Case 2:20-cv-01563-TLN-DB Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 1 of 15

Case 2:20-cv-01563-TLN-DB Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 1 of 15
1 JOHN L. BURRIS, Esq./ State Bar #69888

BENJAMIN NISENBAUM, Esq./State Bar #222173
2
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS
3 Airport Corporate Centre
7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120
4 Oakland, California 94621
Telephone: (510) 839-5200/Facsimile: (510) 839-3882
5
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
NEFTALI MONTERROSA, individually and Case No.
as co-successor-in-interest to Decedent SEAN
12 MONTERROSA; NORA MONTERROSA, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR
individually and as co-successor-in-interest to VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND
13
Decedent SEAN MONTERROSA; WRONGFUL DEATH.
14 MICHELLE MONTERROSA, individually;
ASHLEY MONTERROSA, individually, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
15
Plaintiffs,
16
17
vs.
18 CITY OF VALLEJO, a municipal corporation;

JARRETT TONN, individually, and, Vallejo
19 police officers DOES 1-25, inclusive,
20
Defendants.
21
22
INTRODUCTION
23
24 On June 2, 2020, at about 12:37 a.m., Defendant JARRETT TONN, a Vallejo
25 Police officer, fired his AR-15 semi-automatic rifle at Decedent SEAN MONTERROSA
26 5 times from the back seat of a moving, unmarked Vallejo Police Department vehicle,
27 through the front windshield killing Mr. MONTERROSA. One shot went through Mr.
28 MONTERROSA’s neck, with a bullet fragment exiting through the back of his head. Mr.
MONTERROSA was suspected at most of looting, but he had not been identified by
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND WRONGFUL DEATH
1
1 anyone as a suspect in any crime. Mr. MONTERROSA was not wanted by police, was
2 not armed, and according to the first statement given by the Vallejo Chief of Police,
3 Shawny Williams, Mr. MONTERROSA was on his knees with his hands being raised
4 above his waist, with no object in his hands, when Defendant TONN shot and killed him.
5 According to Chief Williams, a hammer was later found in Mr. MONTERROSA’s
6 sweatshirt pocket.
7 Subsequently, the police union for Vallejo Police Department and Defendant
8 TONN, gave its own public statement, contradicting Chief Williams, claiming that Mr.
9 Monterrosa was in a crouched position and was reaching toward his waist at the time he
10 was shot. Inexplicably, Chief Williams then adopted the police union’s statement.
11 Defendant TONN has a shocking history of shooting his gun at civilians as a police
12 officer, including 2 shootings in a six-week span in 2017, and another shooting in 2015
13 where he fired his gun 18 times in 2 seconds at a person he claimed was ramming his
14 vehicle with a stolen vehicle.1
15 After the shooting, Defendant TONN told bystanders that Mr. MONTERROSA
16 had pointed a gun at “us”, and then claimed that the object was a “gun” but was instead
17 an axe, and further claimed that Mr. MONTERROSA “came right at us.” But even
18 before lying to bystanders about seeing a gun, Defendant TONN and the fellow Vallejo
19 police officer who drove the vehicle he fired from were on video talking to each other.
20 One officer, believed to be Defendant TONN, asked the other officer: “What’d he point
21 at us?” The other officer, believed to be the driver, responded: “I don’t know, man.”
22 Defendant TONN then told bystanders, contrary to the prior discussion and the reality
23 that Mr. MONTERROSA had no weapon and nothing in his hands, “Hey, he pointed a
24 gun at us.” Defendant TONN, with his 3 prior officer involved shootings, said in the
25 minutes after the shooting, “this is not what I fucking needed tonight.” Defendant TONN
26 never expressed remorse for killing Mr. MONTEROSSA on the video. Troublingly, a
27
28
1
Unlike Mr. MONTERROSA, Defendant TONN did not kill any of the other people he shot at.
2
1 Vallejo Police Captain at the scene of the shooting tried to comfort Defendant TONN,
2 telling him, “you’re gonna be alright man. You’ve been through this before.”
3 There is no comfort for Mr. MONTERROSA, for his parents, and for his two
4 sisters. They have not been through this before and will never be alright again, because
5 Defendant TONN was trigger-happy, could not see accurately through the unmarked
6 police car windshield, and murdered their son and brother, who was only 22 years old.
7 JURISDICTION
8 1. This action arises under Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 1983.
9
Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by Title 28 of the United States Code, Sections
10
1331 and 1343. The unlawful acts and practices alleged herein occurred in the City of
11
Vallejo, County of Solano, California, which is within this judicial district.
12
PARTIES
13
2. Plaintiff herein NEFTALI MONTERROSA, is and was at all times herein
14
mentioned a naturalized citizen of the United States residing in the City of San Francisco
15
16 in California. He is the father and Co-Successor-in-Interest to Decedent SEAN
17 MONTERROSA, who died intestate, unmarried and without issue.
18 3. Plaintiff herein, NORA MONTERROSA, is and was at all times herein

19 mentioned a legal resident of the United States residing in the City of San Francisco in
20
California. She is the mother and Co-Successor-in-Interest to Decedent SEAN
21
MONTERROSA, who died intestate, unmarried and without issue.
22
4. Plaintiffs NORA MONTERROSA and NEFTALI MONTERROSA, as
23
Decedent SEAN MONTERROSA’s biological parents, are his only Successors-in-
24
25
Interest as defined in California Code of Civil Procedure section 377.11 and succeed to
26 Decedent SEAN MONTERROSA’s interest in the instant action pursuant to California
27 Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32. Plaintiffs NORA MONTERROSA and

28
3
1 NEFTALI MONTERROSA have complied with the requirements of California Code of

2
Civil Procedure section 377.22 to establish their standing.
3
5. Plaintiff herein, MICHELLE MONTERROSA, is and was at all times
4
herein mentioned a citizen of the United States residing in the City of San Francisco in
5
California. Plaintiff MICHELLE MONTERROSA is 24 years old, and she is the older
6
sister of Decedent SEAN MONTERROSA who was 22 years old when he was killed.
7
8 Decedent SEAN MONTERROSA had lived in the same household with his parents and
9 his two sisters, Plaintiff MICHELLE MONTERROSA and ASHLEY MONTERROSA,

10 his entire life. Plaintiffs MICHELLE MONTERROSA and ASHLEY MONTERROSA,
11 along with their parents, Plaintiffs NEFTALI MONTERROSA and NORA
12
MONTERROSA, interacted with Decedent SEAN MONTERROSA on a daily basis, and
13
supported each other in an emotional and familial way on a daily basis. All Plaintiffs
14
herein were a very tightly knit family.
15
6. Plaintiff herein, ASHLEY MONTERROSA, is and was at all times herein
16
17
mentioned a citizen of the United States residing in the City of San Francisco in
18 California. She is 20 years old, and is the younger sister of Decedent SEAN
19 MONTERROSA, who was 22 years old when he was killed.

20 7. Defendant CITY OF VALLEJO (“CITY”) is a municipal corporation,
21
duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. Under its authority,
22
the City operates the Vallejo Police Department. Defendant CITY is being sued directly
23
under section 1983 Monell.
24
8. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant JARRETT TONN (“TONN”)
25
was employed by Defendant CITY as a police officer. He is being sued in his individual
26
27
capacity.
28
4
1 9. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants

2
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, and therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious
3
names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and therefore allege that each Defendant so
4
named is responsible in some manner for the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs
5
as set forth herein. Plaintiffs will amend their complaint to state the names and capacities
6
of DOES 1-25, inclusive, when they have been ascertained.
7
8 10. In engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendant police officers
9 acted under the color of law and in the course and scope of their employment with the
10 City. In engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendant police officers exceeded
11 the authority vested in them as police officers under the United States and California
12
Constitutions and as police officers employed by Defendant CITY.
13
STATEMENT OF FACTS
14
11. On June 2, 2020, at about 12:37 a.m., Defendant JARRETT TONN, a Vallejo
15
Police Officer, killed 22 year-old Decedent SEAN MONTERROSA in his fourth Officer-
16
Involved Shooting in 5 years, when Mr. MONTERROSA was unarmed, on his knees,
17
18
and Defendant TONN was holding his AR-15 semi-automatic rifle at the ready while in
19 the backseat of an unmarked Vallejo Police Department vehicle. Mr. MONTERROSA
20 was suspected of possibly looting, (a property crime), but when shot and killed, he had
21 nothing in his hands. No warnings were given that lethal force, or any force, would be
22
used. The unmarked police vehicle was still moving forward when Defendant TONN
23
started shooting Mr. MONTERROSA, and it stopped around the time Defendant TONN
24
fired his fifth and last shot. All shots were fired through the front windshield of the
25
unmarked vehicle, and those shots struck and killed Mr. MONTERROSA. Plaintiffs
26
allege Mr. MONTERROSA endured conscious pain and suffering from the shooting
27
28 before he died.
5
1 12. The shooting happened in front of a Walgreen’s store on the 1000 block of
2
Redwood Street in Vallejo, and police responded to a report of possible looting.
3
Defendant TONN carried his AR-15 rifle. Defendant TONN did not see Mr.
4
MONTERROSA come out from inside the Walgreen’s, and according to Shawny
5
Williams, the Chief of Police for the City of Vallejo, only a hammer was recovered from
6
Mr. MONTERROSA. The hammer was recovered from Mr. MONTERROSA’s
7
8 sweatshirt pocket. He had not pulled it out of his sweatshirt pocket during his encounter
9 with the police. Chief Williams initially described the shooting as happening when Mr.
10 MONTERROSA was on his knees, with his hands at waist level— meaning nothing was
11 in his hands. However, Chief Williams changed his initial media representations of the
12
shooting, apparently at the prompting of the police union for Vallejo Police officers,
13
which had given its own media statement contradicting Chief Williams’ initial account.
14
Chief Williams then revised his public statement to line up with the police union’s claims
15
that Mr. Monterrosa was in a crouched position as if he were attacking the patrol vehicle
16
17
Defendant TONN fired his AR-15 from. Defendant CITY has not explained the basis for
18 the change in the Chief’s position, and it is unclear how the police union would be in
19 greater privity than Chief Williams to the evidence collected in the course of the Officer-
20 Involved Shooting investigation.
21
13. Defendant TONN and the officer who drove the unmarked police vehicle
22
activated their body cams after the shooting, capturing events inside the police vehicle
23
without audio 30 seconds prior to the shooting. According to Defendant CITY, there is no
24
video footage of Decedent actually being shot. The audio portion of the body cam
25
recordings begin shortly after the shooting and the officers exit the patrol vehicle.
26
27
14. Defendant TONN and the officer who drove the unmarked police vehicle
28 exited said vehicle after the vehicle and Defendant TONN’s own shooting stopped.
6
1 Defendant TONN frantically asked: “What did he point at us?” The officer who drove the
2
unmarked police vehicle responded: “I don’t know man.” A moment later, Defendant
3
TONN then announced, contrary to his own stated question, and likely for the benefit of
4
his body-cam recorder, the following lie: “Hey, he pointed a gun at us!” Mr.
5
MONTERROSA had no gun, and a hammer was later found in his sweatshirt pocket.
6
15. Defendant TONN, in a panic after this, his fourth officer-involved
7
8 shooting in five years, talking to himself, said either, “I’m stupid,” or “fucking stupid.”
9 The body cam continued recording, and Defendant TONN explained, “he came around,
10 came right at us.” Concerned about himself, Defendant TONN later, while still recording
11 himself, said: “This is not what I fucking needed tonight.” Further in the recording,
12
Defendant TONN offered another explanation to another officer at the scene: “I thought
13
that fucking axe was a gun!” The other officer responded, “I thought he was armed too. I
14
saw him going like this. I was on the radio.” A Vallejo police captain who came to the
15
scene told Defendant TONN: “You’re gonna be alright, man. You’ve been through this
16
17
before.”
18 16. Indeed, Defendant TONN has been in at least three other Officer-Involved
19 Shootings within the past 5 years. The shootings include:

20 a. In 2015, Defendant TONN fired his gun 18 times in two seconds
21
while trying to arrest Gerald Brown, who was allegedly in a stolen vehicle ramming
22
Defendant TONN’s police vehicle. Mr. Brown survived.
23
b. In May 2017, Defendant TONN and former Vallejo Police
24
Department officer Sean Kenney shot Kevin DeCarlo while trying to serve an arrest
25
warrant. Mr. DeCarlo survived.
26
27
28
7
1 c. Six weeks later, in July 2017, Defendant TONN pursued a

2
suspected carjacker, Victor Hurtado, and fired three gunshots at him. Mr. Hurtado
3
survived.
4
17. In addition, Defendant TONN was sued by Robert Strong in 2018 for
5
using excessive force against Strong in an apparent retaliation for Mr. Strong filming a
6
minor traffic stop. Defendant TONN allegedly put Mr. Strong in a chokehold and scraped
7
8 his forehead against the ground.
9 18. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that Defendant TONN was
10 never disciplined and never subject to re-training or remediation following the three
11 earlier shootings and the alleged use of excessive force against Mr. Strong, even though
12
Defendant CITY was on notice that Defendant TONN accounted for nearly 10% of the
13
32 people shot by Defendant CITY OF VALLEJO police officers since 2010 and
14
repeatedly demonstrated a propensity to use excessive force in his capacity as a police
15
officer. Furthermore, Defendant CITY hired Defendant TONN after he left the City of
16
17
Galt police department in 2014, following the killing of his cousin, a fellow City of Galt
18 police officer, in the line of duty. Defendant TONN reportedly was one of the first Galt
19 police officers at the scene of his cousin’s killing. Defendant TONN, who graduated
20 Modesto Junior College Police Academy in 2003 and was hired by the Galt Police
21
Department in 2007, had no reported shootings as a Galt police officer. His shootings did
22
not begin until after he was hired by Defendant CITY OF VALLEJO.
23
19. Furthermore, Defendant CITY interfered in the OIS investigation and the
24
anticipated civil litigation by intentionally destroying relevant evidence after Plaintiffs
25
demanded Defendant CITY preserve the evidence: the windshield of the patrol vehicle
26
27
that Defendant TONN fired his AR-15 through 5 times, and returning the unmarked
28 vehicle to active duty, all before providing counsel with the opportunity to examine the
8
1 windshield or the unmarked vehicle. Plaintiffs were thereby deprived of the opportunity
2
for a reconstruction expert of their own to examine said relevant physical evidence. In
3
destroying said relevant physical evidence, Defendant CITY ratified and condoned
4
Defendant TONN’s malicious, unreasonable, deliberately, and criminally indifferent
5
shooting and killing of Decedent SEAN MONTERROSA.
6
20. The shooting and killing of Decedent SEAN MONTERROSA described
7
8 herein was brutal, malicious, and done without just provocation or cause, proximately
9 caused Plaintiffs’ injuries and resulting damages.

10 DAMAGES
11 21. Plaintiffs were physically, mentally, emotionally and financially injured
12
and damaged as a proximate result of Decedent SEAN MONTERROSA’s wrongful
13
death, including, but not limited to, the loss of decedent’s familial relationships, comfort,
14
protection, companionship, love, affection, solace, and moral support. In addition to these
15
damages, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover for the reasonable value of funeral and burial
16
17
expenses, pursuant to C.C.P. Sections 377.60 and 377.61.
18 22. Plaintiffs NORA MONTERROSA and NEFTALI MONTERROSA are
19 entitled to recover wrongful death damages pursuant to C.C.P. Sections 377.60 and
20 377.61 and Probate Code Section 6402(b).
21
23. Pursuant to C.C.P. Sections 377.30, 377.32, and 377.34, Plaintiffs NORA
22
MONTERROSA and NEFTALI MONTERROSA are further entitled to recover for
23
damages incurred by decedent before he died as the result of being assaulted and battered
24
by excessive force, damages for decedent’s loss of life and loss of enjoyment of life in
25
violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, causing Decedent’s
26
27
death by excessive force under section 1983, and to any penalties or punitive damages to
28 which decedent would have been entitled to recover, had he lived. Plaintiffs are further
9
1 entitled to recover for Decedent’s own pain and suffering and emotional distress incurred
2
as a consequence of Defendants’ section 1983 violations, preceding Decedent’s death.
3
24. The conduct of the defendant officers was malicious, wanton, and
4
oppressive. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages against said
5
individual defendants.
6
25. Plaintiffs found it necessary to engage the services of private counsel to
7
8 vindicate their rights, and the rights of decedent, under the law. Plaintiffs are therefore
9 entitled to recover all attorneys’ fees incurred in relation to this action pursuant to Title
10 42 United States Code section 1988.
11 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
12
(42 U.S.C. Section 1983- Unreasonable Seizure Excessive Force)
(Plaintiffs NEFTALI MONTERROSA and NORA MONTERROSA as Successors-in-
13 interest to Decedent SEAN MONTERROSA against Defendant Officers TONN and
DOES 1-10)
14
15 26. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference herein paragraphs 1
16 through 25 of this Complaint.

17
27. In doing the acts complained of herein, Defendants TONN and DOES 1-
18
10, inclusive, and/or each of them, acted under color of law to deprive Plaintiffs of
19
certain constitutionally protected rights, including, but not limited to:
20
21 a. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as
22 guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

23
Constitution;
24
b. The right not to be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law,
25
as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
26
27 States Constitution;
28
10
1 28. Said rights are substantive guarantees under the First, Fourth, Fifth and/or
2
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
3
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
4
5
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(42 U.S.C. section 1983- Monell)
6 (Plaintiffs NORA MONTERROSA and NEFTALI MONTERROSA individually and as
Successors-in-interest to Decedent SEAN MONTERROSA Against Defendants CITY
7 and DOES 11-25)
8
29. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference herein paragraphs 1
9
through 28 of this Complaint.
10
11 30. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that high ranking City
12 of Vallejo officials, including Chief Williams, high ranking police supervisors, DOES 11
13
through 25, and/or each of them, knew and/or reasonably should have known about the
14
repeated acts of misconduct by Defendant Officers TONN and DOES 1-10, and/or each of
15
them.
16
17 31. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that high
18 ranking City of Vallejo officials, including Chief Williams and high ranking police
19
supervisors, DOES 11-25, and/or each of them, knew and/or reasonably should have
20
known that their police officers, including Defendants TONN and DOES 1-10, were either
21
22
untrained or improperly trained and that Defendant CITY maintained deficient customs in
23 the use of force in the following areas:

24 a. Permitting police officers who demonstrate a pattern of using unreasonable
25
force, such as Defendant TONN who had 3 prior Officer Involved Shootings in five years
26
and a separate, non-shooting excessive force complaint, to continue on patrol and pose a
27
28
11
1 danger to the public of continuing to use excessive force without remediation, retraining,
2
or discipline;
3
b. That reasonable available less lethal weapons are required to be used against
4
5
subjects who do not pose an imminent threat of serious injury or harm even if one less-
6 lethal weapon has been used unsuccessfully;

7 c. That where reasonable opportunities for de-escalation of potentially
8
threatening subjects exist, including the reasonable redeployment and/or re-location of
9
police officers; the use of effective communication that is not confrontational, escalating,
10
11 or demanding; reasonably creating time and distance to help de-escalate, to allow the use
12 of effective communication, and to allow the continuing opportunity to use less-lethal

13
weapons, they must be employed to defuse a potential threat in place of lethal force;
14
d. Plaintiffs allege the destruction of relevant evidence and the premature
15
return of the unmarked vehicle to service were ordered by high-ranking CITY OF
16
17 VALLEJO police command staff who knew or should have known the windshield and
18 unmarked vehicle were relevant evidence, and happened only after Plaintiffs notified
19
Defendant CITY that they are represented by counsel in the instant-matter and demanded
20
in writing the preservation of all relevant evidence in this matter. Said conduct is
21
22
demonstrative of policy, practice and training within the VALLEJO Police Department that
23 engages in and conducts the destruction and or misuse of evidence for purposes of covering
24 up overt misconduct by Vallejo police officers.
25
32. These policy, practice and training failures were a substantial factor and
26
moving force in the violation of Mr. MONTERROSA’s rights culminating in his shooting
27
28 death on June 2, 2020 by Defendant Officers.
12
1 33. Despite having such notice, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon
2
allege that Defendants CITY, Williams and DOES 11-25, and/or each of them, condoned,
3
encouraged and/or tacitly authorized the continuing pattern and practice of misconduct
4
5
and/or civil rights violations by Vallejo Police Department officers.
6 34. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that as a result
7 of the deliberate indifference, reckless and/or conscious disregard of the misconduct by
8
Defendants TONN, and DOES 1-10, each of them, and the policy, practice and training
9
deficiencies identified herein, Defendants CITY, DOES 11-25, and/or each of them,
10
11 encouraged these officers to continue their course of misconduct, resulting in the violation
12 of the Plaintiffs’ rights as alleged herein.

13
35. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions and/or deliberate indifference by
14
high ranking City of Vallejo officials, including, Chief Williams, high ranking City of
15
Vallejo Police Department supervisors, Defendants DOES 11-25, and each of them
16
17 resulted in the deprivation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights including, but not limited to,
18 the following:
19
a. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as guaranteed by
20
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;
21
22
b. The right not to be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law, as
23 guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

24 Constitution;
25
36. Said rights are substantive guarantees under the Fourth, Fifth and/or
26
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
27
28 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
13
1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(42 U.S.C. section 1983
2
14th Amendment Substantive Due Process- Right to Familial Relationship)
3 (All Plaintiffs Against Defendants TONN and DOES 1-10)
4 37. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference herein paragraphs 1

5
6
38. Defendants TONN and DOES 1-10, acting under color of law, and
7
8
without due process of law deprived Plaintiffs of their right to a familial relationship with
9 Decedent by use of unreasonable, unjustified deadly force and violence, causing injuries
10
which resulted in decedent’s death, all without provocation, in violation of the Fourteenth
11
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendants TONN and DOES 1-10 acted
12
with an intent to harm Decedent unrelated to legitimate law enforcement purposes in
13
14 killing Decedent.
15 39. As a proximate result of defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered damages

16
as hereinafter set forth.
17
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
18
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19
(42 U.S.C. section 1983
20 First Amendment Right of Association with Decedent SEAN MONTERROSA)
(Plaintiffs MICHELLE MONTERROSA and ASHLEY MONTERROSA against
21 Defendants TONN and DOES 1-10)
22
40. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference herein paragraphs 1
23
24
25
41. Defendants TONN, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, killed Mr.
26 MONTERROSA in violation of the 4th and 14th Amendments to the United State
27 Constitution, as set forth herein, depriving Plaintiffs MICHELLE MONTERROSA and
28
14
1 ASHLEY MONTERROSA of their United States Constitution First Amendment Rights

2
of Association with Decedent SEAN MONTERROSA.
3
42. These Defendants’ conduct was neither privileged nor justified under
4
5
statute or common law.
6 43. As a proximate result of defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered damages

7 as hereinafter set forth.
8
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.
9
10
JURY DEMAND
11
44. Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial in this action.
12
PRAYER
13
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief, as follows:
14
1. For general damages in a sum according to proof;
15
2. For special damages in a sum according to proof;
16
17
3. For punitive damages in a sum according to proof;
18 4. For violation of California Civil Code Sections 52 and 52.1, statutory
19 damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees;

20
5. For reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988;
21
6. For the costs of suit herein incurred; and
22
7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
23
24
25
Dated: August 5, 2020 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS
26
/s/ John L. Burris
27 John L. Burris, Esq.
28
Benjamin Nisenbaum, Esq.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
15
JS 44 (Rev. 0 ) CIVIL COVER SHEET
Case 2:20-cv-01563-TLN-DB Document 1-1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 1 of 1
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS Neftali Monterrosa; Nora Monterrosa, DEFENDANTS CITY OF VALLEJO;

Michelle Monterrosa; Ashley Monterrosa JARRETT TONN; DOES 1-25
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff San Francisco County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
JOHN L. BURRIS, Esq.
Law Offices of John L. Burris, 7677 Oakport St. Ste 1120
Oakland, CA 94621 (510) 839-5200
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 485 Telephone Consumer
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 862 Black Lung (923) Protection Act
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 490 Cable/Sat TV
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 864 SSID Title XVI 850 Securities/Commodities/
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) Exchange
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 890 Other Statutory Actions
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 891 Agricultural Acts
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS 893 Environmental Matters
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 895 Freedom of Information
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) Act
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRS—Third Party 896 Arbitration
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 899 Administrative Procedure
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General Act/Review or Appeal of
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION Agency Decision
Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application 950 Constitutionality of
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration State Statutes
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-01563-TLN-DB Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 1 of 15

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:20-cv-01563-TLN-DB Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 1 of 15

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:20-cv-01563-TLN-DB Document 1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 1 of 15

1 JOHN L. BURRIS, Esq./ State Bar #69888

18 CITY OF VALLEJO, a municipal corporation;

24 On June 2, 2020, at about 12:37 a.m., Defendant JARRETT TONN, a Vallejo

16 in California. He is the father and Co-Successor-in-Interest to Decedent SEAN

17 MONTERROSA, who died intestate, unmarried and without issue.

18 3. Plaintiff herein, NORA MONTERROSA, is and was at all times herein

26 Decedent SEAN MONTERROSA’s interest in the instant action pursuant to California

27 Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32. Plaintiffs NORA MONTERROSA and

1 NEFTALI MONTERROSA have complied with the requirements of California Code of

9 his two sisters, Plaintiff MICHELLE MONTERROSA and ASHLEY MONTERROSA,

19 MONTERROSA, who was 22 years old when he was killed.

1 9. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants

8 10. In engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendant police officers

19 the backseat of an unmarked Vallejo Police Department vehicle. Mr. MONTERROSA

19 Shootings within the past 5 years. The shootings include:

1 c. Six weeks later, in July 2017, Defendant TONN pursued a

8 his forehead against the ground.

9 caused Plaintiffs’ injuries and resulting damages.

18 22. Plaintiffs NORA MONTERROSA and NEFTALI MONTERROSA are

15 26. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference herein paragraphs 1

16 through 25 of this Complaint.

21 a. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as

22 guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

23 the use of force in the following areas:

6 lethal weapon has been used unsuccessfully;

12 of effective communication, and to allow the continuing opportunity to use less-lethal

28 death on June 2, 2020 by Defendant Officers.

12 of the Plaintiffs’ rights as alleged herein.

23 guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

28 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.

1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

4 37. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference herein paragraphs 1

15 39. As a proximate result of defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered damages

1 ASHLEY MONTERROSA of their United States Constitution First Amendment Rights

6 43. As a proximate result of defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs suffered damages

18 4. For violation of California Civil Code Sections 52 and 52.1, statutory

19 damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees;

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS Neftali Monterrosa; Nora Monterrosa, DEFENDANTS CITY OF VALLEJO;

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

You might also like