 1 through 10) 218. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 217 as

though fully set forth herein. 219. Defendants Bustamante, Epperson, Hardcastle, Hendricks and Does 1 through 10

entered into a conspiracy to violate Malott’s Fourth Amendment rights by seizing, reproducing and disseminating for unlawful purposes. Overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy include, but are not limited to: (a) Said defendants gratuitously showed copies of the diary to friends, acquaintances and persons known to Malott, including but not limited to C.C., Julie and John Ferneyhough; (b) Said defendants used their possession of the diary to disseminate false, erroneous or fictional and injurious information about Malott, thereby placing him in a false light. 220. In committing the described overt acts, Defendants, and each of them, violated

Malott’s rights right to be free from unreasonable seizure of personal property as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 221. As a proximate result, Malott has suffered the injuries described herein and

Malott - Complaint for Damages

33

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

accordingly seeks compensation and punitive damages. 222. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions were willful, intentional, wanton,

reckless, and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of Malott’s rights entitling him to an award of punitive damages. EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Conspiracy to Violate Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights Actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Against Defendants Addison, DeVogelaere, Royal, and Does 11 through 20) 223. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 222 as

though fully set forth herein. 224. Sometime in or around August of 2013, Defendants Addison, DeVogelaere,

Royal and Does 11 through 20 entered into a conspiracy to violate Malott’s Fourth Amendment rights by performing an unreasonable search of his property with the purpose of harassing or intimidating Malott. Overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy include, but are not limited to: (a) On more than one occasion between August 13 and August 21, 2013, Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15 entered Malott’s property to conduct an unreasonable search; and (b) Defendant DeVogelaere and Does 16 through 20 covered up and actively concealed the illegal conduct of Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15 by failing to report Defendants’ illegal conduct. 225. In committing the described overt acts, Defendants, and each of them, violated

Malott’s right to be free from unreasonable search as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 226. As a proximate result, Malott has suffered the injuries described herein and

accordingly seeks compensation and punitive damages. 227. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions were willful, intentional, wanton,

reckless, and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of Malott’s rights entitling him to an award of punitive damages.

Malott - Complaint for Damages

34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 232. 228.

NINETEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Conspiracy to Violate Plaintiff’s Access to Courts, Equal Protection and Procedural Due Process rights: Actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Against Defendants Nelson and Royal) Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 227 as

though fully set forth herein. 229. Sometime between July 2, 2013 and July 8, 2013, Defendants Nelson and Royal

entered into a conspiracy to violate Malott’s rights of access to courts, equal protection, and/or procedural due process by manufacturing a false basis upon which to claim that Malott had insufficiently served a subpoena on Defendant Royal. Overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy include, but are not limited to: (a) Nelson’s July 16, 2013 letter; and (b) Defendant Royal’s failure to personally appear and produce documents at the July 8, 2013 hearing. 230. In committing the described overt acts, defendants, and each of them, violated

Malott’s rights of access to courts, equal protection and/or procedural due process. 231. As a proximate result, Malott has suffered the injuries described herein and

accordingly seeks compensation and punitive damages. TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION Ratification of Constitutional Violations (Actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1983) (Against Defendants Nevada County, Placer County, Sacramento County, Bell, Bonner, Jones and Salavar) Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 231 as

though fully set forth herein. 233. The acts of Defendants Addison, Bustamante, DeVogelaere, Epperson, Fain,

Nelson and Royal as described herein deprived Malott of his rights under the United States Constitution. 234. The cavalier rejection of each of Malott’s citizens’ complaints by Nevada

County, Placer County and Sacramento County, respectively, constituted ratification by each

Malott - Complaint for Damages

35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

county of the individual conduct of said individual defendants. a. Placer County, Bell and Bonner By delegation or otherwise, Defendant Bell and/or Defendant Bonner had final policymaking authority for Placer County regarding Malott’s citizen’s complaint. Defendant Bell and/or Bonner knew of, specifically approved of and ratified the acts of Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15 and the bases for those acts by rejecting Malott’s Placer County citizen’s complaint as “frivolous.” b. Sacramento County and Jones Defendant Jones had final policymaking authority for Sacramento County regarding Malott’s citizen’s complaint. Defendant Jones knew of, specifically approved of, and ratified the acts of Defendants Bustamante Epperson and the bases for those acts when he rejected Malott’s Sacramento County citizen’s complaint without any investigation and without reviewing the requested medical records and proffered photographic evidence. c. Nevada County and Salavar By delegation or otherwise, Defendant Salavar had final policymaking authority, for Nevada County regarding Malott’s citizens’ complaint. Defendant Salavar knew of, specifically approved of, and ratified the acts of Defendants DeVogelaere, Nelson, Royal, and the bases for those acts when he rejected Malott’s Nevada County citizen’s complaint as “unsubstantiated.” 235. The inaction of said Defendants was a direct and proximate cause of the injuries

suffered by Malott in that said Defendants knew of, approved of, and ratified the constitutional violations alleged. 236. Said Defendants knew or should have known that such conduct was unjustified

and would result in violations of Malott’s constitutional rights. 237. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned practices, Malott suffered

injuries and damages as alleged herein.

Malott - Complaint for Damages

36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

238.

The actions of the individually named defendants were malicious, reckless,

and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of Malott’s rights thereby entitling him to an award of exemplary and punitive damages according to proof and as permitted by law. VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief: 1. For compensatory, general and special damages against each Defendant, jointly and severally, in the amount proven at trial; 2. For punitive and exemplary damages against each individually named Defendant in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants and deter others from engaging in similar misconduct; 3. For costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and as otherwise authorized by statute or law; 4. For an apology; and 5. For such other relief, including injunctive and/or declaratory relief, as the Court may deem proper.

DATED: April 25, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Stewart Katz Stewart Katz, Attorney for Malott

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY Malott RICHARD MALOTT hereby demands trial by jury.

Dated: April 25, 2014 /s/_Stewart Katz Stewart Katz, Attorney for Malott

Malott - Complaint for Damages

37

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful