L O M E. M: Case 2:21-cv-02278-TLN-CKD Document 1 Filed 12/10/21 Page 1 of 14

Case 2:21-cv-02278-TLN-CKD Document 1 Filed 12/10/21 Page 1 of 14
1 Mark E. Merin (State Bar No. 043849)

Paul H. Masuhara (State Bar No. 289805)
2 LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN
1010 F Street, Suite 300
3
Sacramento, California 95814
4 Telephone: (916) 443-6911
Facsimile: (916) 447-8336
5 E-Mail: mark@markmerin.com
paul@markmerin.com
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff
7 JANE DOE
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 SACRAMENTO DIVISION
11 JANE DOE, Case No.
12 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF

CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
13 vs.
14 CITY OF ELK GROVE, ELK GROVE DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
POLICE DEPARTMENT, GABRIEL RAMOS,
15 and DOE 1 to 5,
16 Defendants.
17 INTRODUCTION
18 This action arises from sexual harassment and sexual assault committed against JANE DOE, a
19 private citizen, by Sergeant GABRIEL RAMOS, a law enforcement officer employed by the CITY OF
20 ELK GROVE and ELK GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
21 JURISDICTION & VENUE
22 1. This Court has jurisdiction of the federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (in that they arise
23 under the United States Constitution) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) (in that the action is brought to address
24 deprivations, under color of state authority, of rights, privileges, and immunities protected by the U.S.
25 Constitution). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction of the state claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
26 2. Venue is proper in the United State District Court for the Eastern District of California
27 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendants are located in the Eastern District of California and
28 because many of the acts and/or omissions described herein occurred in the Eastern District of California.
1
COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Doe v. City of Elk Grove, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. _______________
1 3. Intra-district venue is proper in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of
2 California pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 120(d) because the claims asserted herein arise from acts and/or
3 omissions which occurred in the County of Sacramento, California.
4 EXHAUSTION
5 4. On September 24, 2021, JANE DOE submitted a government claim to the CITY OF ELK
6 GROVE and ELK GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT concerning the claims asserted in this action,
7 pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code § 905 et seq. On November 8, 2021, the government claim was rejected by
8 CITY OF ELK GROVE and ELK GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT. On December 18, 2020, the CITY
9 OF ELK GROVE mailed a notice of rejection of the government claim, pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code §
10 913(b).
11 PARTIES
12 5. Plaintiff JANE DOE is a resident of the State of California, County of Sacramento.
13 Plaintiff JANE DOE proceeds by a fictitious pseudonym, in place of her true and correct name.
14 6. Defendant CITY OF ELK GROVE is a “public entity” within the definition of Cal. Gov.
15 Code § 811.2, and located in the State of California, County of Sacramento.
16 7. Defendant ELK GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT is a “public entity” within the
17 definition of Cal. Gov. Code § 811.2, and located in the State of California, County of Sacramento.
18 8. Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS is, and at all times material herein was, a law enforcement
19 officer employed by Defendants CITY OF ELK GROVE and ELK GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
20 acting within the scope of that employment and under color of state law. Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS
21 is sued in his individual capacity.
22 9. Defendants DOE 1 to 5 are and/or were agents or employees of Defendants CITY OF
23 ELK GROVE and/or ELK GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT, acting within the scope of that
24 employment and under color of state law. Defendant DOE 1 to 5’s true and correct names and identities
25 are not currently known. Defendants DOE 1 to 5 are sued by their fictitious names and their true and
26 correct names and identities will be substituted when ascertained.
27 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
28 10. At all times relevant herein, all wrongful acts described were performed under color of
2
1 state law and/or in concert with or on behalf of those acting under the color of state law.
2 11. Plaintiff JANE DOE is a predominantly Spanish speaking, 41-year-old single mother of
3 adult children.
4 12. On April 11, 2021, Plaintiff JANE DOE called 9-1-1 to report a theft in progress of a
5 catalytic converter from her automobile parked near her apartment, located in Elk Grove, California.
6 13. Several of Defendant ELK GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT’s law enforcement officers
7 responded to the scene.
8 14. The officers were unable to apprehend the culprits.
9 15. The officers took a report of the theft.

10 16. Defendant ELK GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT’s sergeant, Defendant GABRIEL
11 RAMOS, remained at the scene, after most police units left.
12 17. Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS approached Plaintiff JANE DOE and told her he needed to
13 speak with her husband about some details of the incident.
14 18. Plaintiff JANE DOE advised Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS that she was single.
15 19. Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS asked for and obtained Plaintiff JANE DOE’s telephone
16 number under the pretext that he may need it for further investigation of the theft incident.
17 20. Later that same day, Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS called Plaintiff JANE DOE from a
18 blocked number with no caller identification available.
19 21. Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS inquired about how Plaintiff JANE DOE was feeling
20 during the call.
21 22. Thereafter, almost every day and at times multiple times during the day, Defendant
22 GABRIEL RAMOS called Plaintiff JANE DOE and asked increasingly personal questions, including
23 what kind and color of underwear she wore.
24 23. Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS told Plaintiff JANE DOE that he wanted to have sex with
25 her.
26 24. When Plaintiff JANE DOE objected to what were clearly improper questions and
27 statements, Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS replied that Plaintiff JANE DOE’s son would be in danger if
28 she did not respond and cooperate with him.
3
1 25. When Plaintiff JANE DOE indicated she did not want to answer his calls, Defendant
2 GABRIEL RAMOS further threatened to do harm to her son if she did not pick-up when he called.
3 26. In early May 2021, Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS used threats of harm to her son to
4 coerce Plaintiff JANE DOE into renting a room at the Sacramento Marriott Rancho Cordova.
5 27. Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS instructed Plaintiff JANE DOE to buy and wear black
6 lingerie and high-heeled black shoes, to wear perfume, and to meet him at the hotel on the morning of
7 May 3, 2021.
8 28. Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS told Plaintiff JANE DOE that he would reimburse her for
9 the cost of the hotel room and the clothing he had instructed her to buy and wear.
10 29. Plaintiff JANE DOE complied with Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS’s commands under
11 fear of retaliation.
12 30. On May 3, 2021, Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS came to the hotel and performed oral sex
13 on Plaintiff JANE DOE.
14 31. Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS coerced Plaintiff JANE DOE to have sexual intercourse
15 with him.
16 32. Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS did not wear a condom when he engaged in sexual
17 intercourse with Plaintiff JANE DOE.
18 33. Thereafter, Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS showered, dressed and, before leaving, told
19 Plaintiff JANE DOE to remain at the hotel because he was going to return later that day for more sex.
20 34. Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS left approximately $230 in cash in the hotel room, to
21 cover the room charges and the clothing costs.

22 35. Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS left the hotel room.
23 36. Plaintiff JANE DOE called the Rancho Cordova Police Department and officers
24 responded to the hotel.
25 37. Before the officers arrived, Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS called Plaintiff JANE DOE
26 and told her that something had come up and he would not be returning.
27 38. The officers arrived at the hotel and took a report from Plaintiff JANE DOE, took the
28 clothes she had purchased and worn, the cash left by Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS, and Plaintiff JANE
4
1 DOE’s cell phone.
2 39. Plaintiff JANE DOE was taken to a clinic in an ambulance and a rape kit examination was
3 performed and the kit given to the officers who accompanied Plaintiff JANE DOE to the clinic.
4 40. Plaintiff JANE DOE has been violated and traumatized by Defendant GABRIEL
5 RAMOS’s actions and is presently undergoing mental health counselling.
6 41. Plaintiff JANE DOE and her family are terrified that Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS or
7 others will retaliate against her and her family for her reporting Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS’s acts.
8 42. On information and belief: Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS had a history of misconduct of
9 which Defendants DOE 1 to 5 were aware. Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS was able to engage in
10 misconduct under color of state law, including the misconduct described herein, due to Defendant DOE 1
11 to 5’s lack of adequate training, supervision, and/or discipline.
12 FIRST CLAIM
13 Unwanted Sexual Harassment and Sexual Contact
14 (U.S. Const., Amend. IV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
15 43. Plaintiff JANE DOE asserts this Claim against Defendants GABRIEL RAMOS and DOE
16 1 to 5.
17 44. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 42 are realleged and incorporated, to the
18 extent relevant and as if fully set forth in this Claim.
19 45. Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS sexually harassed and sexually assaulted Plaintiff JANE
20 DOE, through the use coercion and an abuse of power, in violation of the Fourth Amendment (as
21 incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment) to the U.S. Constitution.
22 46. Defendants DOE 1 to 5 failed to intercede in, were integral participants in, and/or aided
23 and abetted Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS’s sexual harassment and sexual assault of Plaintiff JANE
24 DOE, in violation of the Fourth Amendment (as incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment) to the
25 U.S. Constitution.
26 47. Defendants GABRIEL RAMOS and DOE 1 to 5’s actions and inactions were motivated
27 by evil motive or intent, involved reckless or callous indifference to constitutional rights, or were
28 wantonly or oppressively done.

5
1 48. Plaintiff JANE DOE was injured as a direct and proximate result of Defendants
2 GABRIEL RAMOS and DOE 1 to 5’s actions and inactions, entitling her to receive compensatory and
3 punitive damages against Defendants GABRIEL RAMOS and DOE 1 to 5.
4 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff JANE DOE prays for relief as hereunder appears.
5 SECOND CLAIM
7 (U.S. Const., Amend. XIV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
8 49. Plaintiff JANE DOE asserts this Claim against Defendants GABRIEL RAMOS and DOE
9 1 to 5.
13 DOE, through the use coercion and an abuse of power, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
14 U.S. Constitution.
17 DOE, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
18 53. Defendants GABRIEL RAMOS and DOE 1 to 5’s actions and inactions were motivated
19 by evil motive or intent, involved reckless or callous indifference to constitutional rights, or were
20 wantonly or oppressively done.
23 punitive damages against Defendants GABRIEL RAMOS and DOE 1 to 5.
25 THIRD CLAIM
27 (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 13)
28 55. Plaintiff JANE DOE asserts this Claim against Defendants CITY OF ELK GROVE, ELK
6
1 GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT, GABRIEL RAMOS, and DOE 1 to 5.
5 DOE, through the use coercion and an abuse of power, in violation of Article I, Section 13 of the
6 California Constitution.
9 DOE, in violation of Article I, Section 13 of the California Constitution.

10 59. Defendants CITY OF ELK GROVE and ELK GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT are
11 vicariously liable, through the principles of respondeat superior and pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code §§
12 815.2(a), 820(a), for injuries proximately caused by the acts and omissions of their employees acting
13 within the scope of their employment, including Defendants GABRIEL RAMOS and DOE 1 to 5.
14 60. Defendants GABRIEL RAMOS and DOE 1 to 5’s actions and inactions constituted
15 oppression, fraud, and/or malice resulting in great harm.
17 GABRIEL RAMOS and DOE 1 to 5’s actions and inactions, entitling her to receive compensatory
18 damages against Defendants CITY OF ELK GROVE, ELK GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
19 GABRIEL RAMOS, and DOE 1 to 5; and punitive damages against Defendants GABRIEL RAMOS and
20 DOE 1 to 5.

22 FOURTH CLAIM
24 (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 7(a))

7
2 DOE, through the use coercion and an abuse of power, in violation of Article I, Section 7(a) of the
3 California Constitution.
6 DOE, in violation of Article I, Section 7(a) of the California Constitution.
17 DOE 1 to 5.
19 FIFTH CLAIM
20 Tom Bane Civil Rights Act
21 (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1)
24 The allegations of the preceding paragraphs 1 to 42 are realleged and incorporated, to the extent
25 relevant and as if fully set forth in this Claim.
27 DOE, through the use coercion and an abuse of power, with deliberate indifference or reckless disregard
28 of rights protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; and Article I,
8
1 Sections 7(a) and 13 of the California Constitution.
4 DOE, with deliberate indifference or reckless disregard of rights protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth
5 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; and Article I, Sections 7(a) and 13 of the California Constitution.
14 treble damages and civil penalties against Defendants CITY OF ELK GROVE, ELK GROVE POLICE
15 DEPARTMENT, GABRIEL RAMOS, and DOE 1 to 5; and punitive damages against Defendant
16 GABRIEL RAMOS and DOE 1 to 5.
18 SIXTH CLAIM
19 Assault / Battery
25 DOE, through the use coercion and an abuse of power.
28 DOE.
9
11 DOE 1 to 5.
13 SEVENTH CLAIM
14 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
19 84. Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS engaged in outrageous conduct against Plaintiff JANE
20 DOE which caused severe emotional distress, including sexually harassing and sexually assaulting
21 Plaintiff JANE DOE.
22 85. Defendants DOE 1 to 5 engaged in outrageous conduct, including failing to intercede in,
23 integrally participating in, and/or aiding and abetting Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS’s sexual harassment
24 and sexual assault of Plaintiff JANE DOE.
10
7 DOE 1 to 5.
9 EIGHTH CLAIM
10 Negligence
15 91. Defendant GABRIEL RAMOS owed a duty to Plaintiff JANE DOE and breached that
16 duty, including by sexually harassing and sexually assaulting Plaintiff JANE DOE.
17 92. Defendants DOE 1 to 5 owed a duty to Plaintiff JANE DOE and breached that duty,
18 including by failing to intercede in, integrally participating in, and/or aiding and abetting Defendant
19 GABRIEL RAMOS’s sexual harassment and sexual assault of Plaintiff JANE DOE.
11
2 DOE 1 to 5.
4 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff JANE DOE seeks Judgment as follows:
6 1. For an award of nominal, compensatory, general, and special damages against Defendants
7 CITY OF ELK GROVE, ELK GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT, GABRIEL RAMOS, and DOE 1 to 5,
8 in excess of $1,000,000, according to proof at trial;
9 2. For an award of exemplary/punitive damages against Defendants GABRIEL RAMOS and

10 DOE 1 to 5, in an amount sufficient to deter and to make an example of them, because their actions
11 and/or inactions were motivated by evil motive or intent, involved reckless or callous indifference to
12 constitutional and statutory rights, or were wantonly or oppressively done; and/or constituted oppression,
13 fraud, or malice resulting in great harm;
14 3. For an award of actual damages, treble damages, punitive damages, civil penalties, and
15 any other available relief against Defendants CITY OF ELK GROVE, ELK GROVE POLICE
16 DEPARTMENT, GABRIEL RAMOS, and DOE 1 to 5, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §§ 52, 52.1, and any
17 other statute as may be applicable (except that punitive damages are not sought against Defendants CITY
18 OF ELK GROVE and ELK GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 818);
19 4. For an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Cal.
20 Civ. Code § 52.1, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5, and any other statute as may be applicable; and
21 \\\
22 \\\
23 \\\
24 \\\
25 \\\
26 \\\
27 \\\
28 \\\
12
1 5. For an award of any other further relief, as the Court deems fair, just, and equitable.
2 Dated: December 10, 2021 Respectfully Submitted,
4
By: __________________________________
5 Mark E. Merin
6 Paul H. Masuhara
LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN
7 1010 F Street, Suite 300
8 Telephone: (916) 443-6911
Facsimile: (916) 447-8336
9
10 JANE DOE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
1 JURY TRIAL DEMAND
2 A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED on behalf of Plaintiff JANE DOE.
3 Dated: December 10, 2021 Respectfully Submitted,
5
By: __________________________________
6 Mark E. Merin
7 Paul H. Masuhara
LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN
8 1010 F Street, Suite 300
9 Telephone: (916) 443-6911
Facsimile: (916) 447-8336
10
11 JANE DOE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14

L O M E. M: Case 2:21-cv-02278-TLN-CKD Document 1 Filed 12/10/21 Page 1 of 14

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

L O M E. M: Case 2:21-cv-02278-TLN-CKD Document 1 Filed 12/10/21 Page 1 of 14

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:21-cv-02278-TLN-CKD Document 1 Filed 12/10/21 Page 1 of 14

1 Mark E. Merin (State Bar No. 043849)

12 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF

20 ELK GROVE and ELK GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

21 JURISDICTION & VENUE

1 3. Intra-district venue is proper in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of

3 omissions which occurred in the County of Sacramento, California.

15 Code § 811.2, and located in the State of California, County of Sacramento.

16 7. Defendant ELK GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT is a “public entity” within the

21 is sued in his individual capacity.

22 9. Defendants DOE 1 to 5 are and/or were agents or employees of Defendants CITY OF

26 correct names and identities will be substituted when ascertained.

7 responded to the scene.

8 14. The officers were unable to apprehend the culprits.

9 15. The officers took a report of the theft.

21 cover the room charges and the clothing costs.

1 DOE’s cell phone.

5 RAMOS’s actions and is presently undergoing mental health counselling.

14 (U.S. Const., Amend. IV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

18 extent relevant and as if fully set forth in this Claim.

21 incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment) to the U.S. Constitution.

28 wantonly or oppressively done.

3 punitive damages against Defendants GABRIEL RAMOS and DOE 1 to 5.

4 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff JANE DOE prays for relief as hereunder appears.

6 Unwanted Sexual Harassment and Sexual Contact

7 (U.S. Const., Amend. XIV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983)

27 (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 13)

1 GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT, GABRIEL RAMOS, and DOE 1 to 5.

3 extent relevant and as if fully set forth in this Claim.

9 DOE, in violation of Article I, Section 13 of the California Constitution.

21 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff JANE DOE prays for relief as hereunder appears.

24 (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 7(a))

26 GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT, GABRIEL RAMOS, and DOE 1 to 5.

28 extent relevant and as if fully set forth in this Claim.

6 DOE, in violation of Article I, Section 7(a) of the California Constitution.

21 (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1)

23 GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT, GABRIEL RAMOS, and DOE 1 to 5.

25 relevant and as if fully set forth in this Claim.

1 Sections 7(a) and 13 of the California Constitution.

21 GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT, GABRIEL RAMOS, and DOE 1 to 5.

23 extent relevant and as if fully set forth in this Claim.

25 DOE, through the use coercion and an abuse of power.

6 oppression, fraud, and/or malice resulting in great harm.

16 GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT, GABRIEL RAMOS, and DOE 1 to 5.

18 extent relevant and as if fully set forth in this Claim.

21 Plaintiff JANE DOE.

24 and sexual assault of Plaintiff JANE DOE.

2 oppression, fraud, and/or malice resulting in great harm.

8 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff JANE DOE prays for relief as hereunder appears.

12 GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT, GABRIEL RAMOS, and DOE 1 to 5.

14 extent relevant and as if fully set forth in this Claim.

25 oppression, fraud, and/or malice resulting in great harm.

3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff JANE DOE prays for relief as hereunder appears.

4 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff JANE DOE seeks Judgment as follows:

8 in excess of $1,000,000, according to proof at trial;

9 2. For an award of exemplary/punitive damages against Defendants GABRIEL RAMOS and

2 Dated: December 10, 2021 Respectfully Submitted,

1 JURY TRIAL DEMAND

2 A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED on behalf of Plaintiff JANE DOE.

3 Dated: December 10, 2021 Respectfully Submitted,

You might also like