Leng Family Sues Issaquah Police

Case 2:19-cv-00490-TSZ Document 1 Filed 04/03/19 Page 1 of 20
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
8
9
ESTATE OF WANGSHENG LENG, by No. 19-490
and through administrator, LIPING
10
YANG,
11
Plaintiffs,
12
v.
13 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
THE CITY OF ISSAQUAH,
14 ISSAQUAH POLICE OFFICER M.
LUNCHT #1201, and ISSAQUAH
15 POLICE OFFICER KYLEN
WHITTOM #1210,
16
Defendants.
17
18
COMPLAINT
19
Plaintiffs, ESTATE OF WANGSHEN LENG, by and through
20
administrator LIPING YANG, and LIPING YANG in her own personal
21
capacity, complain of Defendants THE CITY OF ISSAQUAH, ISSAQUAH
22
POLICE OFFICER M. LUNCHT #1201, and ISSAQUAH POLICE OFFICER
23
K. WHITTOM, #1210, as follows:
24
Complaint – Page 1 LOEVY & LOEVY
Case No. 311 N. ABERDEEN STREET 3FL
CHICAGO, IL 60607
TELEPHONE: (312) 243-5900
1 Introduction
2 1. Wangsheng Leng should be alive today. Tragically, however, his life
3 was taken from him due to the excessive use of force of two Issaquah Police
4 Department officers—Defendant M. Luncht #1201, and Defendant Kellyn
5
Whittom #1210 (the “Defendant Officers”).
6
2. Despite the fact that he was a slight, elderly man with an obvious
7
inability to communicate with them, despite the fact that no crime had occurred,
8
and despite the fact that there was no reasonable basis for believing a crime had
9
happened, the Defendant Officers rushed into Mr. Leng’s apartment to unlawfully
10
seize him within in his own home.
11
3. In so doing, and though no amount of force was justified, among
12
other injuries, the Defendant Officers broke Mr. Leng’s cervical spine, causing him
13
to go limp. Despite the eventual medical treatment Mr. Leng received, he was
14
unable to overcome the injuries unconscionably inflicted on him by the Defendant
15
Officers in violation of his rights, and died as a result of the Defendant Officers’
16
17 egregious conduct. .
18 4. Coming near the door of his own apartment and speaking a language
19 they did not understand was all it took for Defendants Luncht and Whittom
20 unlawfully seize and ultimately kill Mr. Leng.
21 5. Given the flagrancy of the Defendant Officers’ conduct and the fact
22 that the City of Issaquah has approved of their actions, is plain that the Issaquah
23 Police Department failed to adequately train, supervise, and discipline its officers
24
CHICAGO, IL 60607
TELEPHONE: (312) 243-5900
1 and further that the City ratified their actions. As a result, the City of Issaquah is
2 liable for the unconstitutional death of Mr. Leng as well.
3 6. Nothing can bring Mr. Leng back to his loving family, friends, and
4 community. This action, brought under the United States Constitution, the
5
Constitution of the State of Washington, and other Washignton law nonetheless
6
seeks some measure justice for the wrongful, unjustified actions of the Defendant
7
Officers and the City of Issaquah.
8
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9
7. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
10
8. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The events giving rise to
11
the claims asserted herein all occurred within this district, and, upon information
12
and belief, all of the parties reside in King County.
13
PARTIES
14
9. The Estate of Wangsheng Leng represents the property and legal
15
interests of decedent Wangsheng Leng.
16
10. Liping Yang, loved her husband dearly, and enjoyed the life they
17
shared together for decades of marriage. Mrs. Yang is the widow of Wangsheng
18
Leng and court-appointed administrator of his Estate.
19
20 11. Defendant City of Issaquah is a Washington municipal corporation
21 that operates the Issaquah Police Department (the “IPD” or “Department”), which
22 in turn sets city-wide policy for the conduct of police officers employed by the
23 Department.
24
CHICAGO, IL 60607
TELEPHONE: (312) 243-5900
1 12. Defendants M. Luncht #1201, and Kylen Whittom, #1210 (the
2 “Defendant Officers”) are sworn IPD police officers who, at all times relevant to
3 this action, were acting under color of law and within the scope of their
4 employment as a Issaquah police officers.
5 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
6
13. Wangsheng Leng and Mrs. Yang were married in 1978, and
7
had been happily married for thirty years.
8
14. To be closer to Mrs. Yang’s family residing in Washington, Mr.
9 Leng and his wife moved from China to Issaquah in 2010 as they began the
10 first stages of retirement.
11 15. Issaquah is home to a vibrant Chinese community,
12 particularly downtown where there is a community center, library, and
13 other civic places of gathering.
14 16. As a result, the City of Issaquah understands that many of its
15 citizens are native Chinese speakers and host programs and posts signs in
16 Chinese to reflect this demographic fact. Issaquah Police Department
17 officers also know that they will frequently encounter civilians who are
18 unable to speak fluent—or any—English.
19 17. On August 5, 2018, Wangsheng Leng and Plaintiff Yang
20 proceeded through their day like they had many others. They prepared food
21 and went for a lengthy walk in the neighborhood, enjoying the warm
22 weather summer in the Northwest in the shadow of Issaquah’s Squak
23 Mountain.
24
CHICAGO, IL 60607
TELEPHONE: (312) 243-5900
1 18. That afternoon, Mr. Leng and Mrs. Yang were at their
2 apartment in Issaquah.
3 19. Mr. Leng and Mrs. Yang responded to a knock at the door of
4 their apartment.
5 20. Surprisingly, two IPD officers, Defendants Luncht and
6 Whittom, were at the door.
7 21. The Defendant Officers were responding to a purported verbal
8 disturbance relating to an East Asian, received from a 911 caller. Among
9 other things, the Defendant Officers were told that the occupants of the
10 apartment were in their 50-60s.
11 22. When the Defendant Officers arrived, there were no signs of
12 any disturbance, verbal or any other sort.
13 23. When the officers arrived they did not hear any shouting,
14 yelling, or the like.
15 24. Nor did the Defendant Officers speak with the 911 caller.
16 25. Meanwhile, Mr. Leng and Mrs. Yang were quietly spending
17 time at home. They had no idea the police had been called, or that the police
18 were on the way.
19 26. Mr. Leng and Mrs. Yang are native Chinese speakers and do
20 not speak or understand much English.
21 27. The Defendant Officers knocked on the door, which Mrs. Yang
22 opened.
23
24
CHICAGO, IL 60607
TELEPHONE: (312) 243-5900
1 28. It was immediately apparent to the Defendant Officers that
2 they could not communicate with Mrs. Yang, owing to the difference in
3 language.
4 29. When Mr. Leng later entered their view, it was obvious that
5 the Defendant Officers could not communicate with him either.
6 30. The Defendant Officers also observed that Mr. Leng was much
7 shorter than them, that he was elderly, and knew that he was Chinese of
8 another East Asian race.
9 31. Nonetheless, rather than trying to make an effort to
10 meaningfully communicate with him or obtain help the Defendant Officers
11 decided to seize Mr. Leng.
12 32. Doing so was unjustified; Mr. Leng had not committed any
13 crime or done anything unlawful; he had merely walked around his
14 apartment while speaking his native language, which the officers did not
15 understand.
16 33. The Defendant Officers did not have an arrest warrant, search
17 warrant, or any independent lawful basis for entering the home or for
18 seizing Mr. Leng.
19 34. The Defendant Officers did not observe a crime or have
20 probable cause to believe one was being committed in their presence.
21
22
23
24
CHICAGO, IL 60607
TELEPHONE: (312) 243-5900
1 Defendant Officers Unlawfully Seize Mr. Leng And Use

Excessive Force
2
35. In addition to doing nothing that would have justified being
3
seized, Mr. Leng did not do anything would have justified being the subject
4
of any force.
5
36. Nonetheless, when the Defendant Officers decided to
6
unlawfully seize Mr. Leng, they also agreed to do so by force. Working
7
together—as two young, healthy, and strong IPD officers who towered over
8
elderly Mr. Leng—the Defendant Officers forcibly gabbed Mr. Leng by the
9
arms as they stormed into the apartment.
10
37. The Defendant Officers—one on each arm—then threw Mr.
11
Leng on to the couch and began to bend his arms behind his back, applying
12
significant pressure to his spinal cord. The officers, with no justification for
13
so doing, eventually handcuffed Mr. Leng behind his back.
14
38. As a result, Mr. Leng went limp.
15
39. Even then, the Defendant Officers did not remove the
16
handcuffs. They left him there; limp and suffering.
17
40. Even when Mr. Leng regained his ability to move, the
18
Defendant Officers kept him seized and handcuffed in a chair, imposing
19
substantial pain and distress to Mr. Leng as well as Mrs. Yang, who had to
20
watch her husband suffer.
21
41. Both Defendant Luncht and Defendant Whitthom had the
22
opportunity to prevent the other from unlawfully seizing and using
23
excessive force against Mr. Leng, but elected not to do so.
24
CHICAGO, IL 60607
TELEPHONE: (312) 243-5900
1 42. Instead, both officers chose to effectuate a seizure and use
2 force where neither was justified.
3 43. At no point during Mr. Leng’s encounter with the Defendant
4 Officers did Mr. Leng pose any sort of threat to the officers or his wife or
5 anyone else that was sufficient to justify the use of force.
6 The Defendant Officers’ Use of Force Kills Mr. Leng
7 44. Defendant Officers’ use of excessive force did more than cause
8 Mr. Leng to go “limp” for a few moments. Indeed, as medical testing would
9 later confirm, the Defendant Officers’ use of force against Mr. Leng broke
10 his neck, compressed his spine, and irretrievably damaged his cervical
11 spine.
12 45. Mr. Leng also developed orthostatic hypotension—a
13 permanent condition that impacts one’s blood pressure—due to the
14 Defendant Officers excessive force.
15 46. It was obvious that Mr. Leng suffered a significant injury, due
16 to the Defendant Officers’ actions in throwing him to the couch and seizing
17 him.
18 47. The Defendant Officers recognized as much by calling in
19 emergency medical help from other Issaquah first responders. Even then,
20 they kept him in handcuffs.
21 48. The Defendant Officers knew that had made a huge mistake.
22 Rather than admit it, they tried to cover it up. For example, after the
23 incident, the Defendant Officers wrote sworn police reports about the
24
CHICAGO, IL 60607
TELEPHONE: (312) 243-5900
1 incident that included either false statements and/or others that were
2 intentionally misleading. The reports were written this way as an attempt
3 by the Defendant Officers to both minimize their actions and to make it
4 seem as if there was a justification for the seizure and use of force, even
5 though there was not.
6 49. Shockingly, and untruthfully, one report claims there were “no
7 injuries” as a result of the incident, although the officers themselves had
8 called for emergency medical aid.
9 50. In reality, the damage caused by the Defendant Officers was so
10 bad that Mr. Leng had to have surgery in an attempt to repair or at least
11 mitigate the wounds he suffered.
12 51. At the time of the surgery, the outlook was bleak: at best Mr.
13 Leng could expect to be confined to a wheelchair for the remainder of his
14 life, owing to the debilitating spinal fracture and permanent orthostatic
15 hypotension.
16 52. Mr. Leng could also expect to suffer from other health
17 consequences, including but not limited to pneumonia, bed sores, and
18 pulmanory embolism, all as a result of the Defendant Officers use of force.
19 53. Mr. Leng suffered greatly during this period of time—in the
20 days after the Defendant Officer’s unlawful use of force, and after his
21 surgery.
22
23
24
CHICAGO, IL 60607
TELEPHONE: (312) 243-5900
1 54. Mrs. Yang suffered dearly as well, seeing her husband of more
2 than three decades go from physically healthy and happy to physically
3 incapacitated and suffering in hospital.
4 55. Ultimately, the consequences of the Defendant Officers’
5 unlawful use of force were grave.
6 56. Mr. Leng died as a result of the injuries he suffered at the
7 hands of the Defendant Officers.
8 57. Accordingly, the King County Medical Examiner ruled Mr.
9 Leng’s death a homicide.
10 Issaquah’s Polices, Practices, and Training Are the Driving Force

Behind the Unlawful Actions of the Defendant Officers
11
58. The actions of the Defendant Officers were obviously
12
unconstitutional and unlawful. They killed an elderly man who had not done
13
14 anything wrong.
15 59. In the aftermath, however, the City did not repudiate the Officers; it
16 ratified their conduct. Among other things, the City’s supervisors approved of the
17 Defendant Officers’ conduct and did not scrutinize their actions whatsoever.
18 60. The Defendant Officers are newer members of the department, and
19 were trained by the Issaquah police department in how to engage people at their
20 homes, in the use of force, and in attempting to seize someone.

21 61. Upon information and belief, the training the Defendant Officers
22
received was inadequate. The sorts of unlawful actions here could and would not
23
have happened if the officers had been adequately trained or, alternatively, unless
24
CHICAGO, IL 60607
TELEPHONE: (312) 243-5900
1 the Defendant Officers exhibited careless decisionmaking of which the
2 Department was or should have been aware.
3 62. The City of Issaquah found no problems with the use of force or the
4 false arrest of Mr. Leng in this case, including no departures from training.
5
63. The Defendant Officers were not reprimanded or disciplined in any
6
way for their interactions with Mr. Leng or Mrs. Yang.
7
64. The Defendant Officers felt justified to rush into the home and arrest
8
and throw down an elderly man because they knew that they would not receive
9
any meaningful discipline for so doing, a fact that proved true.
10
65. Upon information and belief, the Defendant Officers knew that IPD
11
officers who have been accused of using excessive force are not disciplined.
12
66. As a result of the foregoing, the City of Issaquah’s policies, practices,
13
and customs were the moving force behind the treatment of Mr. Leng by the
14
Defendant Officers.
15
16 Plaintiffs’ Damages
17 67. The Defendants’ actions imposed substantial harm on Mr. Leng
18 during the period of time after which he was seized and before he ultimately
19
passed away. Mr. Leng suffered through the agony of a spinal cord fracture, the
20
pain of a surgery to attempt to repair his spinal cord injury and untold pain over
21
the days that followed before he ultimately succumbed to the officer-inflicted
22
injuries and died.
23
24
CHICAGO, IL 60607
TELEPHONE: (312) 243-5900
1 68. In addition, Mr. Leng, an elderly caring husband, lost the
2 opportunity to live the remainder of his life with the woman he truly loved, Li
3 Yang, his wife of more than 30 years.

4 69. Likewise, Mrs. Yang has suffered an immeasurable harm: losing her
5
husband through the senseless and unjustified actions of police officers. She spent
6
countless hours at the hospital hoping her husband could recover, only to learn
7
that he would not. The remainder of her days will be, and have been, forever
8
altered by the actions of the Defendant Officers.
9
70. Mr. Leng was loved and cared for by his children, extended family
10
members, as well as those within the retired community in Issaquah, of which he
11
was a part. They have all been harmed by his tragic, unnecessary death.
12
13 Count I – Fourth Amendment Excessive Force
14 71. Each of the Paragraphs in this Complaint is incorporated as if
15 restated fully herein.
16 72. As described in the preceding paragraphs, the Defendant Officers’

17 actions toward Wangsheng Leng violated Leng’s constitutional rights, including
18
but not limited to those under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
19
United States Constitution due to the use of force that was entirely unjustified.
20
73. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively
21
unreasonable and undertaken with willfulness and reckless indifference to the
22
rights of others.
23
24
CHICAGO, IL 60607
TELEPHONE: (312) 243-5900
1 74. The conduct described in this Count was undertaken pursuant to
2 the policies, practices, and customs of the City of Issaquah, such that the City can
3 be liable in the following ways:

4 a. The City of Issaquah, through its approval of the Defendant Officers’
5
actions, has ratified their conduct by indicating that the Defendant Officers
6
acted pursuant to the polices, customs, and practices of the Department.
7
b. As a matter of both policy and practice, the City of Issaquah
8
encourages, and is thereby the moving force behind, the very type of
9
misconduct at issue here by failing to adequately train, supervise, control
10
and discipline its officers such that its failure to do so manifests deliberate
11
indifference;
12
c. As a matter of both policy and practice, the City of Issaquah
13
facilitates the very type of misconduct at issue here by failing to adequately
14
15 investigate, punish, and discipline prior instances of similar misconduct,
16 thereby leading IPD officers to believe their actions will never be
17 meaningfully scrutinized and, in that way, directly encouraging future uses
18 of excessive force such as those Plaintiffs complain of;
19 d. The City of Issaquah maintains written policies, but they were
20 obviously deficient here and included a “gap” in policy that would have been
21 obvious to create, given the frequency with which patrol officers encounter
22
citizens who do not speak fluent English but of which IPD officers will later
23
react.
24
CHICAGO, IL 60607
TELEPHONE: (312) 243-5900
1 75. As a result of the City of Issaquah’s policies and practices, and the
2 unjustified and unreasonable conduct of the Defendant Officers, Plaintiffs suffered
3 injuries, including pain, suffering, emotional distress, death, and a host of other
4 harms.
5
Count II – Fourth Amendment Unlawful Seizure
6
76. Each of the Paragraphs of this Complaint is incorporated as if fully
7
stated herein.
8
77. In the manner described in this Complaint, the Defendant Officers
9
violated Mr. Leng’s constitutional rights, causing him damage by unlawfully
10
seizing him in the absence of probable cause, without a warrant, or any other
11
lawful justification in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
12
United States Constitution.
13
78. The misconduct described in this Count caused Wangsheng Leng
14
15 damages, was objectively unreasonable, and was undertaken intentionally with
16 willful indifference to Mr. Leng’s constitutional rights.
17 79. The conduct described in this Count was undertaken pursuant to
18 the policies, practices, and customs of the City of Issaquah, such that the City can
19 be liable in the following ways:
20 a. The City of Issaquah, through its approval of the Defendant Officers’
21 actions, has ratified their conduct by indicating that the Defendant Officers
22 acted pursuant to the polices, customs, and practices of the Department
23
24
CHICAGO, IL 60607
TELEPHONE: (312) 243-5900
1 b. As a matter of both policy and practice, the City of Issaquah
2 encourages, and is thereby the moving force behind, the very type of
3 misconduct at issue here by failing to adequately train, supervise, control

4 and discipline its officers such that its failure to do so manifests deliberate
5
indifference;
6
c. As a matter of both policy and practice, the City of Issaquah
7
facilitates the very type of misconduct at issue here by failing to adequately
8
investigate, punish, and discipline prior instances of similar misconduct,
9
thereby leading IPD officers to believe their actions will never be
10
meaningfully scrutinized and, in that way, directly encouraging future uses
11
of excessive force such as those Plaintiffs complain of;
12
d. The City of Issaquah maintains written policies, but they were
13
obviously deficient here and included a “gap” in policy that would have been
14
15 obvious to create, given the frequency with which patrol officers encounter
16 citizens who do not speak fluent English but of which IPD officers will later
17 react.
18 80. As a result of the City of Issaquah’s policies and practices, and the
19 unjustified and unreasonable conduct of the Defendant Officers, Plaintiffs suffered
20 injuries, including pain, suffering, emotional distress, death, and a host of other
21 harms.
22
23
24
CHICAGO, IL 60607
TELEPHONE: (312) 243-5900
1 Count III—State Law Claim

Assault & Battery
2
81. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully
3
herein.
4
82. As described above, the Defendant Castro used force against Mr.
5
6 Leng, resulting in harmful or offensive contact.
7 83. In using force against Mr. Leng, the Defendant Officers intended to
8 cause physical pain or injury, to be insulting, and/or to cause offensive contact.
9 84. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken with
10 willfulness and reckless indifference to the rights of others.
11 85. As a proximate result of this misconduct, Mr. Leng suffered severe
12 physical pain, emotional distress and anguish, and death.

13
Count IV—State Law Claim
14 Wrongful Death
15
16
stated herein.
17
87. All Defendants are liable for damages arising from the Defendant
18
Officers’ unlawful conduct that caused Mr. Leng’s death in that Mr. Leng’s injuries
19
and death were caused by the Defendant Officers’ wrongful acts, neglect,
20
carelessness, unskillfulness, or default while the Defendant Officers were was
21
acting as agents of the City of Issaquah.
22
23
24
CHICAGO, IL 60607
TELEPHONE: (312) 243-5900
1 88. The Defendant Officers’ actions as described in this Complaint were
2 a substantial factor in bringing about Wangsheng Leng’s death, and without those
3 actions, the death of Mr. Leng would not have occurred.

4 89. Li Yang, Mr. Leng’s wife, has suffered loss of companionship and
5
mental anguish as a result of the wrongful death of Wangsheng Leng.
6
Count V—State Law Claim
7 Survival Action
8
9
stated herein.
10
91. Plaintiff Li Yang is the legal representative authorized to pursue
11
these claims against Defendants.
12
92. Prior to his death, Wangsheng Leng suffered serious personal
13
injuries including but not limited to severe pain and emotional distress.
14
93. All Defendants are liable for these damages arising from the
15
Defendant Officers’ unlawful conduct that caused Mr. Leng severe pain and
16
17 emotional distress in that Mr. Leng’s injuries were caused by the Defendant
18 Officers’ wrongful acts, neglect, carelessness, unskillfulness, or default while
19 acting as an agent of the City of Issaquah.
20 94. The Defendant Officers’ actions as described in this Complaint were
21 a substantial factor in bringing about the injuries described in this Count, and
22 without those actions, these injuries would not have occurred.

23
Count VI—State Law Claim
24
CHICAGO, IL 60607
TELEPHONE: (312) 243-5900
1 Article I, Section 7, Washington Constitution
2
3
stated herein.
4
96. In the manner described more fully above, the Defendant Officers
5
violated Article I, Section 7of the Constitution of the State of Washington.
6
97. The conduct described in this Count caused both Mr. Leng and Mrs.
7
Yang damages, and was further taken willfully or with reckless indifference to the
8
rights of others.
9
10 98. As a result of the violation of their rights under the Washington
11 State Constitution, Plaintiffs are entitled to equitable relief.
12
13
14
15 Count VII—State Law Claim

Indemnification
16
17 99. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully
18 herein.
19 100. In committing the acts alleged in the preceding paragraphs, the
20 Defendant Officers acted at all relevant times within the scope of their
21 employment for the City of Issaquah.
22 101. As a result, pursuant to State Law, the City of Issaquah must

23 indemnify the Defendant Officers for any judgment against them.
24
CHICAGO, IL 60607
TELEPHONE: (312) 243-5900
1 Count VIII—State Law Claim

Respondeat Superior
2
102. Each paragraph of this Complaint is incorporated as if restated fully
3
4 herein.
5 103. In committing the acts alleged in the preceding paragraphs, the
6 Defendant Officers acted at all relevant times within the scope of their
7 employment for the City of Issaquah.
8 104. Defendant City of Issaquah, as principal, is liable for all torts,
9 including Counts III-VIII above, committed by its agents.
10
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court enter
11
judgment in her favor and against Defendants the CITY OF ISSAQUAH,
12
ISSAQUAH POLICE OFFICER M. LUNCHT #1201, and ISSAQUAH POLICE
13
OFFICER K. WHITTOM, #1210a, award compensatory damages and attorneys’
14
fees, as well as punitive damages against ISSAQUAH POLICE OFFICERS M.
15
LUNCHT #1201 K. WHITTOM, #1210, and any other relief this Court deems just
16
17 and appropriate, including but not limited to equitable and/or injunctive relief.
18 Plaintiffs prays that should a judgment be entered against the City of Issaquah on
19 the federal claims above that injunctive relief be entered so that the policies,
20 practices, and customs of the Department that led to the tragic death of Mr. Leng
21 can be reformed and, hopefully, prevent further damage to the community in the
22 future.
23
24
CHICAGO, IL 60607
TELEPHONE: (312) 243-5900
1 JURY DEMAND
2 Plaintiffs hereby demands a trial by jury pursuant to Federal Rule of
3 Civil Procedure 38(b) on all issues so triable.
4
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
5
6
s/David B. Owens
One of Plaintiffs’ Attorneys
7
8
LOEVY & LOEVY
9 David B. Owens, WSBA #53856
311 N. Aberdeen St., 3rd Fl.
Chicago, IL 60607
10
O: 312.243.5900
david@loevy.com
11
12 LAW OFFICE OF HARRY WILLIAMS LLC.

Harry Williams IV, WSBA #41020
13
harry@harrywilliamslaw.com.
14 707 East Harrison
Seattle WA 98102
15 206.451.7195
16
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
CHICAGO, IL 60607
TELEPHONE: (312) 243-5900

Leng Family Sues Issaquah Police

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Leng Family Sues Issaquah Police

Caricato da

Copyright:

Case 2:19-cv-00490-TSZ Document 1 Filed 04/03/19 Page 1 of 20

2 1. Wangsheng Leng should be alive today. Tragically, however, his life

20 unlawfully seize and ultimately kill Mr. Leng.

2 liable for the unconstitutional death of Mr. Leng as well.

20 11. Defendant City of Issaquah is a Washington municipal corporation

1 12. Defendants M. Luncht #1201, and Kylen Whittom, #1210 (the

5 20. Surprisingly, two IPD officers, Defendants Luncht and

6 Whittom, were at the door.

7 21. The Defendant Officers were responding to a purported verbal

8 disturbance relating to an East Asian, received from a 911 caller. Among

10 apartment were in their 50-60s.

11 22. When the Defendant Officers arrived, there were no signs of

12 any disturbance, verbal or any other sort.

14 yelling, or the like.

18 were on the way.

20 not speak or understand much English.

1 28. It was immediately apparent to the Defendant Officers that

5 the Defendant Officers could not communicate with him either.

8 another East Asian race.

9 31. Nonetheless, rather than trying to make an effort to

10 meaningfully communicate with him or obtain help the Defendant Officers

11 decided to seize Mr. Leng.

13 crime or done anything unlawful; he had merely walked around his

18 seizing Mr. Leng.

19 34. The Defendant Officers did not observe a crime or have

20 probable cause to believe one was being committed in their presence.

1 Defendant Officers Unlawfully Seize Mr. Leng And Use

1 42. Instead, both officers chose to effectuate a seizure and use

2 force where neither was justified.

3 43. At no point during Mr. Leng’s encounter with the Defendant

5 anyone else that was sufficient to justify the use of force.

6 The Defendant Officers’ Use of Force Kills Mr. Leng

12 45. Mr. Leng also developed orthostatic hypotension—a

13 permanent condition that impacts one’s blood pressure—due to the

14 Defendant Officers excessive force.

18 47. The Defendant Officers recognized as much by calling in

20 they kept him in handcuffs.

2 intentionally misleading. The reports were written this way as an attempt

3 by the Defendant Officers to both minimize their actions and to make it

5 though there was not.

7 injuries” as a result of the incident, although the officers themselves had

8 called for emergency medical aid.

9 50. In reality, the damage caused by the Defendant Officers was so

11 mitigate the wounds he suffered.

13 Leng could expect to be confined to a wheelchair for the remainder of his

14 life, owing to the debilitating spinal fracture and permanent orthostatic

17 consequences, including but not limited to pneumonia, bed sores, and

18 pulmanory embolism, all as a result of the Defendant Officers use of force.

2 than three decades go from physically healthy and happy to physically

3 incapacitated and suffering in hospital.

4 55. Ultimately, the consequences of the Defendant Officers’

5 unlawful use of force were grave.

6 56. Mr. Leng died as a result of the injuries he suffered at the

7 hands of the Defendant Officers.

8 57. Accordingly, the King County Medical Examiner ruled Mr.

9 Leng’s death a homicide.

10 Issaquah’s Polices, Practices, and Training Are the Driving Force

20 homes, in the use of force, and in attempting to seize someone.

1 the Defendant Officers exhibited careless decisionmaking of which the

2 Department was or should have been aware.

17 67. The Defendants’ actions imposed substantial harm on Mr. Leng

1 68. In addition, Mr. Leng, an elderly caring husband, lost the

3 Yang, his wife of more than 30 years.

13 Count I – Fourth Amendment Excessive Force

14 71. Each of the Paragraphs in this Complaint is incorporated as if

15 restated fully herein.