More than 40
faculty condemn
arrests of Occupy
UCLA protesters in
letter to Chancellor
By JAMES BARRAGAN
and KATE PARKINSON-
MORGAN
November 21, 2011
Dozens of faculty have
condemned the arrest of 14
Occupy UCLA protesters
Friday in an open letter to
Chancellor Gene Block, citing
concerns about limitations on
free speech.
More than 40 UCLA faculty
members have signed the
letter, dated Nov. 20. Calls for
restraint also come as sister
campuses UC Davis and UC
Berkeley respond to harsh
criticism for police actions
toward on-campus Occupy
movements.
Interactions between police
and Occupy protesters at
UCLA have so far been
peaceful. On Thursday,
Occupy UCLA protesters set
up about 30 tents in Wilson
Plaza, planning to stay for the
night.
The day before,
administrators had repeatedly
warned protesters of a ban
against temporary structures
on campus grounds. A
campus curfew is also in place
between midnight and 6 a.m.
Occupy members were told of
the university policies they
were violating, UCLA
spokesman Phil Hampton said
on Friday.
Around 5 a.m. on Friday, the
Occupy camp was circled by
university police. Thirteen
students and one alumnus
who refused to leave the
grounds were arrested on
misdemeanor charges of
unlawful assembly and failure
to disperse. They were cited
and released about six hours
later, police said.
But the authors of the letter
say the administration did not
have a valid reason to clear
the plaza and arrest the
protesters.
“Their crime, formally, was to
violate a campus policy
against camping,” the letter
stated. “But in reality they
were arrested for engaging in
political speech at a time and
in a manner that did not
please the campus
administration.”
Some faculty members are
concerned students were
disciplined for exercising their
right to free speech, said
Tobias Higbie, associate
professor of history and one
of the drafters of the letter.
“They’re not out there
camping … it’s a protest,”
Higbie said. “To say that they’
re going to remove them
because they have tents
seems a very narrow
interpretation of campus
policy.”
faculty condemn
arrests of Occupy
UCLA protesters in
letter to Chancellor
By JAMES BARRAGAN
and KATE PARKINSON-
MORGAN
November 21, 2011
Dozens of faculty have
condemned the arrest of 14
Occupy UCLA protesters
Friday in an open letter to
Chancellor Gene Block, citing
concerns about limitations on
free speech.
More than 40 UCLA faculty
members have signed the
letter, dated Nov. 20. Calls for
restraint also come as sister
campuses UC Davis and UC
Berkeley respond to harsh
criticism for police actions
toward on-campus Occupy
movements.
Interactions between police
and Occupy protesters at
UCLA have so far been
peaceful. On Thursday,
Occupy UCLA protesters set
up about 30 tents in Wilson
Plaza, planning to stay for the
night.
The day before,
administrators had repeatedly
warned protesters of a ban
against temporary structures
on campus grounds. A
campus curfew is also in place
between midnight and 6 a.m.
Occupy members were told of
the university policies they
were violating, UCLA
spokesman Phil Hampton said
on Friday.
Around 5 a.m. on Friday, the
Occupy camp was circled by
university police. Thirteen
students and one alumnus
who refused to leave the
grounds were arrested on
misdemeanor charges of
unlawful assembly and failure
to disperse. They were cited
and released about six hours
later, police said.
But the authors of the letter
say the administration did not
have a valid reason to clear
the plaza and arrest the
protesters.
“Their crime, formally, was to
violate a campus policy
against camping,” the letter
stated. “But in reality they
were arrested for engaging in
political speech at a time and
in a manner that did not
please the campus
administration.”
Some faculty members are
concerned students were
disciplined for exercising their
right to free speech, said
Tobias Higbie, associate
professor of history and one
of the drafters of the letter.
“They’re not out there
camping … it’s a protest,”
Higbie said. “To say that they’
re going to remove them
because they have tents
seems a very narrow
interpretation of campus
policy.”
| ... |
UCLA Los Angeles
UCLA
UCLA Radiology and
Medical Records
UCLA CareConnect
UCLA Compliance
Dr. Robert Pedowitz
wins $10 million for
retaliation by UCLA for
blowing whistle on
industry payments to
doctors
Dr. Eugene
Washington, dean of
medical school
Dr. Andrew Saxon,
author of paper on
harmlessness of
indoor mold
UCLA conflict of
interest
UCLA Cull case
UCLA culture:
contempt and racism?
UCLA Dermatology
UCLA Patient
Advocates
UCLA Patrick Harron
to be arraigned in
burning death in
chemistry lab
UCLA contract
with Kaiser for
kidney transplants
UCLA Radiology and
Medical Records
UCLA CareConnect
UCLA Compliance
Dr. Robert Pedowitz
wins $10 million for
retaliation by UCLA for
blowing whistle on
industry payments to
doctors
Dr. Eugene
Washington, dean of
medical school
Dr. Andrew Saxon,
author of paper on
harmlessness of
indoor mold
UCLA conflict of
interest
UCLA Cull case
UCLA culture:
contempt and racism?
UCLA Dermatology
UCLA Patient
Advocates
UCLA Patrick Harron
to be arraigned in
burning death in
chemistry lab
UCLA contract
with Kaiser for
kidney transplants
UCSD San Diego
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |
University of California violations of First
Amendment
Amendment
UC Davis
Baker v. Katehi
lawsuit regarding
pepper spray assault
2:12-cv-00450-JAM-EFB
Baker, et al v. Katehi, et al
John A. Mendez,
presiding
Edmund F.
Brennan, referral
Date filed: 02/22/2012
Date terminated:
01/09/2013
Date of last filing:
08/08/2014
Attorneys
John H. Bakhit
Lackie, Dammeier & McGill
APC
367 N. Second Avenue
Upland, CA 91786
949-231-2702
909-985-3299 (fax)
john@policeattorney.com
Assigned: 05/16/2012
representing John Pike
(Defendant)
Terence John Cassidy
Porter Scott, APC
350 University Avenue
Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
(916) 929-1481 x316
(916) 927-3706 (fax)
tcassidy@porterscott.com
Assigned: 05/09/2012
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing Fred Wood
(Defendant)
John Meyer
(Defendant)
Linda Katehi
(Defendant)
Ralph J. Hexter
(Defendant)
Lina Balciunas Cockrell
Carroll Burdick &
McDonough
980 9th Street
Suite 380
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-446-5297
916-448-5047 (fax)
lcockrell@cbmlaw.com
Assigned: 05/21/2012
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing Annette
Spicuzza (Defendant)
Lauren B DeMartini
ACLU of Northern
California
39 Drumm St.
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-621-2493
lauren.demartini@gmail.com
Assigned: 11/21/2012
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing Adam
Fetterman
(Plaintiff)
Alyson Cook
(Plaintiff)
Charles Parker
(Plaintiff)
Darren Newell
(Plaintiff)
David Buscho
(Plaintiff)
Deanna Johnson
(Plaintiff)
Edward Wildanger
(Plaintiff)
Elizabeth Lara
(Plaintiff)
Enosh Baker
(Plaintiff)
Evan Loker
(Plaintiff)
Evka
Whaley-Mayda
(Plaintiff)
Fatima Sbeih
(Plaintiff)
Ian Lee
(Plaintiff)
Jordan Wilheim
(Plaintiff)
Kase Wheatley
(Plaintiff)
Noah Wiley
(Plaintiff)
Sarena
Grossjan-Navarro
(Plaintiff)
Soo Lee
(Plaintiff)
Sophia Kamran
(Plaintiff)
Thomas Matzat
(Plaintiff)
William Roberts
(Plaintiff)
Christopher Lee Gaspard
Gaspard Castillo Winter
Harper, APC
3333 Concours Street
Suite 4100, Bldg. 4
Ontario, CA 91764
909-466-5600
909-466-5610 (fax)
chris@gcwhlaw.com
Assigned: 05/16/2012
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing John
Pike
(Defendant)
Jason H. Jasmine
Carroll Burdick &
McDonough LLP
980 9th Street, Suite 380
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 446-5297
(916) 448-5047 (fax)
jjasmine@cbmlaw.com
Assigned: 05/09/2012
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing
Annette Spicuzza
(Defendant)
Linda Lye
ACLU Foundation
Of Northern
California
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-621-2493-313
415-255-8437 (fax)
llye@aclunc.org
Assigned: 05/16/2012
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing
Charles Parker
(Plaintiff)
Darren Newell
(Plaintiff)
David Buscho
(Plaintiff)
Deanna Johnson
(Plaintiff)
Edward Wildanger
(Plaintiff)
Elizabeth Lara
(Plaintiff)
Enosh Baker
(Plaintiff)
Evan Loker
(Plaintiff)
Evka
Whaley-Mayda
(Plaintiff)
Fatima Sbeih
(Plaintiff)
Ian Lee
(Plaintiff)
Jordan Wilheim
(Plaintiff)
Kase Wheatley
(Plaintiff)
Noah Wiley
(Plaintiff)
Sarena
Grossjan-Navarro
(Plaintiff)
Soo Lee
(Plaintiff)
Sophia Kamran
(Plaintiff)
Thomas Matzat
(Plaintiff)
William Roberts
(Plaintiff)
Michael A McGill
Adams, Ferrone & Ferrone
4333 Park Terrace Drive
Suite 200
Westlake Village, CA 91361
805-373-4900-237
818-874-1382 (fax)
mmcgill@adamsferrone.com
Assigned: 05/16/2012
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing John
Pike
(Defendant)
Alexander Lee
(Defendant)
Barry Swartwood
(Defendant)
Mark E. Merin
Law Office of Mark E. Merin
1010 F Street
Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-443-6911
916-447-8336 (fax)
mark@markmerin.com
Assigned: 02/22/2012
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing
Charles Parker
(Plaintiff)
Darren Newell
(Plaintiff)
David Buscho
(Plaintiff)
Deanna Johnson
(Plaintiff)
Edward Wildanger
(Plaintiff)
Elizabeth Lara
(Plaintiff)
Enosh Baker
(Plaintiff)
Evan Loker
(Plaintiff)
Evka
Whaley-Mayda
(Plaintiff)
Fatima Sbeih
(Plaintiff)
Ian Lee
(Plaintiff)
Jordan Wilheim
(Plaintiff)
Kase Wheatley
(Plaintiff)
Noah Wiley
(Plaintiff)
Sarena
Grossjan-Navarro
(Plaintiff)
Soo Lee
(Plaintiff)
Sophia Kamran
(Plaintiff)
Thomas Matzat
(Plaintiff)
William Roberts
(Plaintiff)
Adam Fetterman
(Plaintiff)
Alyson Cook
(Plaintiff)
Katherine L.M. Mola
Porter Scott
350 University Avenue
Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
916-929-1481
916-927-3706 (fax)
kmola@porterscott.com
Assigned: 05/09/2012
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing Fred Wood
(Defendant)
John Meyer
(Defendant)
Linda Katehi
(Defendant)
Ralph J. Hexter
(Defendant)
Russell Marc Perry
Lackie, Dammeier & McGill
367 N Second Ave
Upland, CA 91786
909-241-2391
909-985-3299 (fax)
russell@policeattorney.com
Assigned: 05/16/2012
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing John Pike
(Defendant)
Alexander Lee
(Defendant)
Barry Swartwood
(Defendant)
Michael Temple Risher
American Civil Liberties
Union of Northern California
39 Drumm St.
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-621-2493
415-255-8437 (fax)
mrisher@aclunc.org
Assigned: 05/16/2012
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing Charles
Parker
(Plaintiff)
Darren Newell
(Plaintiff)
David Buscho
(Plaintiff)
Deanna Johnson
(Plaintiff)
Edward Wildanger
(Plaintiff)
Elizabeth Lara
(Plaintiff)
Enosh Baker
(Plaintiff)
Evan Loker
(Plaintiff)
Evka
Whaley-Mayda
(Plaintiff)
Fatima Sbeih
(Plaintiff)
Ian Lee
(Plaintiff)
Jordan Wilheim
(Plaintiff)
Kase Wheatley
(Plaintiff)
Noah Wiley
(Plaintiff)
Sarena
Grossjan-Navarro
(Plaintiff)
Soo Lee
(Plaintiff)
Sophia Kamran
(Plaintiff)
Thomas Matzat
(Plaintiff)
William Roberts
(Plaintiff)
Adam Fetterman
(Plaintiff)
Alyson Cook
(Plaintiff)
J. Daniel Sharp
Crowell & Moring LLP
275 Battery Street
23rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-986-2800-7372
415-986-2827 (fax)
dsharp@crowell.com
Assigned: 03/14/2012
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing Fred Wood
(Defendant)
John Meyer
(Defendant)
Linda Katehi
(Defendant)
Ralph J. Hexter
(Defendant)
Nancy Joan Sheehan
Porter Scott, PC
350 University Avenue
Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
916-929-1481 Ext. 318
916-927-3706 (fax)
nsheehan@porterscott.com
Assigned: 05/09/2012
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing Fred Wood
(Defendant)
John Meyer
(Defendant)
Linda Katehi
(Defendant)
Ralph J. Hexter
(Defendant)
Baker v. Katehi
lawsuit regarding
pepper spray assault
2:12-cv-00450-JAM-EFB
Baker, et al v. Katehi, et al
John A. Mendez,
presiding
Edmund F.
Brennan, referral
Date filed: 02/22/2012
Date terminated:
01/09/2013
Date of last filing:
08/08/2014
Attorneys
John H. Bakhit
Lackie, Dammeier & McGill
APC
367 N. Second Avenue
Upland, CA 91786
949-231-2702
909-985-3299 (fax)
john@policeattorney.com
Assigned: 05/16/2012
representing John Pike
(Defendant)
Terence John Cassidy
Porter Scott, APC
350 University Avenue
Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
(916) 929-1481 x316
(916) 927-3706 (fax)
tcassidy@porterscott.com
Assigned: 05/09/2012
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing Fred Wood
(Defendant)
John Meyer
(Defendant)
Linda Katehi
(Defendant)
Ralph J. Hexter
(Defendant)
Lina Balciunas Cockrell
Carroll Burdick &
McDonough
980 9th Street
Suite 380
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-446-5297
916-448-5047 (fax)
lcockrell@cbmlaw.com
Assigned: 05/21/2012
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing Annette
Spicuzza (Defendant)
Lauren B DeMartini
ACLU of Northern
California
39 Drumm St.
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-621-2493
lauren.demartini@gmail.com
Assigned: 11/21/2012
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing Adam
Fetterman
(Plaintiff)
Alyson Cook
(Plaintiff)
Charles Parker
(Plaintiff)
Darren Newell
(Plaintiff)
David Buscho
(Plaintiff)
Deanna Johnson
(Plaintiff)
Edward Wildanger
(Plaintiff)
Elizabeth Lara
(Plaintiff)
Enosh Baker
(Plaintiff)
Evan Loker
(Plaintiff)
Evka
Whaley-Mayda
(Plaintiff)
Fatima Sbeih
(Plaintiff)
Ian Lee
(Plaintiff)
Jordan Wilheim
(Plaintiff)
Kase Wheatley
(Plaintiff)
Noah Wiley
(Plaintiff)
Sarena
Grossjan-Navarro
(Plaintiff)
Soo Lee
(Plaintiff)
Sophia Kamran
(Plaintiff)
Thomas Matzat
(Plaintiff)
William Roberts
(Plaintiff)
Christopher Lee Gaspard
Gaspard Castillo Winter
Harper, APC
3333 Concours Street
Suite 4100, Bldg. 4
Ontario, CA 91764
909-466-5600
909-466-5610 (fax)
chris@gcwhlaw.com
Assigned: 05/16/2012
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing John
Pike
(Defendant)
Jason H. Jasmine
Carroll Burdick &
McDonough LLP
980 9th Street, Suite 380
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 446-5297
(916) 448-5047 (fax)
jjasmine@cbmlaw.com
Assigned: 05/09/2012
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing
Annette Spicuzza
(Defendant)
Linda Lye
ACLU Foundation
Of Northern
California
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-621-2493-313
415-255-8437 (fax)
llye@aclunc.org
Assigned: 05/16/2012
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing
Charles Parker
(Plaintiff)
Darren Newell
(Plaintiff)
David Buscho
(Plaintiff)
Deanna Johnson
(Plaintiff)
Edward Wildanger
(Plaintiff)
Elizabeth Lara
(Plaintiff)
Enosh Baker
(Plaintiff)
Evan Loker
(Plaintiff)
Evka
Whaley-Mayda
(Plaintiff)
Fatima Sbeih
(Plaintiff)
Ian Lee
(Plaintiff)
Jordan Wilheim
(Plaintiff)
Kase Wheatley
(Plaintiff)
Noah Wiley
(Plaintiff)
Sarena
Grossjan-Navarro
(Plaintiff)
Soo Lee
(Plaintiff)
Sophia Kamran
(Plaintiff)
Thomas Matzat
(Plaintiff)
William Roberts
(Plaintiff)
Michael A McGill
Adams, Ferrone & Ferrone
4333 Park Terrace Drive
Suite 200
Westlake Village, CA 91361
805-373-4900-237
818-874-1382 (fax)
mmcgill@adamsferrone.com
Assigned: 05/16/2012
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing John
Pike
(Defendant)
Alexander Lee
(Defendant)
Barry Swartwood
(Defendant)
Mark E. Merin
Law Office of Mark E. Merin
1010 F Street
Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-443-6911
916-447-8336 (fax)
mark@markmerin.com
Assigned: 02/22/2012
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing
Charles Parker
(Plaintiff)
Darren Newell
(Plaintiff)
David Buscho
(Plaintiff)
Deanna Johnson
(Plaintiff)
Edward Wildanger
(Plaintiff)
Elizabeth Lara
(Plaintiff)
Enosh Baker
(Plaintiff)
Evan Loker
(Plaintiff)
Evka
Whaley-Mayda
(Plaintiff)
Fatima Sbeih
(Plaintiff)
Ian Lee
(Plaintiff)
Jordan Wilheim
(Plaintiff)
Kase Wheatley
(Plaintiff)
Noah Wiley
(Plaintiff)
Sarena
Grossjan-Navarro
(Plaintiff)
Soo Lee
(Plaintiff)
Sophia Kamran
(Plaintiff)
Thomas Matzat
(Plaintiff)
William Roberts
(Plaintiff)
Adam Fetterman
(Plaintiff)
Alyson Cook
(Plaintiff)
Katherine L.M. Mola
Porter Scott
350 University Avenue
Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
916-929-1481
916-927-3706 (fax)
kmola@porterscott.com
Assigned: 05/09/2012
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing Fred Wood
(Defendant)
John Meyer
(Defendant)
Linda Katehi
(Defendant)
Ralph J. Hexter
(Defendant)
Russell Marc Perry
Lackie, Dammeier & McGill
367 N Second Ave
Upland, CA 91786
909-241-2391
909-985-3299 (fax)
russell@policeattorney.com
Assigned: 05/16/2012
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing John Pike
(Defendant)
Alexander Lee
(Defendant)
Barry Swartwood
(Defendant)
Michael Temple Risher
American Civil Liberties
Union of Northern California
39 Drumm St.
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-621-2493
415-255-8437 (fax)
mrisher@aclunc.org
Assigned: 05/16/2012
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing Charles
Parker
(Plaintiff)
Darren Newell
(Plaintiff)
David Buscho
(Plaintiff)
Deanna Johnson
(Plaintiff)
Edward Wildanger
(Plaintiff)
Elizabeth Lara
(Plaintiff)
Enosh Baker
(Plaintiff)
Evan Loker
(Plaintiff)
Evka
Whaley-Mayda
(Plaintiff)
Fatima Sbeih
(Plaintiff)
Ian Lee
(Plaintiff)
Jordan Wilheim
(Plaintiff)
Kase Wheatley
(Plaintiff)
Noah Wiley
(Plaintiff)
Sarena
Grossjan-Navarro
(Plaintiff)
Soo Lee
(Plaintiff)
Sophia Kamran
(Plaintiff)
Thomas Matzat
(Plaintiff)
William Roberts
(Plaintiff)
Adam Fetterman
(Plaintiff)
Alyson Cook
(Plaintiff)
J. Daniel Sharp
Crowell & Moring LLP
275 Battery Street
23rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-986-2800-7372
415-986-2827 (fax)
dsharp@crowell.com
Assigned: 03/14/2012
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing Fred Wood
(Defendant)
John Meyer
(Defendant)
Linda Katehi
(Defendant)
Ralph J. Hexter
(Defendant)
Nancy Joan Sheehan
Porter Scott, PC
350 University Avenue
Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
916-929-1481 Ext. 318
916-927-3706 (fax)
nsheehan@porterscott.com
Assigned: 05/09/2012
ATTORNEY TO BE
NOTICED
representing Fred Wood
(Defendant)
John Meyer
(Defendant)
Linda Katehi
(Defendant)
Ralph J. Hexter
(Defendant)
Baker v. Katehi lawsuit against UC Davis
January 10, 2013
by the ACLU
Twenty-one students and alumni filed a federal lawsuit on February 22, 2012 against
UC Davis over the University's treatment of protesters during a Nov. 18, 2011
demonstration in which campus police were caught on video dousing seated protesters
with pepper spray.
The lawsuit charged that UC Davis administration officials set in motion a series of
events that they should have known would result in constitutional violations against the
demonstrators, and that they and the campus police department failed to properly train
and supervise officers. The lawsuit notes that the University's response to seated
student protesters amounted to unacceptable and excessive force that violates state
and federal constitutional protections, including the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. A task force that the University created to investigate and analyze the
official response to the protestors concluded that "the pepper spraying incident that
took place on November 18, 2011 should and could have been prevented."
The suit was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California.
A settlement was announced on September 26, 2012. The University agreed to pay
$1million, including $730,000 to the named plaintiffs and others who were arrested or
pepper-sprayed on November 18. Additionally, the case has been expanded to a class
action lawsuit, and a portion of the total award will be set aside to compensate
individuals other than the named plaintiffs who were pepper-sprayed or wrongfully
arrested on November 18, 2011.
As part of the settlement, UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi will issue a formal written
apology to each of the students and recent alumni who were pepper sprayed or
arrested. The University will work with the ACLU as it develops new policies on student
demonstrations, crowd management, and use of force.
While the settlement must be approved by a federal judge before it is final, a judge
granted preliminary approval of the settlement on September 27, 2012.
On January 9, 2013 a federal judge approved the settlement.
Case 2:12-cv-00450-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 02/22/12
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.;
United States District Court, Eastern District of California
ENOSH BAKER, DAVID BUSCHO, SARENA
GROSSJAN-NAVARRO, DEANNA JOHNSON,
SOPHIA KAMRAN, EL
IZABETH LARA, IAN
LEE, SOO LEE, EVAN
LOKER, THOMAS
MATZAT, DARREN NEWELL, CHARLES
PARKER, WILLIAM ROBERTS, FATIMA
SBEIH, EVKA WHALEY-MAYDA, KASE
WHEATLEY, EDWARD GEOFFREY
WILDANGER, NOAH WILEY, and JORDAN
WILHEIM,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
LINDA KATEHI, Chancellor of the University
of California at Davis; RALPH J. HEXTER,
Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor of
the University of California at Davis;FRED
WOOD, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs
at the University of California at Davis; JOHN MEYER, Vice
Chancellor of Administration and Resource
Management at the University at California at
Davis; ANNETTE SPICUZZA, Chief of the
University of California at Davis Police
Department; JOHN PIKE, Lt. in the University of
California at Davis Police Department; and DOES
1 – 50, officers of the University of California at
Davis Police Department.
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
On November 18, 2011, University of Califor
nia at Davis campus police attacked a peaceful
assembly at the center of the campus quad, arres
ting many students without probable cause and shooting
high-concentration pepper spray directly into th
e faces of students who we
re engaging in nonviolent
protest. The actions of the police provoked shock
and outrage nationally, in part because the video
footage was so reminiscent of the infamous images of
police in the South using
fire hoses to spray and
disperse nonviolent stud
ent sit-ins during the civil rights movement.
The 19 plaintiffs in this action
were protesting university privatiz
ation, distribution of resources,
tuition hikes, police brutality and other onerous pub
lic policies adopted by the
University administration
and the Board of Regents. Their protest was an inte
gral part of continuing,
vigorous assembly and free
speech activities which had been conducted by stude
nts for weeks at the same time the nationwide
Occupy Wall Street movement mobilized thousands nati
onwide. Seventeen of th
e plaintiffs were U.C.
Davis students at the time; the othe
r two are recent graduates.
This action seeks the following relief: a declar
ation from the Court that campus policies and
practices that led to the abuse of
the plaintiffs and others offend both
the state and fede
ral constitutional
guarantees of the rights to free speech and assembly a
nd that the pepper-spraying a
nd arrests of plaintiffs
violated their state and federal constitutional rights;
an injunction to prevent re
petition of such a response
to a non-violent protest; and compensatory and punitiv
e damages against the individual perpetrators of
the illegal acts and thei
r superiors who ordered,
directed and/or condoned this outrageous conduct..
I.JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Because this civil-rights action arises under
the United States Constitution, this Court has
Page 2 of 14
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 a
nd, 1343(a)(3), (4). This Court
has supplemental jurisdiction over
the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. §1367.
2.At all times pertinent to this Complaint and in
taking all of the actions described in this
Complaint, Defendants, and each of them, acted and threatened to act under
color of state law.
3.The events giving rise to this action occurring in Yolo County, California which is
locatedwithin this district.
II.PARTIES
4.Plaintiff ENOSH BAKER gr
aduated from U.C. Davis in 2009
and, at all times material to
this Complaint, was teaching on campus and awaiting d
ecision on his graduate pr
ogram application. He
was participating in a peaceful demonstration on th
e U.C. Davis campus on November 18, 2011, when he
was picked up by Defendant U.C. Davis police officers
Does 2 and 3, thrown forcefully to the ground,
handcuffed behind his back, and illegally arrested. Hi
s head struck a sprinkler head during the arrest.
5.
Plaintiff DAVID BUSCHO is a student at U.
C. Davis who, while participating in a
peaceful assembly on U.C. Davis campus on November
18, 2011, was sprayed repeatedly with pepper
spray by Defendant U.C. Davis police officers Lt.
John Pike and/or Doe 1 without legal cause or
justification.
6.
Plaintiff SARENA GR
OSSJAN-NAVARRO is a U.C.
Davis student who was
participating in a peaceful demonstration on the
U.C. Davis campus on November 18, 2011, when she
was pepper sprayed without legal ca
use or justification by Defendant
U.C. Davis police officer Lt. John
Pike and/or Doe 1.
7.
Plaintiff DEANNA JOHNSON is
a student at U.C. Davis w
ho was participating in a
peaceful demonstration on U.C. Davis campus on N
ovember 18, 2011, when she was pepper sprayed
without legal cause or justification by Defendant U.
C. Davis police officer Lt. John Pike and/or Doe 1.
8.
Plaintiff SOPHIA KAMRAN is a student at
U.C. Davis who was participating in a
peaceful demonstration on U.C. Davis campus on N
ovember 18, 2011, when she was pepper sprayed
without legal cause or justification by Defendant U.
C. Davis police officer Lt. John Pike and/or Doe 1.
9.Plaintiff ELIZABETH LARA is a student at
U.C. Davis who was participating in a
Page 3 of 14
peaceful assembly on the U.C. Davis campus on November 18, 2011, when she was
illegally arrested by
Defendant U.C. Davis police officers Does
16 and 17 and transported to the campus jail.
10.Plaintiff IAN LEE is a student at U.C.
Davis who was participating in a peaceful
demonstration on the U.C. Davis campus on Novemb
er 18, 2011, when he was pepper sprayed by
Defendant U.C. Davis police officer Lt. John Pike and/
or Doe 1 without legal cau
se or justification and
then pinned to the ground by defendant Pike.
11.
Plaintiff SOO LEE is a student at U.C. Da
vis who was participating in a peaceful
demonstration on the U.C. Davis campus on Novemb
er 18, 2011, when she was pepper sprayed by
Defendant U.C. Davis police officer Lt. John Pike an
d/or Doe 1 without legal
cause or justification.
12.
Plaintiff EVAN LOKER, at all
times material to this complaint, was a student at U.C.
Davis and was participating in a
peaceful demonstration on the U.C.
Davis campus on November 18,
2011, when he was pepper sprayed by Defendant U.C.
Davis police officer Lt. John Pike and/or Doe 1
without legal cause or justification.
13.
Plaintiff THOMAS MATZAT is a student at
U.C. Davis who was participating in a
peaceful demonstration on the U.C. Davis campus on
November 18, 2011, when he was selected for
illegal arrest, then handcuffed painfully behind hi
s back and grabbed and dr
agged by Defendant U.C.
Davis police officers, Does 23 and 4, to a
police car and transported to campus jail.
14.
Plaintiff DARREN NEWELL is a
student at U.C. Davis w
ho was participating in a
peaceful demonstration on the U.C. Davis campus on
November 18, 2011, when he was targeted for
illegal arrest. Two U.C. Davis police officers, defe
ndants Doe 5 and 6, had him stand up and they then
handcuffed his hands behind his back, put him into
a patrol car and transported him to jail.
15.
Plaintiff CHARLES PARKER is
a student at U.C. Davis who was participating in a
peaceful demonstration on the U.C. Davis campus on
November 18, 2011, when he was targeted for
illegal arrest. Three U.C. Davis police officers,
Defendants Does 7, 8, and 9, slammed him to the
ground, kneed him and kneeled on him, then handcu
ffed him behind his back and dragged him to a
police car in which he was placed and then driven to
the campus jail. He wa
s denied medical assistance
and access to medication while detained in the campus jail.
16.
Plaintiff WILLIAM ROBERTS is
a student at U.C. Davis
and was participating in a
peaceful demonstration on the U.C. Davis campus on
November 18, 2011, when he was pepper-sprayed
without legal cause or justificati
on by defendant U.C. Davis police o
fficer Lt. John Pike and/or Doe 1.
17.
Plaintiff FATIMA SBEIH is a st
udent at U.C. Davis and was
participating in a peaceful
demonstration on the U.C. Davis campus on November
18, 2011, when she was pepper sprayed, without
legal cause or justification, by defendant U.C.
Davis police officer Lt. John Pike and/or Doe 1.
18.
Plaintiff EVKA WHALEY-MAYDA is
a student at U.C. Davis and was participating in a
peaceful demonstration on the U.C. Davis campus on
November 18, 2011, when she was pepper-sprayed,
without legal cause or justification,
by defendant U.C. Davis police o
fficer Lt. John Pike and/or Doe 1.
19.
Plaintiff KASE WHEATLEY is a student at
U.C. Davis and was participating in a
peaceful demonstration on the U.C. Davis campus on
November 18, 2011, when he was pepper sprayed,
without legal cause or justification,
by defendant U.C. Davis police o
fficer Lt. John Pike and/or Doe 1,
then handcuffed behind his back and falsely arrested
by defendant U.C. Davis police officers Does 10
and 11, placed into a police car and transported to the campus jail.
20.
Plaintiff EDWARD WIL
DANGER is a student at U.C. Da
vis and was participating in a
peaceful demonstration on the U.C. Davis campus on
November 18, 2011, when, without legal cause or
justification, he was pepper sprayed by defendant U.
C. Davis police officer Lt. John Pike and/or Doe 1.
21.
Plaintiff NOAH WILEY is a student at U.C.
Davis and was participating in a peaceful
demonstration on the U.C. Davis campus on November
18, 2011, when he was pepper sprayed without
legal cause or justification by defendant U.C. Davi
s police officer Lt. John Pi
ke and/or Doe 1, then
falsely arrested by defendant U.C. Davis police offi
cers Does 12 and 13 and transported to the campus
jail.
22.
Plaintiff JORDAN WILHEIM is a U.C. Davi
s alumnus who was graduated in the spring
of 2011 and was visiting campus on November 18, 2011,
when he witnessed and participated in a
peaceful demonstration on the U.C.
Davis campus. During that demonstration he was handcuffed behind
his back and falsely arrested by U.C. Davis polic
e officers, defendants Does 14 and 15, and then
transported to campus jail.
23.
Defendant LINDA KATEHI is the Chancellor of
the University of California at Davis.
She is sued in her individual and official capacities.
Case 2:12-cv-00450-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 02/22/12 Page 5 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.
; United States District Court, Eastern
District of California, Case No. __________
24.
Defendant RALPH J. HEXTER is the Pr
ovost and Executive Vice Chancellor of the
University of California at Davis. He is sued
in his individual and
official capacities.
25.
Defendant FRED WOOD is the Vice Chancellor
for Student Affairs at the University of
California at Davis. He is sued in his
individual and official capacities.
26.
Defendant JOHN MEYER is the Vice Chancellor of Administration and Resource
Management at the University of Calif
ornia at Davis. He is sued in
his individual and official capacities.
27.
Defendant ANNETTE SPICUZZA is th
e Chief of the University of California at Davis
Police Department. As a result of the actions desc
ribed in this complaint Defendant Spicuzza was placed
on leave by the University. She is sued in
her individual and official capacities.
28.
Defendant JOHN PIKE is a Lieu
tenant in the University of
California at Davis Police
Department. As a result of the actions described in
this complaint Defendant Pike was placed on leave by
the University. He is sued in his individual capacity.
29.
Plaintiffs do not know the true names and
capacities of Defendants DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, and therefore sue these defendants by such
fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed and
believe and thereupon allege that each
defendant so named is responsible
in some manner for the injuries
and damages suffered by plaintiffs as are alleged here
in. Plaintiffs will amend their complaint to state
the names and capacities of Does 1 - 50, inclusiv
e, when the same have been ascertained.
30.
Defendants DOES 1 – 50, inclusive, were all pol
ice officers , administrators, and/or other
personnel employed by defendant Univers
ity of California at Davis and,
at all times material to this
complaint, were acting within the course and scope of
their employment and were
directly involved in
the actions which caused injury and
damages to plaintiffs herein.
31.
At all times material hereto, Defendants sued
herein were acting under color of state law.
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
32. On November 16, U.C. Davis students joined ot
hers in San Francisco to demonstrate at a
scheduled Board of Regents meeting, protesting univers
ity privatization, tuition increases, and the brutal
treatment of demonstrators on Berkeley’s campus the
previous week. They returned to campus and, on
November 17, a general assembly of
students agreed to set up symbolic
tents on the quad and to continue
to meet openly, to “occupy the quad” to discuss and st
udy university privatization, tuition hikes, and their
relation to other issues
of macro political and soci
al importance, and to consider what they could do to
change conditions which had brought people together
in support of the Occ
upy Wall Street Movement.
33.
A group of students set up tents on the quad
and the “Occupation of the Quad” began.
Shortly after the first tents were erected, U.C. Davi
s administrative employees delivered to some of the
students on the quad a notice that
included a campus “no overnight camping” policy. The notice was
discussed and the group concluded th
at they were symbolically “occ
upying the quad” in support of and
in solidarity with the
99% championed by the Occupy Wall Street movement.
34.
On the evening of November 17, the Associat
ed Students of the University of California
at Davis (ASUCD) endorsed the “occupation of the quad.”
35.
On November 18, in the afternoon, De
fendant Police Chief SPICUZZZA, accompanied
by a Doe Defendant, delivered a lett
er from Defendant Chancellor KATEH
I directing students to remove
the tents by 3:00 p.m. “in interest of safety, respec
t for our campus environment and in accordance with
our Principles of Community.”
36.
Students held another assembly, discussed th
e letter the Chancellor had delivered, and
many decided to remove their tents and did so. Others resolved to remain.
37.
Shortly before 3:00 p.m., a large number of po
lice in riot gear armed with long batons,
pepper-ball guns and other weapons were seen massing
in formation adjacent to the quad. The students
moved the remaining tents to the circle on the Cente
nnial Walk, a concrete pathway in the middle of the
campus quad, and stood around them.
38.
The officers advanced on the students as can be seen on any number of videotapes.
They
began pushing students away, or throwing them to th
e ground. Some of the officers disassembled or
destroyed the tents. As the tents were being remove
d, students sat down in a large circle. Classes were
letting out and hundreds of additi
onal students swarmed out of their buildings to watch what was
happening.
39.
The campus officers pointed to specific studen
ts, arrested them and began grabbing them
and hauling them off to jail. Pl
aintiff ENOSH BAKER was the first to
be grabbed and thrown to the
ground by two police officers, Defendants DOE 2 and DOE
3. He hit his head on a sprinkler fixture as
he was thrown to the ground and his hands were tightly
zip tied together behind hi
s back as he was taken
into custody and placed into a police car.
40.
Plaintiff CHARLES PARKER wa
s targeted by three police officers, Defendants DOE 7,
DOE 8, and DOE 9 grabbed him. His hands were pain
fully zip tied behind his back, exacerbating a prior
military combat injury, and he was placed into a
police car where he joined BAKER and plaintiff
ELIZABETH LARA.
41.
Plaintiff LARA had arrived immediately prior
to the police advancing on those students
standing around the circle and joined the circle. Wh
en the police reached the crowd she was thrown to
the ground by Defendant police officers DOES 16 and 17,
her hands were zip tied behind her, and she
was arrested and taken to the police car which then
transported her, PARKER and BAKER to the police
station. Plaintiffs’ hands were all zip tied, some zi
p ties were particularly
tight, cutting off blood flow,
but the jailers did not have the special equipment need
ed to cut the plastic ties. Eventually, the zip ties
were cut and removed.
42.
As the group of students was being pushed
by officers, students began to sit down in a
line. Officers were stepping over the seated stud
ents, who did nothing to stop them. Then Defendant
PIKE ordered the students to leave or
stated they would be “shot.” As
is discernible from audio tapes of
his reaction, Plaintiff
WHEATLEY responded: “You’re going to
shoot us if we don’t leave?”
43.
Defendant PIKE then shook a canister of pepper
spray like a can of aer
osol paint, stepped
over the line of sitting, crouching students and walked
up and down the line repeatedly dousing Plaintiffs
with orange colored pepper spray, mostly from
a distance of one-to-two f
eet. Students watching the
scene screamed or shouted: “Shame.”
44.
Another officer, Doe 1, then approached the li
ne of seated demonstr
ators from behind and
began spraying them with a separate canister of pepper spray.
45.
Documents that the University of California
has subsequently released in response to a
request for public records indica
te that the substance used was
Defense Technology’s MK-9 Magnum
spray, with a major Capsaicinoid co
ncentration of .7%. The single pa
ge of manufacturer’s information
that the University was able to provide states
that the minimum recommended distance for this
formulation is 6 feet. The University states that it
has no other package inserts,
warnings, or instructions
Case 2:12-cv-00450-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 02/22/12 Page 8 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.
; United States District Court, Eastern
District of California, Case No. __________
relating to this product, a
lthough California law requires that all such
substances sold in California be
accompanied by printed instructions for use, firs
t aid information, and safety information.
See
Ca. Penal
Code § 22810(e)(4), (f) (former § 12403.7).
46.
Plaintiff MATZAT’s hands were zip-tied behind
his back and he was arrested along with
Plaintiff WHEATLEY who had been
pepper-sprayed and both had been tr
ansferred to jail by Defendants
Does 23, and 4 and 18 and 19, respectively.
47.
Plaintiffs BUSCHO, GROSSJAN-NAVAR
RO, JOHNSON, KAMRAN, IAN LEE, SOO
LEE, LOKER, ROBERTS, SBEI
HN, WHALEY-MAYDA and WILDANGER were pepper sprayed by
Defendant PIKE and Doe Officers and left to deal w
ith their burning eyes, faces and skin. Neither the
University nor the police provided adequate medical
attention on the scene to
any of the students who
had been sprayed.
48.
Members of the campus student body administered
first aid to Plaintiffs who could not see
and were disoriented. Plaint
iff WHALEY-MAYDA was tr
ansported by ambulance to the hospital where
her eyes were irrigated and a skin ra
sh from the pepper spray was treated.
49.
As reported by the University, ten persons were
arrested, all on the same charges: Failure
to Disperse from as Unlawful Assembly (Cal. Penal
Code § 409). They were released after several hours
and all were assigned the same court date for arraignmen
t, January 31, 2012. Prio
r to that date, however,
the District Attorney of Yolo C
ounty announced that no complaints w
ould be filed against any of the
persons arrested. As of the filing of this complain
t none of the plaintiffs ha
s been charged with any
crime arising out of the
November 18 protest.
50.
At the time campus police started arresti
ng people, a large number of students had
gathered in a non-violent assemblage, which remained
so but for the violence used by Defendant police
officers, PIKE and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, to arre
st non-resisting persons. All of those persons, who
assembled, including plaintiffs who were pepper spraye
d, were illegally require
d to disperse from the
campus quad by helmeted police enforcing their err
oneous decision that the gathering was unlawful.
51. The decision to declare the assemblage of
students on the quad at 3:00 p.m. on November
18, 2011, unlawful, was made by defendants,
KATEHI, HEXTER, WOOD, MEYER and SPICUZZA,
acting in concert, and executed by defendants PIKE
and Defendant DOES 1 through 50, inclusive.
There was no legal cause to disperse the assembly, a
nd the declaration of an unl
awful assembly violated
the plaintiffs’ rights of freedom of speech and assembly guaranteed by the
First Amendment to the
United States Constitution and the Liberty of Sp
eech Clause of the California Constitution.
52.
Defendants KATEHI, HEXTER, WOOD, MEYE
R and SPICUZZA had an affirmative
duty to properly screen, train and supervise de
fendants PIKE and DOE Defendants 1 through 50, but
failed to do so, resulting in the actions and violations
of the rights of Plain
tiffs and others described
herein.
53.
Defendants KATEHI, HEXTER, WOOD, ME
YER and SPICUZZA failed properly to
investigate the background of Defendant PIKE who wa
s not qualified for the posit
ion he held, and failed
to terminate him when his lack of
qualifications became known; as a
result of the negligent hiring and
retention of Defendant PIKE he wa
s enabled personally to commit the vi
olations described herein and to
supervise and direct defendants DOES 1 through 50
in the commission of the acts and violations
described herein.
54.
All of the plaintiffs, as well as others who ma
y be joined to this action when they come
forward, were injured by being deprived of their
rights to assemble and to speak freely, and by being
arrested and/or pepper sprayed and subjected to othe
r acts of excessive force by defendants and each of
them. Such injuries included physical pain and su
ffering, deprivations of liberty, and infliction of
emotional distress.
55.
The actions of Defendants, and each of them, were intentional and malicious in that the
pepper spraying and arrest of peacefully assembled
students on their college campus was so clearly in
violation of established state and
federal law that no inference othe
r than that the Defendants acted
maliciously with intent to injure and to deprive plai
ntiffs of their constituti
onal rights can be drawn,
entitling Plaintiffs, and each of them, to awards of
punitive damages in amounts to be determined at trial.
56.
On information and belief, certain plaintiffs we
re targeted by the police for forcible arrests
based on their past political activism a
nd associations at the University.
57.
The actions of Defendants, and each of them,
have had a chilling effect on the willingness
of Plaintiffs to exercise their free-speech rights
in areas under Defendants’
control, causing Plaintiffs
continuing injury that cannot be redressed by damages.
Case 2:12-cv-00450-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 02/22/12 Page 10 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.
; United States District Court, Eastern
District of California, Case No. __________
IV.
COUNT ONE
Violation of the First Amendment to the Un
ited States Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
58.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein, as
if stated in full,
each and every of the
allegations contained in paragr
aphs 1 through 56, inclusive.
59.
In prior years, Defendants and each of them, as well as their predecessors in their
positions, permitted assemblies, demonstrations and protests on campus which
included the erection of
structures such as tents and domes, when the message
and speakers were less controversial. In contrast,
Defendants and each of them took the actions to disp
erse the lawful assembly on November 18, and to
pepper spray and arrest students be
cause of the demonstration’s me
ssage and who was delivering it.
60.
By interfering, including through the use of ex
cessive force, Plaintiffs’ peaceful protest,
the actions of defendants and each of them violated
the rights of Plaintiffs and each of them guaranteed
to them by the First Amendment to the United Stat
es Constitution and caused them on-going irreparable
injury and damage, as stated above.
61.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as stated below.
V.
COUNT TWO
Violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Un
ited States Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
62.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein, as
if stated in full,
each and every of the
allegations contained in paragr
aphs 1 through 57, inclusive.
63.
In ordering, directing, approving, con
doning, and executing the pepper spraying of
Plaintiffs, the arrest of Plaintiffs
, the physical removal of Plaintiffs,
and/or the use of excessive force
against Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and each of them,
violated the prohibitions contained in the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution against unreasonable search or seizure,
as a result of which
plaintiffs, and each of them, were injured as stated above.
64.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as stated below.
VI.
COUNT THREE
Violation of the 14
th
Amendment to the Unites States
Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
65.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this
reference, as if set out in full, each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 57, inclusive.
Case 2:12-cv-00450-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 02/22/12 Page 11 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.
; United States District Court, Eastern
District of California, Case No. __________
66.
Personal possessions of Plaintiffs, includi
ng tents, were taken and destroyed by
defendants, and each of them, without
due process in violation of the 14
th
Amendment to the United
States Constitution which prohibits the taki
ng of property without
due process of law.
67.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for relief as stated below.
VII.
COUNT FOUR
Violation of Article 1 §§ 2 of the Califor
nia State Constitution – Freedom of Speech
68.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this
reference, as if set out in full, each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 57, inclusive.
69.
Article 1 § 2 of the California State Constitutio
n guarantees the right to speak freely. By
committing the acts alleged herein, Defendants, and each
of them, violated the rights of Plaintiffs herein
to free speech.
70.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as stated below.
VIII.
COUNT FIVE
Violation of Article 1 § 3 of the California Stat
e Constitution – Freedom of Petition & Assembly
71.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this
reference, as if set out in full, each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 57, inclusive.
72.
Article 1 § 3 of the California State Constitution guarantees the People the right to
freedom of assembly and to petition for redress.
By committing the acts alleged herein, Defendants, and
each of them, violated the rights of Plaintiffs
herein to freely assemble and to petition.
73.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as stated below.
IX.
COUNT SIX
Violation Article 1 § 13 of the California
State Constitution – Unlawful Seizure
74.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this
reference, as if set out in full, each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 57.
75.
In ordering, directing, approving, con
doning, and executing the pepper spraying of
Plaintiffs, the arrest of Plaintiffs
, the physical removal of Plaintiffs,
and/or the use of excessive force
against Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and each of them,
violated the prohibitions contained in the Fourth
Case 2:12-cv-00450-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 02/22/12 Page 12 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.
; United States District Court, Eastern
District of California, Case No. __________
Amendment to the United States Constitution against unreasonable search or seizure,
as a result of which
plaintiffs, and each of them, were injured as stated above..
76.
WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray for relief as stated below.
X.
COUNT SEVEN
False Arrest/Imprisonment and Violation
of § 836(a) of the California Penal Code
77.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this
reference, as if set out in full, each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 57.
78.
By arresting Plaintiffs without probable
cause and for misdemeanor offenses not
committed in the presence of the arresting officer at the time of the offense,
Defendants violated
Plaintiffs rights under California law.
79.
WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray for relief as stated below.
XI.
COUNT EIGHT
Violation of § 52.1 of the California Civil Code (Bane Act)
80.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this
reference, as if set out in full, each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 71.
81.
By dispersing the student assembly on the U.C. Davis quad on November 18, and by
pepper spraying and/or falsely arres
ting Plaintiffs, Defendants and each of
them through coercive force,
violated federal and state constituti
onal and statutory rights guaranteed to Plaintiffs and thereby became
liable for the damages Plaintiffs suffered, as well as
treble damages, statutory damages, penalties, and
attorneys’ fees.
82.
WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray for relief as stated below.
XII.
COUNT NINE
Violation of § 845.6 of the California Government Code – failure to provide medical
care
83.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this
reference, as if set out in full, each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 57.
84.
By failing to provide or summ
on medical care for persons whom
they had taken to jail and
who they had reason to know needed immediate medi
cal care, Defendants violat
ed Plaintiffs’ rights
Case 2:12-cv-00450-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 02/22/12 Page 13 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.
; United States District Court, Eastern
District of California, Case No. __________
under § 845.6 of the California Government Code.
85.
WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
XIII.
PRAYER
1.
Injunctive relief under federal law;
2.
Declaratory relief under federal law;
3.
Compensatory Damages under state and federal law;
4.
Punitive, Exemplary, and Statutory Damages under state and federal law;
5.
Attorney’s Fees under state and federal law;
6.
Costs under state and federal law; and
7.
Such other and further relief as to this Court may deem just and proper.
XIV.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiffs hereby demand a ju
ry trial in this action.
DATED: February 22, 2012 Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ “Mark E. Merin”
By:
Mark E. Merin (State Bar No. 043849)
L
AW
O
FFICE OF
M
ARK
E.
M
ERIN
1010 F Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: (916) 443-6911
Facsimile: (916) 447-8336
Alan Schlosser (State Bar No. 049957)
Michael Risher (State Bar No. 191627)
Linda Lye (State Bar No. 215584)
Novella Coleman (State Bar No. 281632)
A
MERICAN
C
IVIL
L
IBERTIES
U
NION
F
OUNDATION OF
N
ORTHERN
C
ALIFORNIA
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 621-2493
Facsimile: (415) 255-1478
Meredith Wallis (State Bar No. 261457)
1057 East 33
rd
Street
Oakland, California 94610
Telephone: (713) 724-4047
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
January 10, 2013
by the ACLU
Twenty-one students and alumni filed a federal lawsuit on February 22, 2012 against
UC Davis over the University's treatment of protesters during a Nov. 18, 2011
demonstration in which campus police were caught on video dousing seated protesters
with pepper spray.
The lawsuit charged that UC Davis administration officials set in motion a series of
events that they should have known would result in constitutional violations against the
demonstrators, and that they and the campus police department failed to properly train
and supervise officers. The lawsuit notes that the University's response to seated
student protesters amounted to unacceptable and excessive force that violates state
and federal constitutional protections, including the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. A task force that the University created to investigate and analyze the
official response to the protestors concluded that "the pepper spraying incident that
took place on November 18, 2011 should and could have been prevented."
The suit was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California.
A settlement was announced on September 26, 2012. The University agreed to pay
$1million, including $730,000 to the named plaintiffs and others who were arrested or
pepper-sprayed on November 18. Additionally, the case has been expanded to a class
action lawsuit, and a portion of the total award will be set aside to compensate
individuals other than the named plaintiffs who were pepper-sprayed or wrongfully
arrested on November 18, 2011.
As part of the settlement, UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi will issue a formal written
apology to each of the students and recent alumni who were pepper sprayed or
arrested. The University will work with the ACLU as it develops new policies on student
demonstrations, crowd management, and use of force.
While the settlement must be approved by a federal judge before it is final, a judge
granted preliminary approval of the settlement on September 27, 2012.
On January 9, 2013 a federal judge approved the settlement.
Case 2:12-cv-00450-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 02/22/12
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.;
United States District Court, Eastern District of California
ENOSH BAKER, DAVID BUSCHO, SARENA
GROSSJAN-NAVARRO, DEANNA JOHNSON,
SOPHIA KAMRAN, EL
IZABETH LARA, IAN
LEE, SOO LEE, EVAN
LOKER, THOMAS
MATZAT, DARREN NEWELL, CHARLES
PARKER, WILLIAM ROBERTS, FATIMA
SBEIH, EVKA WHALEY-MAYDA, KASE
WHEATLEY, EDWARD GEOFFREY
WILDANGER, NOAH WILEY, and JORDAN
WILHEIM,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
LINDA KATEHI, Chancellor of the University
of California at Davis; RALPH J. HEXTER,
Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor of
the University of California at Davis;FRED
WOOD, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs
at the University of California at Davis; JOHN MEYER, Vice
Chancellor of Administration and Resource
Management at the University at California at
Davis; ANNETTE SPICUZZA, Chief of the
University of California at Davis Police
Department; JOHN PIKE, Lt. in the University of
California at Davis Police Department; and DOES
1 – 50, officers of the University of California at
Davis Police Department.
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
On November 18, 2011, University of Califor
nia at Davis campus police attacked a peaceful
assembly at the center of the campus quad, arres
ting many students without probable cause and shooting
high-concentration pepper spray directly into th
e faces of students who we
re engaging in nonviolent
protest. The actions of the police provoked shock
and outrage nationally, in part because the video
footage was so reminiscent of the infamous images of
police in the South using
fire hoses to spray and
disperse nonviolent stud
ent sit-ins during the civil rights movement.
The 19 plaintiffs in this action
were protesting university privatiz
ation, distribution of resources,
tuition hikes, police brutality and other onerous pub
lic policies adopted by the
University administration
and the Board of Regents. Their protest was an inte
gral part of continuing,
vigorous assembly and free
speech activities which had been conducted by stude
nts for weeks at the same time the nationwide
Occupy Wall Street movement mobilized thousands nati
onwide. Seventeen of th
e plaintiffs were U.C.
Davis students at the time; the othe
r two are recent graduates.
This action seeks the following relief: a declar
ation from the Court that campus policies and
practices that led to the abuse of
the plaintiffs and others offend both
the state and fede
ral constitutional
guarantees of the rights to free speech and assembly a
nd that the pepper-spraying a
nd arrests of plaintiffs
violated their state and federal constitutional rights;
an injunction to prevent re
petition of such a response
to a non-violent protest; and compensatory and punitiv
e damages against the individual perpetrators of
the illegal acts and thei
r superiors who ordered,
directed and/or condoned this outrageous conduct..
I.JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Because this civil-rights action arises under
the United States Constitution, this Court has
Page 2 of 14
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 a
nd, 1343(a)(3), (4). This Court
has supplemental jurisdiction over
the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. §1367.
2.At all times pertinent to this Complaint and in
taking all of the actions described in this
Complaint, Defendants, and each of them, acted and threatened to act under
color of state law.
3.The events giving rise to this action occurring in Yolo County, California which is
locatedwithin this district.
II.PARTIES
4.Plaintiff ENOSH BAKER gr
aduated from U.C. Davis in 2009
and, at all times material to
this Complaint, was teaching on campus and awaiting d
ecision on his graduate pr
ogram application. He
was participating in a peaceful demonstration on th
e U.C. Davis campus on November 18, 2011, when he
was picked up by Defendant U.C. Davis police officers
Does 2 and 3, thrown forcefully to the ground,
handcuffed behind his back, and illegally arrested. Hi
s head struck a sprinkler head during the arrest.
5.
Plaintiff DAVID BUSCHO is a student at U.
C. Davis who, while participating in a
peaceful assembly on U.C. Davis campus on November
18, 2011, was sprayed repeatedly with pepper
spray by Defendant U.C. Davis police officers Lt.
John Pike and/or Doe 1 without legal cause or
justification.
6.
Plaintiff SARENA GR
OSSJAN-NAVARRO is a U.C.
Davis student who was
participating in a peaceful demonstration on the
U.C. Davis campus on November 18, 2011, when she
was pepper sprayed without legal ca
use or justification by Defendant
U.C. Davis police officer Lt. John
Pike and/or Doe 1.
7.
Plaintiff DEANNA JOHNSON is
a student at U.C. Davis w
ho was participating in a
peaceful demonstration on U.C. Davis campus on N
ovember 18, 2011, when she was pepper sprayed
without legal cause or justification by Defendant U.
C. Davis police officer Lt. John Pike and/or Doe 1.
8.
Plaintiff SOPHIA KAMRAN is a student at
U.C. Davis who was participating in a
peaceful demonstration on U.C. Davis campus on N
ovember 18, 2011, when she was pepper sprayed
without legal cause or justification by Defendant U.
C. Davis police officer Lt. John Pike and/or Doe 1.
9.Plaintiff ELIZABETH LARA is a student at
U.C. Davis who was participating in a
Page 3 of 14
peaceful assembly on the U.C. Davis campus on November 18, 2011, when she was
illegally arrested by
Defendant U.C. Davis police officers Does
16 and 17 and transported to the campus jail.
10.Plaintiff IAN LEE is a student at U.C.
Davis who was participating in a peaceful
demonstration on the U.C. Davis campus on Novemb
er 18, 2011, when he was pepper sprayed by
Defendant U.C. Davis police officer Lt. John Pike and/
or Doe 1 without legal cau
se or justification and
then pinned to the ground by defendant Pike.
11.
Plaintiff SOO LEE is a student at U.C. Da
vis who was participating in a peaceful
demonstration on the U.C. Davis campus on Novemb
er 18, 2011, when she was pepper sprayed by
Defendant U.C. Davis police officer Lt. John Pike an
d/or Doe 1 without legal
cause or justification.
12.
Plaintiff EVAN LOKER, at all
times material to this complaint, was a student at U.C.
Davis and was participating in a
peaceful demonstration on the U.C.
Davis campus on November 18,
2011, when he was pepper sprayed by Defendant U.C.
Davis police officer Lt. John Pike and/or Doe 1
without legal cause or justification.
13.
Plaintiff THOMAS MATZAT is a student at
U.C. Davis who was participating in a
peaceful demonstration on the U.C. Davis campus on
November 18, 2011, when he was selected for
illegal arrest, then handcuffed painfully behind hi
s back and grabbed and dr
agged by Defendant U.C.
Davis police officers, Does 23 and 4, to a
police car and transported to campus jail.
14.
Plaintiff DARREN NEWELL is a
student at U.C. Davis w
ho was participating in a
peaceful demonstration on the U.C. Davis campus on
November 18, 2011, when he was targeted for
illegal arrest. Two U.C. Davis police officers, defe
ndants Doe 5 and 6, had him stand up and they then
handcuffed his hands behind his back, put him into
a patrol car and transported him to jail.
15.
Plaintiff CHARLES PARKER is
a student at U.C. Davis who was participating in a
peaceful demonstration on the U.C. Davis campus on
November 18, 2011, when he was targeted for
illegal arrest. Three U.C. Davis police officers,
Defendants Does 7, 8, and 9, slammed him to the
ground, kneed him and kneeled on him, then handcu
ffed him behind his back and dragged him to a
police car in which he was placed and then driven to
the campus jail. He wa
s denied medical assistance
and access to medication while detained in the campus jail.
16.
Plaintiff WILLIAM ROBERTS is
a student at U.C. Davis
and was participating in a
peaceful demonstration on the U.C. Davis campus on
November 18, 2011, when he was pepper-sprayed
without legal cause or justificati
on by defendant U.C. Davis police o
fficer Lt. John Pike and/or Doe 1.
17.
Plaintiff FATIMA SBEIH is a st
udent at U.C. Davis and was
participating in a peaceful
demonstration on the U.C. Davis campus on November
18, 2011, when she was pepper sprayed, without
legal cause or justification, by defendant U.C.
Davis police officer Lt. John Pike and/or Doe 1.
18.
Plaintiff EVKA WHALEY-MAYDA is
a student at U.C. Davis and was participating in a
peaceful demonstration on the U.C. Davis campus on
November 18, 2011, when she was pepper-sprayed,
without legal cause or justification,
by defendant U.C. Davis police o
fficer Lt. John Pike and/or Doe 1.
19.
Plaintiff KASE WHEATLEY is a student at
U.C. Davis and was participating in a
peaceful demonstration on the U.C. Davis campus on
November 18, 2011, when he was pepper sprayed,
without legal cause or justification,
by defendant U.C. Davis police o
fficer Lt. John Pike and/or Doe 1,
then handcuffed behind his back and falsely arrested
by defendant U.C. Davis police officers Does 10
and 11, placed into a police car and transported to the campus jail.
20.
Plaintiff EDWARD WIL
DANGER is a student at U.C. Da
vis and was participating in a
peaceful demonstration on the U.C. Davis campus on
November 18, 2011, when, without legal cause or
justification, he was pepper sprayed by defendant U.
C. Davis police officer Lt. John Pike and/or Doe 1.
21.
Plaintiff NOAH WILEY is a student at U.C.
Davis and was participating in a peaceful
demonstration on the U.C. Davis campus on November
18, 2011, when he was pepper sprayed without
legal cause or justification by defendant U.C. Davi
s police officer Lt. John Pi
ke and/or Doe 1, then
falsely arrested by defendant U.C. Davis police offi
cers Does 12 and 13 and transported to the campus
jail.
22.
Plaintiff JORDAN WILHEIM is a U.C. Davi
s alumnus who was graduated in the spring
of 2011 and was visiting campus on November 18, 2011,
when he witnessed and participated in a
peaceful demonstration on the U.C.
Davis campus. During that demonstration he was handcuffed behind
his back and falsely arrested by U.C. Davis polic
e officers, defendants Does 14 and 15, and then
transported to campus jail.
23.
Defendant LINDA KATEHI is the Chancellor of
the University of California at Davis.
She is sued in her individual and official capacities.
Case 2:12-cv-00450-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 02/22/12 Page 5 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.
; United States District Court, Eastern
District of California, Case No. __________
24.
Defendant RALPH J. HEXTER is the Pr
ovost and Executive Vice Chancellor of the
University of California at Davis. He is sued
in his individual and
official capacities.
25.
Defendant FRED WOOD is the Vice Chancellor
for Student Affairs at the University of
California at Davis. He is sued in his
individual and official capacities.
26.
Defendant JOHN MEYER is the Vice Chancellor of Administration and Resource
Management at the University of Calif
ornia at Davis. He is sued in
his individual and official capacities.
27.
Defendant ANNETTE SPICUZZA is th
e Chief of the University of California at Davis
Police Department. As a result of the actions desc
ribed in this complaint Defendant Spicuzza was placed
on leave by the University. She is sued in
her individual and official capacities.
28.
Defendant JOHN PIKE is a Lieu
tenant in the University of
California at Davis Police
Department. As a result of the actions described in
this complaint Defendant Pike was placed on leave by
the University. He is sued in his individual capacity.
29.
Plaintiffs do not know the true names and
capacities of Defendants DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, and therefore sue these defendants by such
fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed and
believe and thereupon allege that each
defendant so named is responsible
in some manner for the injuries
and damages suffered by plaintiffs as are alleged here
in. Plaintiffs will amend their complaint to state
the names and capacities of Does 1 - 50, inclusiv
e, when the same have been ascertained.
30.
Defendants DOES 1 – 50, inclusive, were all pol
ice officers , administrators, and/or other
personnel employed by defendant Univers
ity of California at Davis and,
at all times material to this
complaint, were acting within the course and scope of
their employment and were
directly involved in
the actions which caused injury and
damages to plaintiffs herein.
31.
At all times material hereto, Defendants sued
herein were acting under color of state law.
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
32. On November 16, U.C. Davis students joined ot
hers in San Francisco to demonstrate at a
scheduled Board of Regents meeting, protesting univers
ity privatization, tuition increases, and the brutal
treatment of demonstrators on Berkeley’s campus the
previous week. They returned to campus and, on
November 17, a general assembly of
students agreed to set up symbolic
tents on the quad and to continue
to meet openly, to “occupy the quad” to discuss and st
udy university privatization, tuition hikes, and their
relation to other issues
of macro political and soci
al importance, and to consider what they could do to
change conditions which had brought people together
in support of the Occ
upy Wall Street Movement.
33.
A group of students set up tents on the quad
and the “Occupation of the Quad” began.
Shortly after the first tents were erected, U.C. Davi
s administrative employees delivered to some of the
students on the quad a notice that
included a campus “no overnight camping” policy. The notice was
discussed and the group concluded th
at they were symbolically “occ
upying the quad” in support of and
in solidarity with the
99% championed by the Occupy Wall Street movement.
34.
On the evening of November 17, the Associat
ed Students of the University of California
at Davis (ASUCD) endorsed the “occupation of the quad.”
35.
On November 18, in the afternoon, De
fendant Police Chief SPICUZZZA, accompanied
by a Doe Defendant, delivered a lett
er from Defendant Chancellor KATEH
I directing students to remove
the tents by 3:00 p.m. “in interest of safety, respec
t for our campus environment and in accordance with
our Principles of Community.”
36.
Students held another assembly, discussed th
e letter the Chancellor had delivered, and
many decided to remove their tents and did so. Others resolved to remain.
37.
Shortly before 3:00 p.m., a large number of po
lice in riot gear armed with long batons,
pepper-ball guns and other weapons were seen massing
in formation adjacent to the quad. The students
moved the remaining tents to the circle on the Cente
nnial Walk, a concrete pathway in the middle of the
campus quad, and stood around them.
38.
The officers advanced on the students as can be seen on any number of videotapes.
They
began pushing students away, or throwing them to th
e ground. Some of the officers disassembled or
destroyed the tents. As the tents were being remove
d, students sat down in a large circle. Classes were
letting out and hundreds of additi
onal students swarmed out of their buildings to watch what was
happening.
39.
The campus officers pointed to specific studen
ts, arrested them and began grabbing them
and hauling them off to jail. Pl
aintiff ENOSH BAKER was the first to
be grabbed and thrown to the
ground by two police officers, Defendants DOE 2 and DOE
3. He hit his head on a sprinkler fixture as
he was thrown to the ground and his hands were tightly
zip tied together behind hi
s back as he was taken
into custody and placed into a police car.
40.
Plaintiff CHARLES PARKER wa
s targeted by three police officers, Defendants DOE 7,
DOE 8, and DOE 9 grabbed him. His hands were pain
fully zip tied behind his back, exacerbating a prior
military combat injury, and he was placed into a
police car where he joined BAKER and plaintiff
ELIZABETH LARA.
41.
Plaintiff LARA had arrived immediately prior
to the police advancing on those students
standing around the circle and joined the circle. Wh
en the police reached the crowd she was thrown to
the ground by Defendant police officers DOES 16 and 17,
her hands were zip tied behind her, and she
was arrested and taken to the police car which then
transported her, PARKER and BAKER to the police
station. Plaintiffs’ hands were all zip tied, some zi
p ties were particularly
tight, cutting off blood flow,
but the jailers did not have the special equipment need
ed to cut the plastic ties. Eventually, the zip ties
were cut and removed.
42.
As the group of students was being pushed
by officers, students began to sit down in a
line. Officers were stepping over the seated stud
ents, who did nothing to stop them. Then Defendant
PIKE ordered the students to leave or
stated they would be “shot.” As
is discernible from audio tapes of
his reaction, Plaintiff
WHEATLEY responded: “You’re going to
shoot us if we don’t leave?”
43.
Defendant PIKE then shook a canister of pepper
spray like a can of aer
osol paint, stepped
over the line of sitting, crouching students and walked
up and down the line repeatedly dousing Plaintiffs
with orange colored pepper spray, mostly from
a distance of one-to-two f
eet. Students watching the
scene screamed or shouted: “Shame.”
44.
Another officer, Doe 1, then approached the li
ne of seated demonstr
ators from behind and
began spraying them with a separate canister of pepper spray.
45.
Documents that the University of California
has subsequently released in response to a
request for public records indica
te that the substance used was
Defense Technology’s MK-9 Magnum
spray, with a major Capsaicinoid co
ncentration of .7%. The single pa
ge of manufacturer’s information
that the University was able to provide states
that the minimum recommended distance for this
formulation is 6 feet. The University states that it
has no other package inserts,
warnings, or instructions
Case 2:12-cv-00450-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 02/22/12 Page 8 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.
; United States District Court, Eastern
District of California, Case No. __________
relating to this product, a
lthough California law requires that all such
substances sold in California be
accompanied by printed instructions for use, firs
t aid information, and safety information.
See
Ca. Penal
Code § 22810(e)(4), (f) (former § 12403.7).
46.
Plaintiff MATZAT’s hands were zip-tied behind
his back and he was arrested along with
Plaintiff WHEATLEY who had been
pepper-sprayed and both had been tr
ansferred to jail by Defendants
Does 23, and 4 and 18 and 19, respectively.
47.
Plaintiffs BUSCHO, GROSSJAN-NAVAR
RO, JOHNSON, KAMRAN, IAN LEE, SOO
LEE, LOKER, ROBERTS, SBEI
HN, WHALEY-MAYDA and WILDANGER were pepper sprayed by
Defendant PIKE and Doe Officers and left to deal w
ith their burning eyes, faces and skin. Neither the
University nor the police provided adequate medical
attention on the scene to
any of the students who
had been sprayed.
48.
Members of the campus student body administered
first aid to Plaintiffs who could not see
and were disoriented. Plaint
iff WHALEY-MAYDA was tr
ansported by ambulance to the hospital where
her eyes were irrigated and a skin ra
sh from the pepper spray was treated.
49.
As reported by the University, ten persons were
arrested, all on the same charges: Failure
to Disperse from as Unlawful Assembly (Cal. Penal
Code § 409). They were released after several hours
and all were assigned the same court date for arraignmen
t, January 31, 2012. Prio
r to that date, however,
the District Attorney of Yolo C
ounty announced that no complaints w
ould be filed against any of the
persons arrested. As of the filing of this complain
t none of the plaintiffs ha
s been charged with any
crime arising out of the
November 18 protest.
50.
At the time campus police started arresti
ng people, a large number of students had
gathered in a non-violent assemblage, which remained
so but for the violence used by Defendant police
officers, PIKE and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, to arre
st non-resisting persons. All of those persons, who
assembled, including plaintiffs who were pepper spraye
d, were illegally require
d to disperse from the
campus quad by helmeted police enforcing their err
oneous decision that the gathering was unlawful.
51. The decision to declare the assemblage of
students on the quad at 3:00 p.m. on November
18, 2011, unlawful, was made by defendants,
KATEHI, HEXTER, WOOD, MEYER and SPICUZZA,
acting in concert, and executed by defendants PIKE
and Defendant DOES 1 through 50, inclusive.
There was no legal cause to disperse the assembly, a
nd the declaration of an unl
awful assembly violated
the plaintiffs’ rights of freedom of speech and assembly guaranteed by the
First Amendment to the
United States Constitution and the Liberty of Sp
eech Clause of the California Constitution.
52.
Defendants KATEHI, HEXTER, WOOD, MEYE
R and SPICUZZA had an affirmative
duty to properly screen, train and supervise de
fendants PIKE and DOE Defendants 1 through 50, but
failed to do so, resulting in the actions and violations
of the rights of Plain
tiffs and others described
herein.
53.
Defendants KATEHI, HEXTER, WOOD, ME
YER and SPICUZZA failed properly to
investigate the background of Defendant PIKE who wa
s not qualified for the posit
ion he held, and failed
to terminate him when his lack of
qualifications became known; as a
result of the negligent hiring and
retention of Defendant PIKE he wa
s enabled personally to commit the vi
olations described herein and to
supervise and direct defendants DOES 1 through 50
in the commission of the acts and violations
described herein.
54.
All of the plaintiffs, as well as others who ma
y be joined to this action when they come
forward, were injured by being deprived of their
rights to assemble and to speak freely, and by being
arrested and/or pepper sprayed and subjected to othe
r acts of excessive force by defendants and each of
them. Such injuries included physical pain and su
ffering, deprivations of liberty, and infliction of
emotional distress.
55.
The actions of Defendants, and each of them, were intentional and malicious in that the
pepper spraying and arrest of peacefully assembled
students on their college campus was so clearly in
violation of established state and
federal law that no inference othe
r than that the Defendants acted
maliciously with intent to injure and to deprive plai
ntiffs of their constituti
onal rights can be drawn,
entitling Plaintiffs, and each of them, to awards of
punitive damages in amounts to be determined at trial.
56.
On information and belief, certain plaintiffs we
re targeted by the police for forcible arrests
based on their past political activism a
nd associations at the University.
57.
The actions of Defendants, and each of them,
have had a chilling effect on the willingness
of Plaintiffs to exercise their free-speech rights
in areas under Defendants’
control, causing Plaintiffs
continuing injury that cannot be redressed by damages.
Case 2:12-cv-00450-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 02/22/12 Page 10 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.
; United States District Court, Eastern
District of California, Case No. __________
IV.
COUNT ONE
Violation of the First Amendment to the Un
ited States Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
58.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein, as
if stated in full,
each and every of the
allegations contained in paragr
aphs 1 through 56, inclusive.
59.
In prior years, Defendants and each of them, as well as their predecessors in their
positions, permitted assemblies, demonstrations and protests on campus which
included the erection of
structures such as tents and domes, when the message
and speakers were less controversial. In contrast,
Defendants and each of them took the actions to disp
erse the lawful assembly on November 18, and to
pepper spray and arrest students be
cause of the demonstration’s me
ssage and who was delivering it.
60.
By interfering, including through the use of ex
cessive force, Plaintiffs’ peaceful protest,
the actions of defendants and each of them violated
the rights of Plaintiffs and each of them guaranteed
to them by the First Amendment to the United Stat
es Constitution and caused them on-going irreparable
injury and damage, as stated above.
61.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as stated below.
V.
COUNT TWO
Violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Un
ited States Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
62.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein, as
if stated in full,
each and every of the
allegations contained in paragr
aphs 1 through 57, inclusive.
63.
In ordering, directing, approving, con
doning, and executing the pepper spraying of
Plaintiffs, the arrest of Plaintiffs
, the physical removal of Plaintiffs,
and/or the use of excessive force
against Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and each of them,
violated the prohibitions contained in the Fourth
Amendment to the United States Constitution against unreasonable search or seizure,
as a result of which
plaintiffs, and each of them, were injured as stated above.
64.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as stated below.
VI.
COUNT THREE
Violation of the 14
th
Amendment to the Unites States
Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
65.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this
reference, as if set out in full, each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 57, inclusive.
Case 2:12-cv-00450-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 02/22/12 Page 11 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.
; United States District Court, Eastern
District of California, Case No. __________
66.
Personal possessions of Plaintiffs, includi
ng tents, were taken and destroyed by
defendants, and each of them, without
due process in violation of the 14
th
Amendment to the United
States Constitution which prohibits the taki
ng of property without
due process of law.
67.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for relief as stated below.
VII.
COUNT FOUR
Violation of Article 1 §§ 2 of the Califor
nia State Constitution – Freedom of Speech
68.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this
reference, as if set out in full, each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 57, inclusive.
69.
Article 1 § 2 of the California State Constitutio
n guarantees the right to speak freely. By
committing the acts alleged herein, Defendants, and each
of them, violated the rights of Plaintiffs herein
to free speech.
70.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as stated below.
VIII.
COUNT FIVE
Violation of Article 1 § 3 of the California Stat
e Constitution – Freedom of Petition & Assembly
71.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this
reference, as if set out in full, each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 57, inclusive.
72.
Article 1 § 3 of the California State Constitution guarantees the People the right to
freedom of assembly and to petition for redress.
By committing the acts alleged herein, Defendants, and
each of them, violated the rights of Plaintiffs
herein to freely assemble and to petition.
73.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as stated below.
IX.
COUNT SIX
Violation Article 1 § 13 of the California
State Constitution – Unlawful Seizure
74.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this
reference, as if set out in full, each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 57.
75.
In ordering, directing, approving, con
doning, and executing the pepper spraying of
Plaintiffs, the arrest of Plaintiffs
, the physical removal of Plaintiffs,
and/or the use of excessive force
against Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and each of them,
violated the prohibitions contained in the Fourth
Case 2:12-cv-00450-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 02/22/12 Page 12 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.
; United States District Court, Eastern
District of California, Case No. __________
Amendment to the United States Constitution against unreasonable search or seizure,
as a result of which
plaintiffs, and each of them, were injured as stated above..
76.
WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray for relief as stated below.
X.
COUNT SEVEN
False Arrest/Imprisonment and Violation
of § 836(a) of the California Penal Code
77.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this
reference, as if set out in full, each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 57.
78.
By arresting Plaintiffs without probable
cause and for misdemeanor offenses not
committed in the presence of the arresting officer at the time of the offense,
Defendants violated
Plaintiffs rights under California law.
79.
WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray for relief as stated below.
XI.
COUNT EIGHT
Violation of § 52.1 of the California Civil Code (Bane Act)
80.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this
reference, as if set out in full, each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 71.
81.
By dispersing the student assembly on the U.C. Davis quad on November 18, and by
pepper spraying and/or falsely arres
ting Plaintiffs, Defendants and each of
them through coercive force,
violated federal and state constituti
onal and statutory rights guaranteed to Plaintiffs and thereby became
liable for the damages Plaintiffs suffered, as well as
treble damages, statutory damages, penalties, and
attorneys’ fees.
82.
WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray for relief as stated below.
XII.
COUNT NINE
Violation of § 845.6 of the California Government Code – failure to provide medical
care
83.
Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by this
reference, as if set out in full, each and
every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 57.
84.
By failing to provide or summ
on medical care for persons whom
they had taken to jail and
who they had reason to know needed immediate medi
cal care, Defendants violat
ed Plaintiffs’ rights
Case 2:12-cv-00450-JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 02/22/12 Page 13 of 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL
DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.
; United States District Court, Eastern
District of California, Case No. __________
under § 845.6 of the California Government Code.
85.
WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
XIII.
PRAYER
1.
Injunctive relief under federal law;
2.
Declaratory relief under federal law;
3.
Compensatory Damages under state and federal law;
4.
Punitive, Exemplary, and Statutory Damages under state and federal law;
5.
Attorney’s Fees under state and federal law;
6.
Costs under state and federal law; and
7.
Such other and further relief as to this Court may deem just and proper.
XIV.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiffs hereby demand a ju
ry trial in this action.
DATED: February 22, 2012 Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ “Mark E. Merin”
By:
Mark E. Merin (State Bar No. 043849)
L
AW
O
FFICE OF
M
ARK
E.
M
ERIN
1010 F Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: (916) 443-6911
Facsimile: (916) 447-8336
Alan Schlosser (State Bar No. 049957)
Michael Risher (State Bar No. 191627)
Linda Lye (State Bar No. 215584)
Novella Coleman (State Bar No. 281632)
A
MERICAN
C
IVIL
L
IBERTIES
U
NION
F
OUNDATION OF
N
ORTHERN
C
ALIFORNIA
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 621-2493
Facsimile: (415) 255-1478
Meredith Wallis (State Bar No. 261457)
1057 East 33
rd
Street
Oakland, California 94610
Telephone: (713) 724-4047
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL
RIGHTS
WITH SUPPLEMENTAL
CLAIMS FOR VIOLATION OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE
CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL
RIGHTS
WITH SUPPLEMENTAL
CLAIMS FOR VIOLATION OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE
CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
| News, information and ideas about our education system, courts and health care by Maura Larkins |