Rucks Lawsuit

Case 3:16-cv-03742-EDL Document 1 Filed 07/01/16 Page 1 of 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
JOHN L. BURRIS, Esq. SBN 69888

ADANTE D. POINTER, Esq. SBN 236229
LATEEF H. GRAY, Esq, SBN 250055
MELISSA C. NOLD, Esq. SBN 301378
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS
Airport Corporate Centre
7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120
Oakland, California 94621
Telephone: (510) 839-5200
Facsimile: (510) 839-3882
john.burris@johnburrislaw.com
adante.pointer@johnburrislaw.com
lateef.gray@johnburrislaw.com
melissa.nold@johnburrislaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C.R., co-successor-in-interest to Decedent

Rakeem Rucks, by and through his Guardian Ad
Litem Beverly McIntosh; I.R., co-successor-ininterest to Decedent Rakeem Rucks, by and
through her Guardian Ad Litem Beverly
McIntosh; R.R., co-successor-in-interest, by and
through her Guardian Ad Litem Beverly
McIntosh; J.R., by and through her Guardian Ad
Litem Jasmine Williams; and Debra Moore,
individually,
CASE NO.:
COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL DEATH

AND VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND
DAMAGES
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF ANTIOCH, a municipal corporation;
RICK SMITH, individually and in his official
capacity as a police sergeant for the CITY OF
ANTIOCH; CHRIS KIDD, individually and in
his official capacity as police officer for the
CITY OF ANTIOCH; CASEY BROGDEN,
individually and in his official capacity as
police officer for the CITY OF ANTIOCH;
THOMAS SMITH, individually and in his
official capacity as police officer for the CITY
OF ANTIOCH; BRIAN ROSE, individually
and in his official capacity of Police Detective
with the CITY OF ANTIOCH; and DOES 150, inclusive, individually, jointly and
severally,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, WRONGFUL DEATH & DAMAGES - 1
INTRODUCTION
1
2
1. This case arises out of the wrongful death of RAKEEM RUCKS, a thirty-four
(34) year-old man who was experiencing a psychiatric disturbance and called 911 to report that he
was being chased by people carrying guns. Despite calling for help and being in obvious distress,
Mr. Rucks was nevertheless handcuffed, thrown on the ground and held down by four City of
Antioch Police Department officers, who forced his body into the dry earth for over ten (10)
7
8
minutes. Witnesses report the officers forcefully placed their knees onto Mr. Rucks neck and back,
while Mr. Rucks repeatedly cried out that he could not breathe. The Officers continued to smother
Mr. Rucks, until he took his last breath and died face down in the dirt.
9
10
11
2. The present action is brought on behalf of Decedent Rakeem Rucks four

devastated minor children and his grieving mother.
12
13
JURISDICTION
14
3. This action arises under Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 1983. Title 28 of
15
The United States Code, Sections 1331 and 1343 confers jurisdiction upon this Court. The unlawful
16
acts and practices alleged herein occurred in Antioch, California, which is within this judicial district.
17
Title 28 United States Code Section 1391(b) confers venue upon this Court.
18
19
PARTIES
20
21
22
23
4. Decedent, RAKEEM RUCKS (hereinafter DECEDENT RUCKS), was an individual

residing in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. Decedent Rucks was unmarried at the
time of his death and died intestate. Decedent Rucks was readily identifiable as African American.
Decedent Rucks did not file any legal actions prior to his death. Decedent Rucks has four surviving
24
25
minor children.
5. Plaintiff C.R. sues in his individual capacity, through his Guardian Ad Litem
26
BEVERLY JOHNSON, as Decedent RUCKSs child and in a representative capacity as co-
27
successor-in-interest to Decedent RUCKS pursuant, to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections
28
377.30.and 377.60 and California Probate Code Section 6402.
6. Plaintiff I.R. sues in her individual capacity, through her Guardian Ad Litem
successor-in-interest to Decedent RUCKS, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections

3
4

7. Plaintiff R.R. sues in her individual capacity, through her Guardian Ad Litem
successor-in-interest to Decedent RUCKS, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections
8
9
10
11
8. Plaintiff J.R. sues in her individual capacity, through her Guardian Ad Litem
JASMINE WILLIAMS, as Decedent RUCKSs child and in a representative capacity as cosuccessor-in-interest to Decedent RUCKS, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections
9. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff DEBRA MOORE (hereinafter
12
13
PLAINTIFF MOORE), has been and is a resident of Vallejo, California. PLAINTIFF MOORE is
the biological mother of Decedent RUCKS. Decedent RUCKSs father preceded him in death.
14
10. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant CITY OF ANTIOCH (hereinafter CITY)
15
is a municipal corporation, existing under the laws of the State of California. The City of Antioch
16
Police Department operates under the supervision of the CITY OF ANTIOCH.
17
11. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant RICK SMITH, (hereinafter DEFENDANT
18
R. SMITH), was a Police Sergeant for the City of Antioch Police Department, and is sued
19
individually and in his official capacity.
20
21
12. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant CHRIS KIDD, (hereinafter

DEFENDANT KIDD), was a Police Officer for the City of Antioch Police Department, and is sued
individually and in his official capacity.
22
13. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant CASEY BROGDEN, (hereinafter

23
24
25
DEFENDANT BROGDEN), was a Police Officer for the City of Antioch Police Department, and
is sued individually and in his official capacity.
14. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant THOMAS SMITH, (hereinafter
26
DEFENDANT T. SMITH), was a Police Officer for the City of Antioch Police Department, and is
27
sued individually and in his official capacity.
28
15. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant BRIAN ROSE, (hereinafter
DEFENDANT ROSE), was a Police Detective for the City of Antioch Police Department, and is
sued individually and in his official capacity.
2
3
16. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and/or capacities of defendants sued herein as
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs
will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs
believe and allege that each of the DOE defendants is legally responsible and liable for the incident,
injuries and damages hereinafter set forth. Each defendant proximately caused injuries and damages
because of their negligence, breach of duty, negligent supervision, management or control, violation
of public policy and/or use of excessive force. Each defendant is liable for his/her personal conduct,
10
vicarious or imputed negligence, fault, or breach of duty, whether severally or jointly, or whether
11
based upon agency, employment, ownership, entrustment, custody, care or control or upon any other
12
act or omission. Plaintiffs will ask leave to amend their complaint subject to further discovery.
13
17. In engaging in the conduct alleged herein, Defendant police officers acted under the
14
color of law and in the course and scope of their employment with City of Antioch Police
15
Department. In engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendant police officers exceeded the
16
authority vested in them as police officers under the United States and California Constitutions, and
17
as employees of City of Antioch Police Department.
18
18. For State causes of action related to Federal claims, Plaintiffs are required to comply
19
with an administrative claim requirement under California law. Plaintiffs timely filed a Government
20
Tort Claim with the City of Antioch, notifying the City of Antioch of Plaintiffs intent to file a
21
lawsuit against the City of Antioch and the involved Officers.
22
19. Plaintiffs contend that the City of Antioch is liable for all state law causes of action
23
under the theory of Respondeat Superior, wherein damages occurred while City of Antioch
24
employees were engaged in the performance of their job duties.
25
26
27
28
STATEMENT OF FACTS
20. On June 10, 2015, at approximately 12:30 p.m., Decedent Rucks, was at Delta Pines
apartment complex, located at 2301 Sycamore Drive, in Antioch, California.
1
2
3
21. Decedent Rucks was experiencing a psychiatric disturbance and called 911 to report that he
believed he was being chased by several people with guns.
22. Defendant City of Antioch Police Department Officers, Defendant Kidd and
Defendant Brogden arrived at the apartment complex and contacted Decedent Rucks. Defendant
Brogden noticed that Decedent Rucks was rambling about being afraid for his life, sweating
profusely, despite it only reaching a high of 72 degrees that day and appeared to be in Defendant
Brogdens words hallucinating. Though Decedent Rucks was compliant with Defendant Brogdens
verbal commands, Defendant Brogden thereafter handcuffed Decedent Rucks.
9
10
11
23. As the Officers walked a fully compliant Decedent Rucks to their patrol car, Defendant Kidd,
inexplicably and without legal justification, leg swept Decedent Rucks and took him to the ground.
24. Over the next 5 minutes, Defendant Kidd held Decedent Rucks lower body down in
12
the dirt. Defendant Brogden held Decedent Rucks upper body down in the dirt. Defendant R. Smith
13
and Defendant T. Smith thereafter arrived and joined in the unwarranted and excessive use of force
14
against a man in obvious medical and mental distress.
15
25. Witnesses observed Decedent Rucks being held on the ground by at least four (4)
16
Officers. One of the Officers dug his knee into Decedent Rucks neck and another Officer used their
17
knee to press down into Decedent Rucks back. An eyewitness heard Decedent Rucks crying out, I
18
cant breathe! The Officers were heard responding to Decedent Rucks pleas by telling him that he
19
was fine and to calm down.
20
26. After holding Decedent Rucks handcuffed and face down in the dirt for approximately
21
10-12 minutes, Defendant Kidd noticed that Decedent Rucks was breathing heavily, and no longer
22
making any noise. Despite these obvious signs of distress, the four Defendant Officers continued to
23
hold Decedent Rucks face down in the dirt.
24
27. During the incident, Defendant T. Smith observed Decedent Rucks inhaling dirt.
25
Nevertheless, the Defendant Officers continued to press Decedent Rucks face and chest down into
26
the dirt. Foreseeably, Decedent Rucks became unresponsive and lost conscioussness.
27
28
28. Decedent Rucks died as a result of being restrained in such a way that restricted his ability to
breathe was restricted, while being held face down in the dirt.
29. To add insult to injury, on January 21, 2016, City of Antioch Detective Brian Rose,
testified at the Contra Costa County Coroners Inquest into the death of Decedent Rucks. On
information and belief, Defendant Rose attempted to conceal important eyewitness information from
the jury. Specifically, Detective Rose failed to relay an eyewitness account of Decedent Rucks
telling the officers he could not breathe and only testified about witnesses who provided derogatory
and inflammatory information about the Decedent. It was only after Inquest Hearing Officer Matthew
Guichard posed questions submitted to him in writing by Plaintiffs Counsel, did Detective Rose
finally reveal the fact there were independent eyewitness to the incident, which contradicted the
Defendants version of events. Detective Rose gave damning testimony indicating a witness saw
10
Officers using their knees to forcefully push Decedent Rucks face into the dirt, while he cried out he
11
couldnt breathe in a scenario eerily reminiscent of Eric Garner who was choked to death by New
12
York Police Officers on video. Decedent Rucks mom broke down sobbing during the Detective
13
Roses heartbreaking testimony. It was only after being called back to the witness stand was
14
Detective Rose forced to finally tell the jury about the eyewitnesses.
15
30. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and herein allege that Detective Rose fully
16
intended to omit key contradictory eyewitness information for the purpose of concealing Decedent
17
Rucks true cause of death at the hands of City of Antioch Police Officers. The jury thereafter
18
determined that Decedent Rucks death was an accident and that he did not die of natural causes.
19
31. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege the City of Antioch, and DOES
20
26-50, inclusive, breached their duty of care to the public in that they have failed to discipline
21
Defendant Officers KIDD, R. SMITH, BROGDEN, T. SMITH, ROSE and DOES 1-25 inclusive, for
22
their respective misconduct and involvement in the incident described herein. Their failure to
23
discipline Defendant Officers KIDD, R. SMITH, BROGDEN, T. SMITH, ROSE and Does 1-25
24
inclusive, demonstrates the existence of an entrenched culture, policy or practice of promoting,
25
tolerating and/or ratifying with deliberate indifference, the use of excessive and/or deadly force and
26
the fabrication of official reports to cover up Defendants KIDD, R. SMITH, BROGDEN, T. SMITH,
27
ROSE and Does 1-25 inclusive, misconduct.
28
32. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that City of Antioch Police
Detective ROSE attempted to cover up Defendant Officers conduct by omitting important
eyewitness accounts from his Coroners Inquest testimony. Detective ROSE did not relay the
important information to the jury and had actually been released from the witness stand when
Plaintiffs counsel brought the gross omission to the attention of the hearing officer, who
subsequently asked Detective ROSE about the multiple eyewitnesses. Only after a direct inquiry into
the eyewitnesses, did ROSE finally admit that there was an eyewitness who reported that Decedent
was saying that he could not breathe, while the officers held Decedent Rucks to the ground by
placing their knees in Decedent Rucks back and neck, immediately prior to his death. Plaintiff is
informed, believes and thereon alleges that Detective ROSEs actions were intended to cover up the
10
true events surrounding Decedent Rucks death, in an attempt to justify Defendant Officers
11
unreasonable and outrageous use of deadly force.
12
33. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that members of the
13
Antioch Police Department, including, but not limited to Defendant Officers and DOES
14
1-25 inclusive and/or each of them, have individually and/or while acting in concert with
15
one another used excessive, arbitrary and/or unreasonable force against decedent, Rucks.
16
34. Plaintiffs are further informed, believe and therein allege that as a matter of
17
official policy rooted in an entrenched posture of deliberate indifference to the
18
constitutional rights of persons who live, work or visit the City of Antioch, Antioch
19
Police Department has allowed persons to be abused by its Police Officers including
20
Defendant Officers KIDD, R. SMITH, BROGDEN, T. SMITH, ROSE and DOES 1-25
21
and/or each of them, individually and/or while acting in concert with one another.
22
23
24
35. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and therein allege that City of Antioch Police Officers
exhibit a pattern and practice of using excessive and/or deadly force against citizens.
36. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and therein allege that City of Antioch knew, had
25
reason to know by way of actual or constructive notice of the aforementioned policy, culture, pattern
26
and/or practice and the complained of conduct and resultant injuries/violations.
27
37. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants DOES 1 through
28
50, inclusive, and therefore sue these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed,
believes, and thereon alleges that each Defendant so named is responsible in some manner for the
injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs as set forth herein. Plaintiffs will amend their complaint
to state the names and capacities of DOES 1-50, inclusive, when they have been ascertained.
DAMAGES
6
7
38. As a consequence of Defendants violation of Decedents federal civil rights
under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, Plaintiffs were mentally and
emotionally injured and damaged as a proximate result of Decedents wrongful death, including but
10
not limited to: All Plaintiffs loss of familial relations, Decedents society, comfort, protection,
11
companionship, love, affection, solace, and moral support and financial support.
12
39. Plaintiffs I.R., C.R., and R.R., by and through their Guardian Ad Litem Beverly
13
McIntosh and Plaintiff J.R., by and through her Guardian Ad Litem Jasmine Williams, bring this
14
claim as co-successors-in-interest to Decedent Rucks and seek both survival and wrongful death
15
damages, pursuant to C.C.P. Sections 377.60 and 377.61 and Probate Code Section 6402(b), for the
16
violation of both Decedents and their rights. Additionally, Plaintiffs are entitled to the reasonable
17
value of funeral and burial expenses pursuant to C.C.P. 377.60 and 377.61 and loss of financial
18
support.
19
40. Plaintiffs I.R., C.R., and R.R., by and through their Guardian Ad Litem Beverly
20
McIntosh; and Plaintiff J.R., by and through her Guardian Ad Litem Jasmine Williams, are further
21
entitled to recover damages incurred by Decedent Rucks before he died as a result of being
22
smothered, without due process of his right to life, and to any penalties or punitive damages to which
23
Decedent would have been entitled to recover had he lived, including damages incurred by Decedent,
24
consisting of pain and suffering he endured, during the time he struggled for his life, as a result of the
25
violation of his civil rights.
26
41. Plaintiffs found it necessary to engage the services of private counsel to vindicate the
27
28
rights of Decedent and Plaintiffs rights under the law. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of
attorneys fees and/or costs pursuant to statute(s) in the event that they are the prevailing parties in
this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985-86 and 1988.
4
5
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution
(42 U.S.C. 1983)
(Plaintiffs I.R, C.R., and R.R., by and through their Guardian Ad Litem Beverly McIntosh; Plaintiff
J.R., by and though her Guardian Ad Litem Jasmine Williams, Against Defendants KIDD,
10
R. SMITH, BROGDEN, T. SMITH and DOES 1-25)
11
12
13
14
42. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 41 of this

Complaint as though fully set forth.
43. Defendants KIDD, R. SMITH, BROGDEN, T. SMITH, and DOES 1-25s above-
15
described conduct violated Decedents right, as provided for under the Fourth Amendment to the
16
United States Constitution, to be free from excessive and/or arbitrary and/or unreasonable use of
17
deadly force against him.
18
19
44. DECEDENT RUCKS was forced to endure great conscious pain and suffering
because of the Defendants conduct before his death;
20
45. DECEDENT RUCKS did not file a legal action before his death;
21
46. Plaintiffs I.R., R.R., and C.R., by and through their Guardian Ad Litem Beverly
22
McIntosh and Plaintiff J.R., by and through her Guardian Ad Litem Jasmine Willams, are co-
23
successors-in-interest of DECEDENT RUCKS and bring claims for damages for the conscious pain
24
and suffering incurred by DECEDENT RUCKS, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
25
47. Defendants KIDD, R, SMITH, BROGDEN, T. SMITH, and DOES 1-25 acted under
26
color of law by killing Decedent without lawful justification and subjecting Decedent to excessive
27
force thereby depriving the Decedent of certain constitutionally protected rights, including, but not
28
limited to:
a. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as guaranteed by the
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
4
5
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violations of Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment Rights to Familial Relationship)
(42 U.S.C. 1983)
J.R., by and though her Guardian Ad Litem Jasmine Williams; and Plaintiff Debra Moore Against
10
Defendants KIDD, R. SMITH, BROGDEN, T. SMITH and DOES 1-25)
11
12
13
48. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference herein paragraphs 1 through
47 of this Complaint as though fully set forth.
14
49. Defendants, acting under color of state law, and without due process of law, deprived
15
Plaintiffs of their right to a familial relationship by seizing Decedent and by use of unreasonable,
16
unjustified and deadly force and violence, causing injuries which resulted in Decedents death, all
17
without provocation and did attempt to conceal their extraordinary use of force and hide the true
18
cause of Decedents demise in order to deprive Plaintiffs of their right to seek redress in violation of
19
their rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
20
Constitution.
21
22
23
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
24
(Monell 42 U.S.C. section 1983)
25
26
J.R., by and though her Guardian Ad Litem Jasmine Williams; and Plaintiff Debra Moore Against
27
CITY OF ANTIOCH and DOES 26-50)
28
50. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs 1
1
2
through 49 of this Complaint.

51. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that high-ranking City of
Antioch officials, including high-ranking police supervisors and DOES 26 through 50, and/or each of
them, knew and/or reasonably should have known about the repeated acts of unconstitutional use of
force by Antioch Police Officers.
52. Despite having such notice, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon
Allege that City of Antioch and DOES 26-50, and/or each of them, approved, ratified,
condoned, encouraged, sought to cover up, and/or tacitly authorized the continuing
pattern and practice of misconduct and/or civil rights violations by the Antioch Police
10
Department, which brought about Defendants KIDD, R. SMITH, BROGDEN, T. SMITH,
11
and DOES 1-25 unlawfully smothering DECEDENT RUCKS to death.
12
53. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that as
13
a result of the deliberate indifference, reckless and/or conscious disregard of the misconduct by
14
Defendants KIDD, R. SMITH, BROGDEN, T. SMITH and DOES 1-25 and/or each of them,
15
Defendants City of Antioch and/or DOES 26-50 ratified and encouraged these officers to continue
16
their course of misconduct.
17
54. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants City of Antioch and DOES 26-50
18
and/or each of them, were on notice of the Constitutional defects in their training of Antioch
19
police officers, including, but not limited to: unlawfully using excessive force to make detentions
20
and/or arrests.
21
55. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions and/or deliberate indifference by high
22
ranking City of Antioch officials, including high ranking Antioch Police Department
23
supervisors, DOES 26-50, and/or each of them resulted in the deprivation of Plaintiffs
24
and Decedents constitutional rights including, but not limited to: the right to not be
25
deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of the law, as guaranteed by the
26
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and the right to be free from
27
excessive force by police officers, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United
28
States Constitution.
2
3
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Monell Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights)
(42 U.S.C. 1985)
J.R., by and though her Guardian Ad Litem Jasmine Williams, Against Defendants ROSE, KIDD, R.
SMITH, BROGDEN, T. SMITH and DOES 1-50)
9
10
11
12
56. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 55 of

this Complaint.
57. In doing the acts complained of herein, Defendants KIDD, R. SMITH, BROGDEN, T.
13
SMITH and DOES 1 50 and each of them acted in concert and conspired to violate decedents
14
federal civil rights to be free from unreasonable seizures and excessive and/or arbitrary force.
15
58. Defendant KIDD, R. SMITH, BROGDEN, T. SMITH and DOES 1-25 and
16
each of them had knowledge of the wrongs conspired to be done and committed and had the power to
17
prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same. None of the Defendants attempted to
18
prevent and/or stop the violation of the decedents civil rights.
19
59. After the death of Decedent Rucks, Defendants KIDD, R. SMITH, BROGDEN, T.
20
SMITH, ROSE, and does 1-50 conspired for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, and
21
defeating, the due course of justice with regard to the true cause of Decedent Rucks death, with
22
intent to deny Decedent Rucks the equal protection of the laws, by omitting important witness
23
information, which contradicted Defendants version of events.
24
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
25
26
27
28
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Plaintiffs State Statutory Rights)
(Violation of California Civil Code 52.1)
J.R., by and though her Guardian Ad Litem Jasmine Williams; and Plaintiff Debra Moore, Against
7
8
60. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 59 of

this Complaint as though fully set forth.
61. Defendant KIDD, R. SMITH, BROGDEN, T. SMITH and DOES 1-25 above10
11
described conduct constituted interference, and attempted interference, by threats, intimidation and
coercion, with the DECEDENT RUCKs peaceable exercise and enjoyment of rights secured by the
12
Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of California, in violation of California Civil
13
Code 52.1.
14
62. Under the provisions of California Civil Code 52(b), Defendants are liable for
15
punitive damages for each violation of California Civil Code 52.1, reasonable attorneys fees and
16
an additional $25,0000.
17
18
63. As a proximate result of Defendants wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs suffered as

hereinafter set forth below.
64. Plaintiffs contend that the City of Antioch is liable for all state law causes of actions,
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence)
6
7
65. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein paragraphs 1 through 64 of
this Complaint as though fully set forth, except for any and all allegations of intentional, malicious,
extreme, outrageous, wanton, and oppressive conduct by defendants, and any and all allegations
10
11
requesting punitive damages.

66. Defendants and DOES 1-25 inclusive, by and through their respective agents and
12
employees, caused DECEDENT RUCKS death and Plaintiffs injuries, as a result of their negligent
13
conduct and/or negligent failure to act as set-forth herein.
14
15
67. As an actual and proximate result of said defendants negligence, Plaintiffs sustained
pecuniary loss and pain and suffering, in an amount according to proof at trial.
16
68. Plaintiffs contend that the City of Antioch is liable for all state law causes of actions, under
17
the theory of Respondeat Superior, wherein damages occurred while City of Antioch employees were
18
engaged in the performance of their job duties.
19
20
21
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22
(Assault)
23
24
25
26
27
69. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 68 of this

28
70. Defendants above-described conduct constituted assault.

3
4

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

6
(Battery)
7
8
9

10
11
12
72. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 71 of this

13
73. Defendants above-described conduct constituted battery.
14
15
16
17
18
JURY DEMAND
19
20
75. Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial in this action.
21
PRAYER
22
23
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief, as follows:

24
25
1. For general damages in a sum to be determined according to proof;

2. For special damages, including but not limited to, past, present and/or future
26
wage loss, income and support, medical expenses and other special damages in a sum to be
27
determined according to proof;
28
3. For punitive and exemplary damages against Defendants KIDD, R. SMITH,
BROGDEN, T. in amounts to be determined according to proof;

4. For reasonable attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988;
5. For any and all statutory damages allowed by law;

3
4
6. For cost of suit herein incurred; and

7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
5
6
7
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN L. BURRIS
8
9
10
Dated: July 1, 2016
/s/ John L. Burris

John L. Burris
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Dated: July 1, 2016
/s/ Adante D. Pointer

Adante D. Pointer
Dated: July 1, 2016
/s/ Lateef H. Gray___________

Lateef H. Gray
Dated: July 1, 2016
_/s/ Melissa C. Nold_____________

Melissa C. Nold
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case 3:16-cv-03742-EDL
Filed 07/01/16 Page 1 of 2
CIVILDocument
COVER1-1
SHEET
JS 44 (Rev. 12/12)
Cand rev (1/15/13)
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
DEFENDANTS
C.R, I.R., R.R., co successors-in-interest, by and through their Guardian Ad

Litem Beverly McIntosh; J.R., co successor-in-interest by and through her
Guardian Ad Litem Jasmine Williams; and Debra Moore, individually
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CITY OF ANTIOCH; RICKSMITH; CHRIS KIDD; CASEY BROGDEN;

THOMAS SMITH; BRIAN ROSE
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

NOTE:
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Attorneys (If Known)

unk
John L. Burris, Esq./Adante D. Pointer, Esq.

Law Offices of John L. Burris
7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120
Oakland , CA 94621
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only)

1
3 Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
U.S. Government
Defendant
4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
CONTRACT
110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veterans Benefits
160 Stockholders Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise
REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
Citizen of This State
1
U.S. Government
Plaintiff
IV. NATURE OF SUIT
(Place an X in One Box Only)

TORTS
PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities
- Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities
- Other
448 Education
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
463 Alien Detainee
510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
530 General
535 Death Penalty
Other:
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement
and One Box for Defendant)

PTF
DEF
x 4
Incorporated or Principal Place
4
of Business In This State
Citizen of Another State
Incorporated and Principal Place

of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country
Foreign Nation
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
PERSONAL INJURY
365 Personal Injury Product Liability
367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal
Property Damage
385 Property Damage
Product Liability
DEF
625 Drug Related Seizure

of Property 21 USC 881
690 Other
BANKRUPTCY
OTHER STATUTES
422 Appeal 28 USC 158

423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
375 False Claims Act

400 State Reapportionment
410 Antitrust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
890 Other Statutory Actions
891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
895 Freedom of Information
Act
896 Arbitration
899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes
PROPERTY RIGHTS
820 Copyrights
830 Patent
840 Trademark
LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
720 Labor/Management
Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act
SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS

870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
871 IRSThird Party
26 USC 7609
IMMIGRATION
462 Naturalization Application
465 Other Immigration
Actions
V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)

1 Original
Proceeding
2 Removed from
State Court
3 Remanded from
Appellate Court
Reinstated or
Reopened
5 Transferred from
Another District
6 Multidistrict
Litigation
(specify)
VI. CAUSE OF
ACTION
VII. REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 U.S.C. 1983
Brief description of cause:
Wrongful Death
To be determined by
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
DEMAND $
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
jury
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Yes
No
JURY DEMAND:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)

IF ANY
(See instructions):
JUDGE
IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil L.R. 3-2)

(Place an X in One Box Only)
DATE
DOCKET NUMBER
(X) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
( ) SAN JOSE
( ) EUREKA
07/01/2016
Case 3:16-cv-03742-EDL
Document 1-1 Filed 07/01/16 Page 2 of 2
/s/ John L. Burris
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading 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. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I. (a)
(b)
(c)
Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at
the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In
land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment,
noting in this section "(see attachment)".
II.
Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III.
Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark
this section for each principal party.
IV.
Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more
than one nature of suit, select the most definitive.
V.
Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407.
When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.
VI.
Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII.
Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII.
Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Rucks Lawsuit

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Rucks Lawsuit

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case 3:16-cv-03742-EDL Document 1 Filed 07/01/16 Page 1 of 16

JOHN L. BURRIS, Esq. SBN 69888

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

C.R., co-successor-in-interest to Decedent

COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL DEATH

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, WRONGFUL DEATH & DAMAGES - 1

Case 3:16-cv-03742-EDL Document 1 Filed 07/01/16 Page 2 of 16

2. The present action is brought on behalf of Decedent Rakeem Rucks four

4. Decedent, RAKEEM RUCKS (hereinafter DECEDENT RUCKS), was an individual

BEVERLY JOHNSON, as Decedent RUCKSs child and in a representative capacity as co-

successor-in-interest to Decedent RUCKS pursuant, to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections

377.30.and 377.60 and California Probate Code Section 6402.

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, WRONGFUL DEATH & DAMAGES - 2

Case 3:16-cv-03742-EDL Document 1 Filed 07/01/16 Page 3 of 16

successor-in-interest to Decedent RUCKS, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections

377.30.and 377.60 and California Probate Code Section 6402.

BEVERLY JOHNSON, as Decedent RUCKSs child and in a representative capacity as co-

successor-in-interest to Decedent RUCKS, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections

377.30.and 377.60 and California Probate Code Section 6402.

Police Department operates under the supervision of the CITY OF ANTIOCH.

individually and in his official capacity.

12. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant CHRIS KIDD, (hereinafter

13. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant CASEY BROGDEN, (hereinafter

sued individually and in his official capacity.

15. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant BRIAN ROSE, (hereinafter

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, WRONGFUL DEATH & DAMAGES - 3

Case 3:16-cv-03742-EDL Document 1 Filed 07/01/16 Page 4 of 16

as employees of City of Antioch Police Department.

lawsuit against the City of Antioch and the involved Officers.

employees were engaged in the performance of their job duties.

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, WRONGFUL DEATH & DAMAGES - 4

Case 3:16-cv-03742-EDL Document 1 Filed 07/01/16 Page 5 of 16

verbal commands, Defendant Brogden thereafter handcuffed Decedent Rucks.

against a man in obvious medical and mental distress.

was fine and to calm down.

hold Decedent Rucks face down in the dirt.

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, WRONGFUL DEATH & DAMAGES - 5

Case 3:16-cv-03742-EDL Document 1 Filed 07/01/16 Page 6 of 16

inclusive, demonstrates the existence of an entrenched culture, policy or practice of promoting,

ROSE and Does 1-25 inclusive, misconduct.

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, WRONGFUL DEATH & DAMAGES - 6

Case 3:16-cv-03742-EDL Document 1 Filed 07/01/16 Page 7 of 16

Detective ROSE attempted to cover up Defendant Officers conduct by omitting important

unreasonable and outrageous use of deadly force.

official policy rooted in an entrenched posture of deliberate indifference to the

and/or practice and the complained of conduct and resultant injuries/violations.

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, WRONGFUL DEATH & DAMAGES - 7

Case 3:16-cv-03742-EDL Document 1 Filed 07/01/16 Page 8 of 16

38. As a consequence of Defendants violation of Decedents federal civil rights

violation of his civil rights.

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, WRONGFUL DEATH & DAMAGES - 8

Case 3:16-cv-03742-EDL Document 1 Filed 07/01/16 Page 9 of 16

this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985-86 and 1988.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution

(42 U.S.C. 1983)

R. SMITH, BROGDEN, T. SMITH and DOES 1-25)

42. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 41 of this

deadly force against him.

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS, WRONGFUL DEATH & DAMAGES - 9

Case 3:16-cv-03742-EDL Document 1 Filed 07/01/16 Page 10 of 16

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution;