D N v Fischer, County (Anon )

2 MB·English

eon {SIN 195200
shell (SBN 87151)
Belt Auno (SBN 181689),
Tho Gilleoa Jae Firm

3 1320 Columbia Steeet, Suite 200

101
fax: 619.7

San Diego. CA
HTel: 610,702.86
jinn gt ‘conkan:

Orr

/Atuorssys for Plaintiff DN.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CATIRORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
(Central)

DN. CASE NO.

Plot, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGTS FOR
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

ws 1. Violation OF Federal Civil Rights
2. Monell Municipal Liability

[RICHARD FISCHER; COUNTY OF 142 U.S.C. $1983]

ISAN DIEGO, « Coli finnsn government

enti and DOFS Lo 1,

Defends

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1 of San Diego County, Califoria; she isa vinman.

er is, and at al times zelevantto this complaint. was s¥tomn
pence olficer, emplayeed hy defemclanl County of'San Diego as deputy shor with the Sea Diega

[County Sheriff's Depertnesn ('SDCSD"). Fisoher vss spovitivully authorize’ by the County sad

ISDCSD tw perform the duties and responsibilities wa depuly serif und all Vischer's uote were

hundee the color of Law and in the conse and scops of his duties as a deputy sheriff: isc is =

sient of the Coonty of Sa Diego

Defeudant County of San Diogo is, andl at all times relevant to this complaint, was

sting vndsr the

a duly ovganized goverment extily,

Capit Fo
1 fCalitomia Constitution, At all relevaot times. the Caunly was the employer of Fischer aid

2 |poseudants Ls

28 1 dhntugh 5 (Dow Mepis), who weae SDUSD sheriff depues, wed defendants
Does6 through 10{DDoe Superviser) who were managers, supervisors aaé puiligyoukingemployces
4 Jorthe Coumtyaud the SCS.

5 4. Atalltinesrelovartio this complaint, defanénns oes | hgh Mi wereemplayees
6 lm agents oft County aas the SCS wha were cling under coor of las withia the cours nd

Rene ot thi

ir vespective duties as employees of the County aud with complete authiity anil
& froitTention oftheir cmaployer, the County
9 5. The tmerames nad capacitcs of Docs I through 10, and Gre Sauls giving rise a their

10 fliablty, are unknowns plaintPat Misti.

n 6. Plaintit's informed andl hetieves that ench of the Doe defeadauts is vesponsible in

12 [some manner. citer by set or umission, arle-wise, far the occurences alleged is this complaint
h

1 Jone hat pints harm was leasy caused hy conduct ofthe Paves Ln

4 7. Qn orabout May 4,2016,a woman, refered to at K.P. hecutve she ie a victim of

5 fposual wssau, sent 8 wit at ro the Intoceal ATs Unit of the SPCSP bout the

14 [eircumstances pf her ares! hy Pischer on November 24, 2015. In her complaint, K.P stated in

17 Ppeccinent put, "[dJuring this incident, Deputy Fischer violated my rights in many ways, Ie sated
18 fhoy ames by vislatiag my Fourth Amendeaenl vight with both Uogel search and selznss whl led

19 fo him confining re in handouts and then taking advantage a ne by touching and eubbing me

20 [sexually snl inapovonriately. "KB's complaint went on 1 say, "Although T hasen's Fed
2 Janydhiny through the cour, Ids think that something saoxkd be dane, (have ne ide hoy thin
22 [process wo, hut Tam hoping meslly to find soma peace of mind ad acai brougit oa othe
25 [iswespeciil, unlsfal ard sexy clrneiming things Offices seo shamelessly purine cou.”

K.P, closed hee eamsplaint stating, "please eontaet me for moce details itis wot fair to be taleon

rtvaciage a and he i predate, a ec

she could fe reached und her

26 8 Despite KP. providicg two comact num
2 frail nddvews in or eornpsin! so SDCSD could conte aer about the concerns she described, the

28 Hepmimort noither contacted ICP, ner commenced an investigation into ber claims about Fischer

‘Compl Foe Dumages
ful atempts co convinwe SDCST) G1 investigate Ficher, that the

[tepart

Finally began to investigate him.

9. On iatenatim andl the County,

CSD) sacl Loos 6 chro Wuvere
jup Fisch’ criminal niscondect as us K.P. (adn ntrnation snd Pie, other nersons) as part
long stoning aseiten department poliy that encournyeu woclionedsysiomafjstice—one
js sytorn of unwiton psivilegesaoxlimmunitiesthat applied to SDCSP hpi nd oupecvisonsend

uiker members of the “Taw enforcement commsacity" and another sysern if codified laws an

Pezutasivns that upped Gn thy ordinary eiizons

10, From as least 2015 to the present, and ou information and belief, befbee 2015, the
Jcouny, tee SDESD, ond is management and supervisory officials instituted a preoodurs for

investigating eitizers’ cranplainis of peace officer raiseoruc that was inadequate and designed to

pot importial:y investiga such complaints. Such policy or policies sleyated vilizens' eamplaints|

misconduct to socaad-class status where such complaints were either not

lof peace of

frvesigated at ull, or wecefwet Toss shar an innparial investigation by SDCSD) ancl ts supervisory

orvviats
1. The Crunly, the SPCSD en iss supervisory ofcilshad and have policies tat ave
leoatinued thrugh to Uae present of

6 Falling and refusing wo establish or unforve ealministrative pocedares ad

fesininy to ensare satery of

jetims, detainees or aresteess

quately discipline pence oh

b. Failing au sofusing to 1 lie Fischer and

hers, Horacts "abuse and misuarduc, exndiue at wolated the SHCSD lepantarent procedures

or conduct unosoming a peace ofivers

© Failing and efising bo imparkully nvestiyate citizen's complaints of alleged

abuse or misconduct by peace a!ieens;

cl Covering up acts of peace officer misconduct or sanctioned a code of silence

jor offieces commonly sofecced to ag tae "Blue Wall,” which resulted a1 complaints of officer

prisconduet not boing investigated or not being adcqvately and impartially investigated!

Compiit Yor Doras
© Filing and rofising to adequately sunervine the netions af peace offers

junc thois contol and guidances aml

£ Allowing the "uowriten potiey" deveris

in paragiaph 910 exist
12, “The County, the SDCSD and its supervisory offieals from at least 2075 to the

present, andl on information ane beet, before 2015:

a. Ruowinaly, with ross nogligence ard with deliberate indifference of the

fooscitutional rights ofetizens, maintsined aud permitted an otticil poly andeuslomof permitting

the acoumence nf che ‘ype oF wrongs alleged in this complaint andthe complaints pT ul east ken

ther womet

b. —-Maizraized fasted, eondonedoralse fied ey ecrrsal wromgfl eonduct and,

ious tis, created am aMficial poliey practice ar castorn nt permitting the ooewrrence of the types

for wrongs allege in this complaint and the complaiets ol a least ten other wenn;

6 Meintainee, fostered or condoned poivies and vastoms, including bul nal
fieitod w, deliberaty indicirert raining of is peace officers anouc what constituted unrenrahks

eave we seizes a cities,

fo corned polisies andl customs that incised the

ch Mesintsined, fi

xpress andior tacit encomagement 19 its police offices ignore uravslul emdust andor fo ruily

potfce misconduct by officors fling to etre
making maleal oesssions in police repacs ta psevent detection of wolf cand: ea

= Mairisined, sired, condoned or file to conduct adequate investigations
ot peace officer’ miscordust to provont forme misconduct fom ocouting
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of Federal Civil Rights, 42 U.
‘Against ANI Defendants)

§ 1983,

15, Plaintitf alleges paragraphs | throughs 12,

14, Visintisfresdes in Vistaandistheon sitemanagerof an gnartinenteonnplex. Ariund

october 12.0 13, 2016, plsintiff called the SDCSD dlspatel about a ean who was epparcetly

frespussiny onta the oerpox rar Une svinaing pov Fischer, way yaa in nifon, amd and eon

Linty responded to plaietifs eal for service. He reported ta phim he had talked fo the mam who

a
fi

whon wilawful canduct was underway anul‘or by |
laid not look like he would bs causing father prublesns an thal the rm hed loft, He proaisod
plait he would come hack én am owe or so and check: on things

15, Laterthat

‘around -nin’ght, on Qotober 12.9r 13,2016, the man returned We Gye

[roerments ond started throwing patio fumiture (a chait inte the swinaing pool, Plait valled

fe SLCSL dispateh agsia, This time, ste ashed to huvethe man removed. Plaintiff dacs nat know

vandalized with the tires

fvhat hoppensd, but the newt mozning, she found dua Wer ear hal he

lashed sn the paint seralehed, She belioves the man who had been szound the sxinomaitg pool nd

ome this,
16. Aroumdla seeck to ten cays leer, sho bslioves arouael Qotnber20 4 26, plant eae
fie SDCSP and spoke with Fischer. She wkd him shout wat had bappenee after he ba talked 20

the man atthe apartment, the mas's hrowriny furniture int the pool sad her cay being vandalized,

ete thougbt by that seme msn. Fischer suid he was sorry ard asced i he vould core fy her
Jpsrimen. and spologize in person. Plaintiff agreed,

17, Fischer showed up at the apartment eompiex and plaintiff let him inta kee

forties, He immestintsly tugued plaintiff without hor esking him, Fischer sacl he would wate out

ier her. About an hour later, Tischer called plaintiP while se was aut for a walls and sald he was

cher plas, When thy pln got bur, Fee was ere al she Jet him in, He immedi
soko ier i he coll hag er nn anh l,l bis tie Fisch mbrnced plist very
gftly and rubbed hes bach and uctacks set shia, Pent ld hina eller ya wae
hsvay from him, Hischer fllewed hor to or ow, tt she toll iss yon beter go and pushed im
foutot her home,

18, Fischer returned ta pisintl'sapmmen| about week ateramd asked ioe could hug

prerayein. She said Taave someplace toys, Poche Iefk Tha, he carne buck to plaints apa
se cet w 3

latoncth ime, This time, plainit¥tala Fischer she was seeing someone, He Tellund never rote
19, Paint? has coastitutional interests and rights under the Vourth and Bourn

[Ameudatentsco the US. Constitution and similar provisions of tke Califoraia Constitution tole

core on ueasonsble seizure or dcreution of her person, sexual harassment or assault or a violation

of her person, as well as tho sight not to have her body violated by a peace offices, ‘he acts

pT For Daas
1 | Pischer ara! the Coumty constituted a depsivation of or a violusion of plaintiffs consitetional rights

2 funder che U.S. and Calilornix Constitations and, in turn, were x violaion of 42 118.0, § 1982,

3 20, Tischer has sexually assnulted at leestfountoea other women whilein the emase and
4 |scope of his employment sith ane County sad SDCSD and, on information sad heliet, other people

flske k.r,

6) have complained in fe County and tae SLICSD shout sexual ails or similar
6 risconcvet by Fischer before his saul on plait

7 21. Thovilation ofplauitPs ite waa in the arnt annn-cunsersual nuchiny sexta

ssuull hy Fischer, The right vilaled by am suels an assault has heen deserihed a8 the righ! tn he

9 faecure in unets person, and is grounded in te cue process eleuse of the Koueteenth mendes

1 22. _Visetes the County the SDCSD nd Does 6 tough 10 acted under color of aw.
u 23. The fallere of he Coutly, the SDCSD axel Docs 6 through 10 to investigate,
12 feisiptione and supervise Fischer deprived pli of hor constitutions ight be fe fou seus
15 fassante. they failed to acto prevent cher trum engaging in such conduc

“ 24, ‘The Cowaty the SDUSD and Dees Ghzongh 10, well as oer County and SCS

5 Jmunagement and supsrvisers, knew o- should have Snown thet Fischer was engaging in hese wets

8 fot nisccmduet und knew ur easorsbly should have knows that Fischer's condst would éepeive

7 [paint or her eonstisational rights

‘The conduct ofthe Cuunly, the SDCSD end theiy management and supervisors was

19 hho closely related to the deorivation of plaints rights ws tx be the moving, Force Ural eauses

26 [Fiscine's soxunl essaule on plains?

» 28, AsaK

sal result of tae wong acts by Lische

the Conny aud Daes 1 theoval 10

pleictif bas suffesed geuctel damages of mental and cotionsl cistiess, humiliation, ansicty, fear

24 farsa physical pain aad suffering,

4 27, Fischer's wets further ecm malice and ppresion ss dened in Civil Cane §

294, which entitles plaintttea recaver panitive damages fom his

ae fers
28 Je

Conlin For Diag
6
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Monell Municipal Liability Aga
2 Thefondant County Of San Diego)

3 28, PlaintifTrealleges puragrapiys #thwongh 5.

29, ‘The County and the SDOSD hays fled tn adequately investigate complaints about

5 [Fischer, have filed to disepline Vis

and have filed tn selequetely sueevise im,

6 30. The County and the SDCSD have policy of employing and relnining ns shexfs

iputies, individuals, incloding Fischer, with clangevons propensities for abusing Uueir wulhority

8 foexually asssslting women and endngering the public. the County, tie SDCSD and Does 6

9 [irish 10 knew ar rnscrnbly

Jnnulil ave kaon Fischer had dangcuons propensities for abusing

10 fhis anthority snd sexually assaulting women

n 31. “The tallute co inves

disciple, ea supervise by Owe County and the CSD
12 Jnznagement aad supervisory employees, including Does 6 thrush, éeprived paint al her

13 Jparicular rights under the U. 8,

rd California constitutions, including bex not linted te heraight

11 flo be tre trom sexual ess

5 32, Ths County's and SDCSD's staployses acted under colar of law,

16 32. The investigatory und diseiptinry potiefes of the County nnd the SDCSD were net

17 fadequte o prevent violatians of law by ils emplayees, including Tischer

8 34, The County, the SDCSD, Does 6 throug 10 and oer management und seporvisory

9 fompiayees knew or should have known that failing so adequately investigate, discipline and

[xne-vise depuly sca, ineluding Fischer, made it highly predictnblethae he and ethsr depuis

21 sold engupe in cunuet, ineluding sexu asa, that would deprive persoms suc as plaintiff of

2 |fheis eorsttutional rights
2 35, Phainil realleyes paragraph 26

4 REQUEST FOR RELIEF

THIPREFORE, plaintiN’D.N, requests a julgment against defendants Richard Fischer, the

26 county of San [diego and Does 1¢hroagh 10 Floss:

a7 General and special damages according to px

28 b Punitive damages ugainat Pieler:
1 €—_Adlomey feos and expedt witness foes unier 42.US.C § 1988;

2 Costs of suits nd

Any slher groper relief

Date: rebrusry 28, 2018 ‘The Gilleoa Law Vir

STEEN
i