You are on page 1of 9

1 Kenneth N. Frucht, State Bar No.

178881
2 LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH FRUCHT
120 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
3 San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: (415) 392-4844
4 Fax: (415) 392-7973

5 Attorneys for Mauricio Cuadra

6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
MAURICIO CUADRA, ) CASE NO.: C 08-03439 TEH
13 )
Plaintiffs, )
14 )
v. )
15 )
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
16 MIKE BROSNAN, DANNY GIL, JOHN ) FOR DAMAGES (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
KALLAS, MATT MCNICHOL, BLAKE )
17 MOLYNEUX, ADAM PLANK, ROY )
VARNEY, and DOES 1-25, inclusive, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
18 )
Defendants.
19 COMES NOW PLAINTIFF Mauricio Cuadra (“CUADRA”) and alleges and complains
20 against Defendants, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, MIKE BROSNAN, DANNY GIL,
21 JOHN KALLAS, MATT MCNICHOL, BLAKE MOLYNEUX, ADAM PLANK, ROY VARNEY,
22 and DOES 1-25, inclusive, as follows:
23 I. JURISDICTION
24 1. This is a civil rights action and this Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28
25 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over
26 Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
27 2. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)
28 because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims in this action occurred

1
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
within this District.
2
II. PARTIES
3
3. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff MAURICIO CUADRA was a resident of Daly
4
City in the State of California.
5
4. Defendant, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, is and was at all times herein
6
mentioned, a public entity duly organized and existing under the law of the State of California.
7
5. Defendant DANNY GIL, was at all times herein mentioned a police officer of the
8
South San Francisco Police Department. In that capacity he was acting under color of state law
9
during the relevant acts and omissions alleged herein. He is being sued herein in his individual and
10
in his official capacity.
11
6. Defendant MIKE BROSNAN, was at all times herein mentioned a police officer of
12
the South San Francisco Police Department. In that capacity he was acting under color of state law
13
during the relevant acts and omissions alleged herein. He is being sued herein in his individual and
14
in his official capacity.
15
7. Defendant JOHN KALLAS, was at all times herein mentioned a police officer of the
16
South San Francisco Police Department. In that capacity he was acting under color of state law
17
during the relevant acts and omissions alleged herein. He is being sued herein in his individual and
18
in his official capacity.
19
8. Defendant MATT MCNICHOL, was at all times herein mentioned a police officer of
20
the South San Francisco Police Department. In that capacity he was acting under color of state law
21
during the relevant acts and omissions alleged herein. He is being sued herein in his individual and
22
in his official capacity.
23
9. Defendant BLAKE MOLYNEUX was at all times herein mentioned a police officer
24
of the South San Francisco Police Department. In that capacity he was acting under color of state
25
law during the relevant acts and omissions alleged herein. He is being sued herein in his individual
26
and in his official capacity.
27
10. Defendant ADAM PLANK was at all times herein mentioned a police officer of the
28
San Francisco Police Department. In that capacity he was acting under color of state law during the
2
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
relevant acts and omissions alleged herein. He is being sued herein in his individual and in his
2
official capacity.
3
11. Defendant ROY VARNEY, was at all times herein mentioned a police officer of the
4
South San Francisco Police Department. In that capacity he was acting under color of state law
5
during the relevant acts and omissions alleged herein. He is being sued herein in his individual and
6
in his official capacity.
7
12. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities whether. individual, corporate
8
or otherwise, of DOES 1-25 herein and prays leave of the Court to insert the true names and
9
capacities of such Defendants when they become known or are ascertained, together with
10
appropriate charging allegations.
11
13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants
12
named herein was the agent, employee or representative of each of the remaining defendants, and in
13
doing the things herein mentioned, were acting in the course and scope of such agency and
14
employment. It is further alleged that in doing the acts or omissions complained of herein, that
15
Defendants, and each of them, acted or omitted to act in concert as agents of and/or on behalf of the
16
other defendants named herein.
17
III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
18
A. THE JULY 8, 2006 INCIDENT
19
14. On or about July 8, 2006, CUADRA went to visit a friend in South San Francisco.
20
After leaving his friend’s house, he stood outside by his car to smoke a cigarette before going home.
21
As he was smoking, a police car arrived.
22
15. Defendant MOLYNEUX walked up to CUADRA shining his flashlight.
23
MOLYNEUX asked CUADRA “what are you doing here” and CUADRA responded “Nothing.”
24
When MOLYNEUX asked the same question again, CUADRA questioned why he was being
25
stopped and asked these questions. At that point MOLYNEUX snapped, and angrily told
26
CUADRA to “shut up.” MOLYNEUX then said, “You know what?” and lunged and struck
27
CUADRA in his left eye, causing CUADRA to fall onto his back.
28
16. After MOLYNEUX struck CUADRA and knocked him down, other officers helped
3
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
MOLYNEUX to flip CUADRA on his stomach, and immediately handcuffed him. As CUADRA
2
lay on the ground, MOLYNEUX placed his foot on CUADRA’s back and calmly conversed with
3
the other officers.
4
17. CUADRA verbally protested the treatment that he was receiving, but his complaint
5
only exacerbated his situation. Another officer pulled and stretched CUADRA’s handcuffed hands
6
and arm up in the air, and put his knee in CUADRA’s back in a manner that caused CUADRA’s
7
head to hit the concrete pavement, causing cuts and abrasions to his face, and bleeding. One officer
8
then kneeled down and said in a very condescending manner “stop yelling and making noise…be a
9
good little boy and cooperate and everything will be OK.”
10
18. During the incident, CUADRA heard the officers discussing whether or not to place
11
him in restraints. The officers then placed CUADRA in something akin to a straight-jacket. This
12
contraption was tightened to the point of causing CUADRA extreme pain. When CUADRA
13
complained that it was too tight, one of the officers told him to “shut up” and hit him in the
14
stomach.
15
19. After being restrained in the manner described above, CUADRA was placed in a
16
patrol car and taken to the County Jail.
17
20. During the entire incident the defendant officers were laughing, patting each other on
18
the back, and generally appeared to be enjoying themselves. At no time did CUADRA resist the
19
officers other than to verbally complain. At no point did CUADRA do anything to justify any
20
officer’s use of force.
21
B. CUADRA’S COMPLAINT AND SECOND ARREST
22
21. The day after the incident CUADRA went to the South San Francisco Police Station
23
and asked for a complaint form. One of the officers who was involved in the previous day’s assault
24
told CUADRA that he was the officer who had transported CUADRA to the jail. When he brought
25
out the complaint form, he said “Here’s the complaint form. Normally these problems get fixed if
26
we talk about it.” CUADRA understood that the officer was warning CUADRA not to file a formal
27
complaint.
28
22. Despite the warning he had received, CUADRA filed a written complaint related to
4
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
the police officers’ use of excessive force on July 8, 2006.
2
23. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that on or about October 4,
3
2006, Defendants Brosnan, Gil, Kallas, McNichol, Molyneux, Plank, and Varney, prepared a false
4
report regarding Plaintiff, and in doing so caused a complaint and arrest warrant to be issued against
5
Plaintiff for violation of California Penal Code Section 148.6 (2). The criminal complaint filed
6
against Plaintiff was filed on or about December 6, 2006, and alleged that Plaintiff’s citizen’s
7
complaint against the police officers, relating to the July 8, 2006 incident, was false. Thereafter
8
CUADRA was arrested.
9
24. At the time Defendants filed the false report, they were aware, or reasonably should
10
have been aware that charging Plaintiff for violation of California Penal Code Section 148.6
11
constituted an unconstitutional violation of his right to free speech as guaranteed by the First
12
Amendment to the United States Constitution. This fundamental right has been upheld by
13
numerous federal courts, including but not limited to Chaker v. Crogan 428 F3d 1215 (9th Cir.
14
2005) and Hamilton v City of San Bernadino, 107 F. Supp. 2d 1239 (2000 CD Cal.).
15
25. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that Defendants caused the
16
criminal charges to be filed against Plaintiff in retaliation for CUADRA’s written complaint against
17
the police officers related to the July 8, 2006 incident.
18
26. CUADRA spent 7 days in jail and spent $750 to be released on bail. CUADRA was
19
further forced to obtain an attorney and defend himself against the false, unwarranted and unlawful
20
charges. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that the charges were pending
21
against him for almost one year.
22
27. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that any and all statutes of
23
limitations related to the July 8, 2008 incident were and are tolled by California Government Code
24
Section 945.3.
25
26 FIRST CLAIM
(42 U.S.C. 1983 - Excessive Force)
27
28. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
28
1 through 27 as though fully set forth herein.

5
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
29. The defendant police officers used unreasonable and excessive force in detaining and
2
arresting CUADRA on July 8, 2006.
3
30. The defendant police officers’ conduct was the proximate cause of harm and damage
4
to CUADRA, and by reason of the foregoing alleged acts and conduct CUADRA is entitled to
5
damages against the defendant officers all according to proof at trial.
6
31. The defendant officers engaged in the aforementioned acts maliciously, callously,
7
oppressively, wantonly, recklessly, fraudulently, with deliberate indifference to the rights allegedly
8
violated, despicably and with evil motive and/or intent, and in disregard of the rights of CUADRA.
9
CUADRA is therefore entitled to and does seek punitive damages against the defendant officers.
10
WHEREFORE plaintiff seeks relief in an amount according to proof at trial.
11
12 SECOND CLAIM
(42 U.S.C. 1983 – Unreasonable Search and Seizure)
13
32. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
14
1 through 31 as though fully set forth herein.
15
33. The defendant officers detained, searched, and arrested CUADRA on or about July
16
8, 2007 without probable cause and without reasonable or articulable suspicion that he had
17
committed a crime.
18
34. The defendant officers later detained, searched, and arrested CUADRA for preparing
19
and filing the written complaint, without probable cause and without a reasonable or articulable
20
suspicion that he had committed a crime.
21
35. The acts and omissions of the defendant officers during both incidents violated
22
Plaintiffs’ rights under the laws and Constitution of the United States including but not limited to
23
his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed by the Fourth
24
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
25
36. The defendant officers’ conduct was the proximate cause of harm and damage to
26
Plaintiff, and by reason of the foregoing alleged acts and conduct Plaintiff is entitled to damages
27
against the defendant officers all according to proof at trial.
28
37. The defendant officers engaged in the aforementioned acts maliciously, callously,

6
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
oppressively, wantonly, recklessly, fraudulently, with deliberate indifference to the rights allegedly
2
violated, despicably and with evil motive and/or intent, and in disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs.
3
Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to and do seek punitive damages against the officers.
4
WHEREFORE plaintiff seeks relief in an amount according to proof at trial.
5
6 THIRD CLAIM
(42 U.S.C. 1983 – Malicious Prosecution)
7
38. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in I
8
paragraphs 1 through 37 as fully set forth herein.
9
39. Defendants actively initiated and procured the arrest and prosecution of CUADRA in
10
a criminal action based on CUADRA’s written complaint.
11
40. All charges brought against him in the criminal proceeding were dismissed by the
12
Court.
13
41. Defendants acted without probable cause in initiating and procuring the arrest and
14
prosecution of CUADRA.
15
42. The defendants acted with malice in initiating and procuring the arrest and
16
prosecution of CUADRA.
17
43. As a result of the foregoing, CUADRA. suffered damage, loss and harm in an
18
amount to be proved at trial.
19
WHEREFORE plaintiff seeks relief in an amount according to proof at trial.
20
21 FOURTH CLAIM
(42 U.S.C. 1983 – 1st Amendment Rights)
22
44. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in I
23
paragraphs 1 through 43 as fully set forth herein.
24
45. Defendants actively initiated and procured the arrest and prosecution of CUADRA in
25
a criminal action in retaliation for CUADRA having filed a complaint against the conduct of the
26
officers.
27
46. All charges brought against CUADRA in the criminal proceeding were dismissed by
28
the Court.
7
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
47. Defendants acted without probable cause in initiating and procuring the arrest and
2
prosecution of CUADRA.
3
48. The defendants acted with malice in initiating and procuring the arrest and
4
prosecution of CUADRA.
5
49. Said acts of the defendants violated CUADRA’s rights under the 1st Amendment of
6
the United States Constitution.
7
50. As a result of the foregoing, CUADRA. suffered damage, loss and harm in an
8
amount to be proved at trial.
9
WHEREFORE plaintiff seeks relief in an amount according to proof at trial.
10
11
FIFTH CLAIM
12 (42 U.S.C. 1983)
(Monell Claim - Against The City Of San Francisco)
13
51. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs
14
1 through 50 as fully set forth herein.
15
52. Every defendant in his/her official capacity knowingly, or grossly negligently, or
16
with deliberate indifference to the rights allegedly violated, caused to come into being, maintained,
17
fostered, condoned, approved of, either before the fact or after the fact, ratified, took no action to
18
correct, an official policy, practice, procedure, or custom of permitting the occurrence of the
19
categories of wrongs set forth in this pleading, and/or improperly, inadequately, with deliberate
20
indifference to the state and/or federal constitutional or statutory rights of person, grossly
21
negligently with reckless disregard to state or federal constitutional and/or statutory rights, failed to
22
properly train, to supervise, to retrain if necessary, to monitor, or to take corrective action with
23
respect to the police and with respect to the types of wrongful conduct alleged in this pleading, so
24
that each one of them is legally responsible for all of the injuries and/or damages sustained by
25
Plaintiff pursuant to the principals set forth in Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services and
26
its progeny.
27

28 DEMAND FOR JURY

8
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS THAT EACH OF HIS CLAIMS BE TRIED BEFORE A JURY.
2
PRAYER
3
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against all Defendants, and each of them, as
4
follows:
5
1. For a money judgment representing compensatory damages, general damages, special
6
damages, and other sums according to proof at trial;
7
2. For a money judgment for mental pain and anguish and emotional distress according
8
to proof at trial;
9
3. For punitive damages against the individual Defendants;
10
4. For attorney’s fees and costs of suit, pursuant to 42 USC 1988;
11
5. For prejudgment and post-judgment interest;
12
6. For any other remedy that the court deems just and proper.
13
DATED: November 17, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH FRUCHT
14
15
16 ___________/s/______________
Kenneth N. Frucht
17 Attorney For Plaintiff
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

9
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES