Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
11
12
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
17 )
S.C.D.P., a minor, by and through her CASE NO.: 2:19-cv-10712 DMG-MRW
)
18 guardian ad litem, DECERY CAPPONI, ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
)
individually and as Successor-In-Interest FOR DAMAGES:
19
to BRIAN STATLER JR; BRIAN ) (1) Fourth Amendment—Excessive
) Force (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
20 STATLER SR., individually; and ) (2) Fourteenth Amendment—
STACEY MEADORS, individually, ) Substantive Due Process (42
21 ) U.S.C. § 1983)
Plaintiff, ) (3) Municipal Liability—
22
vs. ) Unconstitutional Custom or Policy
) (4) Municipal Liability—Ratification
23 ) (5) Municipal Liability—Failure to
CITY OF INGLEWOOD, a public entity, ) Train
24
and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, ) (6) Violation of Civil Rights—CCC §
) 52.1 (The Bane Act)
25 ) (7) Negligence
Defendants. ) (8) Battery (Civil Code Section 43)
26 )
)
27 ) (DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL)
28
1 to STACEY MEADORS informing her that her Claim for Damages had been rejected.
2 On or about September 14, 2019, STACEY MEADORS filed an Amended Claim for
3 Damages with the CITY OF INGLEWOOD. The CITY OF INGLEWOOD never
4 responded to her Amended Claim for Damages.
5 PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
6 5. S.C.D.P. is a citizen of the United States, who at the time of the violations
7 alleged, lived with her mother, Decery Capponi, in Inglewood, California, which is
8 located within Los Angeles County. At all relevant times, S.C.D.P. was and continues to
9 be a minor, having been born in the year 2017. S.C.D.P. is the biological daughter of
10 Decedent BRIAN STATLER JR. A copy of S.C.D.P.’s successor-in-interest statement
11 is attached as Exhibit 1.
12 6. At all relevant times, Plaintiff BRIAN STATLER SR. is a resident of the State
13 of Missouri and is the biological father of Decedent BRIAN STATLER JR.
14 7. At all relevant times, Plaintiff STACEY MEADORS is a resident of the State
15 of Pennsylvania and is the biological mother of Decedent BRIAN STATLER JR.
16 8. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and allege, that at all relevant times, Defendant
17 CITY OF INGLEWOOD (hereinafter “the CITY” or “Inglewood”) was a public entity
18 and/or municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the
19 laws of the State of California.
20 9. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and allege, that at all relevant times,
21 Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, were sworn police officers, sworn police
22 supervisors, managers, officials and/or employees of Defendant CITY OF
23 INGLEWOOD. Plaintiffs are further informed, believe, and allege, that at all relevant
24 times, Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, were acting in the course and scope or
25 their employment with Defendant CITY OF INGLEWOOD and are liable under the
26 doctrine of respondeat superior pursuant to Section 815.2 of the California Government
27 Code.
28
1 10. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and allege, that at all relevant times,
2 Defendants, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, were employees of Defendant CITY OF
3 INGLEWOOD and/or DOES 1 through 10 and were responsible for implementing,
4 promulgating, maintaining, sanctioning, condoning, and/or ratifying policies,
5 procedures, practice, and/or customs, under which the other Defendants committed the
6 illegal or wrongful acts complained of. Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, were
7 acting in the course and scope or their employment with Defendant CITY OF
8 INGLEWOOD and are liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior pursuant to
9 Section 815.2 of the California Government Code.
10 11. The true names, identities or capacities, whether individual, associate,
11 corporate or otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
12 are unknown to Plaintiffs so said Defendants by such fictitious names. When the true
13 names, identities or capacities of such fictitiously designated Defendants are ascertained,
14 Plaintiffs will ask leave of Court to amend the complaint to assert the true names,
15 identities, and capacities, together with the proper charging allegations.
16 12. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and allege, that at all relevant times, that each
17 of the Defendants designated as a DOE is responsible, in some manner, for the events
18 and happenings referred to, and proximately caused the injuries and damages to
19 Plaintiffs as alleged.
20 13. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and allege, that at all relevant times,
21 Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants, employees, and joint venturers
22 of each other and of their co-Defendants, and were acting within the course and scope of
23 their employment, agency or joint venture, and that all acts, conduct or omissions were
24 subsequently ratified by them and the benefits accepted by them.
25 14. Plaintiffs name Defendants, and each of them, because Plaintiffs do not know
26 exactly from which of Defendants Plaintiffs are entitled to redress and whether the
27 injuries and damages to Plaintiff as alleged were caused by the combined negligence of
28 all Defendants or by the concurrent or successive and separate negligence of each
1 Defendant, and/or one or more of them. For that reason, Plaintiffs name all of
2 Defendants and will ask: for the determination of the liability of each and all of said
3 Defendants in this action; to what extent and what responsibility falls upon each of the
4 said Defendants; and, that judgment be awarded to Plaintiffs as against any or all of
5 Defendants, either jointly or severally, as may be found liable.
6 15. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and allege, that at all relevant times, each
7 Defendant was completely dominated and controlled by his/her/its co-Defendant and
8 each was the alter ego of the other as to the events set forth in this Complaint.
9 16. Each of the individual Defendants sued in this action is sued both in his/her
10 individual and personal capacity, as well as in his/her official capacity.
11 17. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants, and each of them, were acting
12 under color of the laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of the
13 State of California and County of Los Angeles, and under their official authority and
14 their policies, procedures, practices, and/or customs established by directives and/or
15 other acts of the City of Inglewood Police Department and Defendant CITY OF
16 INGLEWOOD and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.
17 18. This is an action for damages and such other and further relief as may be
18 consistent with law pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to redress violations of the Decedent’s
19 rights protected by the United States, by persons action under color of state law.
20 19. This is also a survivor’s action and one for wrongful death brought pursuant
21 to the Constitution, statutes and/or common law of the State of California.
22
23 FACTS
24 20. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that on March 27, 2019, their son and
25 father, respectively, BRIAN STATLER JR. (“DECEDENT”), was shot and killed by at
26 least one Inglewood Police Department DOE DEFENDANT officer at or around 315 S.
27 Market Street in Inglewood California. As a result of the gunshot(s) inflicted upon
28
1 BRIAN STATLER JR., he suffered fatal injuries. The present action arises from these
2 facts.
3 21. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that at the above-identified date and at
4 or near the above-identified location, Decedent was lawfully at that location when he
5 was shot by DOES 1-10. PLAINTIFFS are further informed and believe that DOES 1-
6 10 were employed and working within the course and scope of employment as an officer
7 for the Inglewood Police Department and Defendant CITY OF INGLEWOOD.
8 22. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that DOES 1 through 10 unreasonably
9 assessed the circumstances presented to them, and violently confronted Decedent
10 without probable cause or reasonable suspicion that Decedent had committed a crime, or
11 would commit a crime in the future. PLAINTIFFS are further informed and believes
12 that, without warning, DOES 1-10 discharged department-issued firearm(s) at the
13 Decedent without provocation. Decedent suffered severe injuries, and ultimately death,
14 as a direct and proximate result of his gunshot wound(s).
15 23. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe that both prior to and during the time
16 in which he was shot, Decedent made no aggressive movements, no furtive gestures, and
17 no physical movements which would suggest to a reasonable officer that Decedent
18 intended to inflict substantial bodily harm against any individual. PLAINTIFFS are
19 further informed and believe that both prior to and during the time in which Defendants
20 DOES 1 through 10 shot Decedent, they were not faced with any circumstances that
21 would have led a reasonable officer to believe that Decedent posed the risk of death or
22 serious bodily injury to any person.
23 24. PLAINTIFFS are informed, believes, and alleges, that Defendants DOES 1
24 through 10, inclusive, agreed and conspired to justify and cover up the misconduct
25 alleged, among other things, preparing and filing false reports regarding the shooting
26 incident that led to the death of Decedent, and accusing Decedent of violations of laws.
27 ///
28 ///
1 this claim individually and seek wrongful death damages. PLAINTIFFS also seek
2 attorney’s fees.
3
10
1 investigate, terminate, and recommend deputies for criminal prosecution who participate
2 in shootings of unarmed people;
3 k. Refusing to discipline, terminate or retrain the officers in shootings, even
4 where shootings were determined to be unconstitutional;
5 l. Having and maintaining an unconstitutional custom and practice of using
6 excessive force and covering up police misconduct. These customs and practices by
7 CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOE SUPERVISORS 1-10 were condoned by
8 Defendants in deliberate indifference to the safety and rights of its civilians, including
9 PLAINTIFFS and DECEDENT; and,
10 44. By reason of the stated policies, customs and practices of Defendant CITY
11 OF INGLEWOOD and DOE SUPERVISORS 1-10, PLAINTIFFS experienced severe
12 pain and suffering and the loss of their son, for which they are entitled to recover
13 damages. The stated acts and omissions also caused DECEDENT’S pain and suffering,
14 loss of enjoyment of life, and death.
15 45. Defendants CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOE SUPERVISORS 1-10
16 together with various other officials, whether named or unnamed, had either actual or
17 constructive knowledge of the different policies, practices and customs alleged in the
18 paragraphs above. Despite having knowledge as stated above, Defendants condoned,
19 tolerated and, through actions and omissions, ratified such policies. Defendants also
20 acted with deliberate indifference to both the foreseeable effects and consequences of
21 these policies and the constitutional rights of PLAINTIFFS, and other individuals
22 similarly situated.
23 46. By perpetuating, sanctioning, tolerating, and ratifying the outrageous conduct
24 and other wrongful acts, Defendants CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOE
25 SUPERVISORS 1-10, acted with intentional, reckless, and callous disregard for the
26 well-being of DECEDENT and his constitutional as well as human rights. Defendants
27 CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOE SUPERVISORS 1-10, and each of their actions were
28
11
12
1 individual defendants’ acts and bases for them. Upon information and belief, the final
2 policymaker knew and specifically approved of individual Defendants’ acts.
3 55. Upon information and belief a policymaker has determined (or will
4 determine) that the acts of DOES 1-10 were “within policy.”
5 56. By reason of the stated acts and omissions, PLAINTIFFS have been deprived
6 of the life-ling love, companionship, comfort, support, society, care and sustenance of
7 DECEDENT, and will continue to be so deprived for the remainder of their natural lives.
8 The stated acts and omissions also caused DECEDENT’S pain and suffering, loss of
9 enjoyment of life, and death.
10 57. Accordingly, Defendant CITY OF INGLEWOOD and DOES 1-10 are liable
11 to PLAINTIFFS for compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
12 58. PLAINTIFF S.C.D.P. brings this claim individually and as Successor-in-
13 Interest to DECEDENT and seeks wrongful death damages and survival damages.
14 PLAINTIFFS BRIAN STATLER, SR. and STACEY MEADORS bring this claim bring
15 this claim individually and seek wrongful death damages. PLAINTIFFS also seek
16 attorney’s fees.
17
28
13
14
15
16
1 DECEDENT posed no threat of physical harm to any person when he was shot,
2 negligently inflicting physical injury upon DECEDENT as described, and negligently
3 employing deadly force against DECEDENT when it was unnecessary and unlawful.
4 All of these negligent acts proximately caused DECEDENT’S injuries and death.
5 82. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that the subject incident was
6 additionally caused by the negligent deployment of Defendants CITY OF
7 INGLEWOOD and/or DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and the failure of these
8 supervisors and employees to develop a tactically sound plan for detaining DECEDENT
9 while investigating DECEDENT’S reason(s) for being at the location, to determine if
10 DECEDENT was a danger to anyone present at the location. PLAINTIFF is further
11 informed and believe that, as a result, Defendants’ negligent actions and negligent
12 decisions led to poor decisions regarding numerous tactical issues including (but not
13 limited to) failure to properly investigate DECEDENT’S reason(s) for being at the
14 location, failure to determine if any of the people present at the location were in danger,
15 and negligent assessment and reassessment of the nonexistent threat presented by
16 DECEDENT.
17 83. As a direct and proximate cause of the acts alleged, DECEDENT suffered
18 severe bodily injury and death. As a result, PLAINTIFF has been deprived of the love,
19 affection, care, society, service, comfort, support, right to support, companionship,
20 solace or moral support, as well as other benefits and assistance of decedent.
21 PLAINTIFF has also incurred burial and funeral expenses. PLAINTIFF was damaged
22 as a proximate result of the alleged acts and omissions in an amount and manner to be
23 shown according to proof at trial.
24 84. The conduct of Defendants was a substantial factor in causing PLAINTIFF’S
25 harms, losses, injuries and damages.
26 85. CITY OF INGLEWOOD is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of DOES
27 1-10 pursuant to section 815.2(a) of the California Government Code, which provides
28
17
1 that a public entity is liable for the injuries caused by its employees within the scope of
2 employment if the employee’s act would subject him or her to liability.
3 86. As an actual and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, and the
4 resulting death of DECEDENT, PLAINTIFF has sustained pecuniary loss resulting from
5 the loss of companionship, comfort, support, society, care, sustenance and services of
6 DECEDENT, and will continue to be so deprived for the remainder of their natural lives,
7 in an amount according to proof at trial.
8 87. As a further actual and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence,
9 PLAINTIFF incurred funeral and burial expenses, in an amount according to proof at
10 trial.
11 88. Pursuant to California C.C.P §§ 377.30, 377.60 and 377.61, PLAINTIFF
12 S.C.D.P. brings this claim individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Decedent and
13 seeks wrongful death damages and survival damages under this claim.
14
18
1 92. As a direct and proximate cause of the acts alleged, DECEDENT suffered
2 severe bodily injury and death. As a result, PLAINTIFF has been deprived of the love,
3 affection, care, society, service, comfort, support, right to support, companionship,
4 solace or moral support, as well as other benefits and assistance of decedent.
5 PLAINTIFF has also incurred burial and funeral expenses. PLAINTIFF was damaged
6 as a proximate result of the alleged acts and omissions in an amount and manner to be
7 shown according to proof at trial.
8 93. CITY OF INGLEWOOD is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of DOES
9 1-10 pursuant to section 815.2(a) of the California Government Code, which provides
10 that a public entity is liable for the injuries caused by its employees within the scope of
11 employment if the employee’s act would subject him or her to liability.
12 94. The alleged acts of the individual Defendants were willful, wanton, malicious,
13 and oppressive, and justify the award of exemplary and punitive damages as to Does 1-
14 10.
15 95. PLAINTIFF S.C.D.P. brings this claim individually and as a Successor-in-
16 Interest to DECEDENT. PLAINTIFF seeks survival damages and wrongful death
17 damages under this claim.
18
19
1 5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
2
3
Dated: March 14, 2020 ROBERT STANFORD BROWN, APC
TAYLOR & RING, LLP
4
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
6
Dated: March 14, 2020 ROBERT STANFORD. BROWN, APC
TAYLOR & RING, LLP
7
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21