Baker, et al v. Katehi, et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against all defendants by plaintiffs; DEMAND for Jury Trial.(Merin, Mark)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Mark E. Merin (State Bar No. 043849)
LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN
1010 F Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
E-Mail:
[e-mail]
Alan Schlosser (State Bar No. 049957)
Michael T. Risher (State Bar No. 191627)
Linda Lye (State Bar No. 215584)
Novella Coleman (State Bar No. 281632)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
E-Mail:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

12
13
14

Meredith Wallis (State Bar No. 261457)
1057 East 33rd Street
Oakland, California 94610
Telephone:
[phone]
E-Mail:
[e-mail]

15
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18
19
20
21
22
23

ENOSH BAKER, DAVID BUSCHO, SARENA
GROSSJAN-NAVARRO, DEANNA JOHNSON,
SOPHIA KAMRAN, ELIZABETH 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,

24
25
26
27
28

Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS WITH
SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIMS FOR
VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

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
(Defendants Continued…)

1
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. __________

1
2
3
4
5

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.

6

Defendants.

7

INTRODUCTION

8
On November 18, 2011, University of California at Davis campus police attacked a peaceful
9
assembly at the center of the campus quad, arresting many students without probable cause and shooting
10
high-concentration pepper spray directly into the faces of students who were engaging in nonviolent
11
protest. The actions of the police provoked shock and outrage nationally, in part because the video
12
footage was so reminiscent of the infamous images of police in the South using fire hoses to spray and
13
disperse nonviolent student sit-ins during the civil rights movement.
14
The 19 plaintiffs in this action were protesting university privatization, distribution of resources,
15
tuition hikes, police brutality and other onerous public policies adopted by the University administration
16
and the Board of Regents. Their protest was an integral part of continuing, vigorous assembly and free
17
speech activities which had been conducted by students for weeks at the same time the nationwide
18
Occupy Wall Street movement mobilized thousands nationwide. Seventeen of the plaintiffs were U.C.
19
Davis students at the time; the other two are recent graduates.
20
This action seeks the following relief: a declaration from the Court that campus policies and
21
practices that led to the abuse of the plaintiffs and others offend both the state and federal constitutional
22
guarantees of the rights to free speech and assembly and that the pepper-spraying and arrests of plaintiffs
23
violated their state and federal constitutional rights; an injunction to prevent repetition of such a response
24
to a non-violent protest; and compensatory and punitive damages against the individual perpetrators of
25
the illegal acts and their superiors who ordered, directed and/or condoned this outrageous conduct..
26

I.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

27
28

1.

Because this civil-rights action arises under the United States Constitution, this Court has
2
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. __________

1
2
3
4
5
6

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and, 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 located

within this district.

7

II.

PARTIES

8
4.

Plaintiff ENOSH BAKER graduated from U.C. Davis in 2009 and, at all times material to

9
this Complaint, was teaching on campus and awaiting decision on his graduate program application. He
10
was participating in a peaceful demonstration on the U.C. Davis campus on November 18, 2011, when he
11
was picked up by Defendant U.C. Davis police officers Does 2 and 3, thrown forcefully to the ground,
12
handcuffed behind his back, and illegally arrested. His head struck a sprinkler head during the arrest.
13
5.

Plaintiff DAVID BUSCHO is a student at U.C. Davis who, while participating in a

14
peaceful assembly on U.C. Davis campus on November 18, 2011, was sprayed repeatedly with pepper
15
spray by Defendant U.C. Davis police officers Lt. John Pike and/or Doe 1 without legal cause or
16
justification.
17
6.

Plaintiff SARENA GROSSJAN-NAVARRO is a U.C. Davis student who was

18
participating in a peaceful demonstration on the U.C. Davis campus on November 18, 2011, when she
19
was pepper sprayed without legal cause or justification by Defendant U.C. Davis police officer Lt. John
20
Pike and/or Doe 1.
21
7.

Plaintiff DEANNA JOHNSON is a student at U.C. Davis who was participating in a

22
peaceful demonstration on U.C. Davis campus on November 18, 2011, when she was pepper sprayed
23
without legal cause or justification by Defendant U.C. Davis police officer Lt. John Pike and/or Doe 1.
24
8.

Plaintiff SOPHIA KAMRAN is a student at U.C. Davis who was participating in a

25
peaceful demonstration on U.C. Davis campus on November 18, 2011, when she was pepper sprayed
26
without legal cause or justification by Defendant U.C. Davis police officer Lt. John Pike and/or Doe 1.
27
9.

Plaintiff ELIZABETH LARA is a student at U.C. Davis who was participating in a

28
3
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. __________

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

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 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 and
then pinned to the ground by defendant Pike.
11.

Plaintiff SOO LEE 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 she was pepper sprayed by
Defendant U.C. Davis police officer Lt. John Pike and/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 his back and grabbed and dragged 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 who 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, defendants 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 handcuffed him behind his back and dragged him to a
police car in which he was placed and then driven to the campus jail. He was 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
4
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. __________

1
2

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 officer Lt. John Pike and/or Doe 1.

3
4
5

17.

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.

6
7
8

18.

11
12
13

without legal cause or justification, by defendant U.C. Davis police officer Lt. John Pike and/or Doe 1.
19.

16

without legal cause or justification, by defendant U.C. Davis police officer 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.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff EDWARD WILDANGER 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, without legal cause or
justification, he was pepper sprayed by defendant U.C. Davis police officer Lt. John Pike and/or Doe 1.

17
18

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,

14
15

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,

9
10

Plaintiff FATIMA SBEIH is a student at U.C. Davis and was participating in a peaceful

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. Davis police officer Lt. John Pike and/or Doe 1, then
falsely arrested by defendant U.C. Davis police officers Does 12 and 13 and transported to the campus
jail.
22.

Plaintiff JORDAN WILHEIM is a U.C. Davis 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 police 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.
5
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. __________

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

24.

Defendant RALPH J. HEXTER is the Provost 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 California at Davis. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.
27.

Defendant ANNETTE SPICUZZA is the Chief of the University of California at Davis

Police Department. As a result of the actions described 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 Lieutenant 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 herein. Plaintiffs will amend their complaint to state
the names and capacities of Does 1 - 50, inclusive, when the same have been ascertained.
30.

Defendants DOES 1 – 50, inclusive, were all police officers , administrators, and/or other

personnel employed by defendant University 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.

23

At all times material hereto, Defendants sued herein were acting under color of state law.
III.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

24
32.

On November 16, U.C. Davis students joined others in San Francisco to demonstrate at a

25
scheduled Board of Regents meeting, protesting university privatization, tuition increases, and the brutal
26
treatment of demonstrators on Berkeley’s campus the previous week. They returned to campus and, on
27
November 17, a general assembly of students agreed to set up symbolic tents on the quad and to continue
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. __________

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

to meet openly, to “occupy the quad” to discuss and study university privatization, tuition hikes, and their
relation to other issues of macro political and social importance, and to consider what they could do to
change conditions which had brought people together in support of the Occupy 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. Davis 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 that they were symbolically “occupying 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 Associated Students of the University of California

at Davis (ASUCD) endorsed the “occupation of the quad.”
35.

On November 18, in the afternoon, Defendant Police Chief SPICUZZZA, accompanied

by a Doe Defendant, delivered a letter from Defendant Chancellor KATEHI directing students to remove
the tents by 3:00 p.m. “in interest of safety, respect for our campus environment and in accordance with
our Principles of Community.”
36.

Students held another assembly, discussed the 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 police 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 Centennial 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 the ground. Some of the officers disassembled or
destroyed the tents. As the tents were being removed, students sat down in a large circle. Classes were
letting out and hundreds of additional students swarmed out of their buildings to watch what was
happening.
39.

The campus officers pointed to specific students, arrested them and began grabbing them

and hauling them off to jail. Plaintiff 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
7
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. __________

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

he was thrown to the ground and his hands were tightly zip tied together behind his back as he was taken
into custody and placed into a police car.
40.

Plaintiff CHARLES PARKER was targeted by three police officers, Defendants DOE 7,

DOE 8, and DOE 9 grabbed him. His hands were painfully 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. When 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 zip ties were particularly tight, cutting off blood flow,
but the jailers did not have the special equipment needed 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 students, 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 aerosol 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 feet. Students watching the
scene screamed or shouted: “Shame.”
44.

Another officer, Doe 1, then approached the line of seated demonstrators 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 indicate that the substance used was Defense Technology’s MK-9 Magnum
spray, with a major Capsaicinoid concentration of .7%. The single page 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
8
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. __________

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

relating to this product, although California law requires that all such substances sold in California be
accompanied by printed instructions for use, first 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 transferred to jail by Defendants
Does 23, and 4 and 18 and 19, respectively.
47.

Plaintiffs BUSCHO, GROSSJAN-NAVARRO, JOHNSON, KAMRAN, IAN LEE, SOO

LEE, LOKER, ROBERTS, SBEIHN, WHALEY-MAYDA and WILDANGER were pepper sprayed by
Defendant PIKE and Doe Officers and left to deal with 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. Plaintiff WHALEY-MAYDA was transported by ambulance to the hospital where
her eyes were irrigated and a skin rash 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 arraignment, January 31, 2012. Prior to that date, however,
the District Attorney of Yolo County announced that no complaints would be filed against any of the
persons arrested. As of the filing of this complaint none of the plaintiffs has been charged with any
crime arising out of the November 18 protest.
50.

At the time campus police started arresting 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 arrest non-resisting persons. All of those persons, who
assembled, including plaintiffs who were pepper sprayed, were illegally required to disperse from the
campus quad by helmeted police enforcing their erroneous 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.
9
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. __________

1
2
3

There was no legal cause to disperse the assembly, and the declaration of an unlawful 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 Speech Clause of the California Constitution.

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

52.

Defendants KATEHI, HEXTER, WOOD, MEYER and SPICUZZA had an affirmative

duty to properly screen, train and supervise defendants PIKE and DOE Defendants 1 through 50, but
failed to do so, resulting in the actions and violations of the rights of Plaintiffs and others described
herein.
53.

Defendants KATEHI, HEXTER, WOOD, MEYER and SPICUZZA failed properly to

investigate the background of Defendant PIKE who was not qualified for the position 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 was enabled personally to commit the violations 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 may 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 other acts of excessive force by defendants and each of
them. Such injuries included physical pain and suffering, 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 other than that the Defendants acted
maliciously with intent to injure and to deprive plaintiffs of their constitutional 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 were targeted by the police for forcible arrests

based on their past political activism and 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.
10
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. __________

1

IV.

COUNT ONE

2

Violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

3

58.

4
5

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein, as if stated in full, each and every of the

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 56, inclusive.
59.

In prior years, Defendants and each of them, as well as their predecessors in their

6

positions, permitted assemblies, demonstrations and protests on campus which included the erection of

7

structures such as tents and domes, when the message and speakers were less controversial. In contrast,

8

Defendants and each of them took the actions to disperse the lawful assembly on November 18, and to

9

pepper spray and arrest students because of the demonstration’s message and who was delivering it.

10

60.

By interfering, including through the use of excessive force, Plaintiffs’ peaceful protest,

11

the actions of defendants and each of them violated the rights of Plaintiffs and each of them guaranteed

12

to them by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and caused them on-going irreparable

13

injury and damage, as stated above.

14

61.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as stated below.
V.

15
16
17
18
19

COUNT TWO

Violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United 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 paragraphs 1 through 57, inclusive.
63.

In ordering, directing, approving, condoning, and executing the pepper spraying of

20

Plaintiffs, the arrest of Plaintiffs, the physical removal of Plaintiffs, and/or the use of excessive force

21

against Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and each of them, violated the prohibitions contained in the Fourth

22

Amendment to the United States Constitution against unreasonable search or seizure, as a result of which

23

plaintiffs, and each of them, were injured as stated above.

24

64.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as stated below.
VI.

25

COUNT THREE

th

Violation of the 14 Amendment to the Unites States Constitution (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
26
27
28

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.
11
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. __________

1
2
3
4

66.

Personal possessions of Plaintiffs, including tents, were taken and destroyed by

defendants, and each of them, without due process in violation of the 14th Amendment to the United
States Constitution which prohibits the taking of property without due process of law.
67.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for relief as stated below.

5
6

VII.

COUNT FOUR

Violation of Article 1 §§ 2 of the California State Constitution – Freedom of Speech

7
8
9
10

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 Constitution guarantees the right to speak freely. By

11

committing the acts alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them, violated the rights of Plaintiffs herein

12

to free speech.

13
14

70.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as stated below.
VIII. COUNT FIVE

Violation of Article 1 § 3 of the California State Constitution – Freedom of Petition & Assembly

15
16
17
18

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

19

freedom of assembly and to petition for redress. By committing the acts alleged herein, Defendants, and

20

each of them, violated the rights of Plaintiffs herein to freely assemble and to petition.

21

73.

IX.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as stated below.
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, condoning, 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
12
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. __________

1
2
3

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.

4

X.

COUNT SEVEN

5
6
7
8
9

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

10

committed in the presence of the arresting officer at the time of the offense, Defendants violated

11

Plaintiffs rights under California law.

12

79.

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray for relief as stated below.
XI.

13

Violation of § 52.1 of the California Civil Code (Bane Act)

14
15
16
17

COUNT EIGHT

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

18

pepper spraying and/or falsely arresting Plaintiffs, Defendants and each of them through coercive force,

19

violated federal and state constitutional and statutory rights guaranteed to Plaintiffs and thereby became

20

liable for the damages Plaintiffs suffered, as well as treble damages, statutory damages, penalties, and

21

attorneys’ fees.

22

82.

XII.

23
24
25
26
27
28

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray for relief as stated below.
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 summon medical care for persons whom they had taken to jail and

who they had reason to know needed immediate medical care, Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ rights
13
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. __________

1
2

under § 845.6 of the California Government Code.
85.

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

3

XIII. PRAYER

4
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.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

XIV. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

12
13
14

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial in this action.
DATED: February 22, 2012

Respectfully Submitted,

15
16

/s/ “Mark E. Merin”
By:
Mark E. Merin (State Bar No. 043849)
LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN
1010 F Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

17
18
19
20

Alan Schlosser (State Bar No. 049957)
Michael Risher (State Bar No. 191627)
Linda Lye (State Bar No. 215584)
Novella Coleman (State Bar No. 281632)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

21
22
23
24
25

27

Meredith Wallis (State Bar No. 261457)
1057 East 33rd Street
Oakland, California 94610
Telephone:
[phone]

28

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

26

14
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Enosh Baker, et al. vs. Linda Katehi, et al.; United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. __________