SAC Fabian Johnson v. CCSF

Case 3:18-cv-04890-JCS Document 31 Filed 02/27/19 Page 1 of 29
Stanley Goff (Bar No. 289564)

15 Boardman Place Suite 2
San Francisco, CA 94103
Telephone: (415) 571-9570
Email: scraiggoff@aol.com
Fulvio F. Cajina (SBN 289126)

LAW OFFICE OF FULVIO F. CAJINA
311 Oak St.
Suite 108
Oakland, CA 94607
Tel.: (415) 601-0779
Fax.: (510) 225-2636
Email: fulvio@cajinalaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Fabian Johnson et al.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FABIAN JOHNSON, MATHEW RABBITT, CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-04890

TRAVIS ROSETTE, et al.
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES:
Plaintiffs,
1. Violation of Fourteenth Amendment 42
U.S.C §1983 (Due Process and
Monell);
2. Violation of Eighth Amendment 42
v. U.S.C §1983 (Cruel and Unusual
Punishment and Monell);
3. Negligence
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 4. Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
FRANCISCO; SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF
VICKI HENNESSY; UNDER SHERIFF DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
MATHEW FREEMAN; CHIEF DEPUTY
SHERIFF PAUL MIYAMOTO; CAPTAIN
JACKSON; SERGEANT DOLLY and DOES
1-25;
Defendants.
1
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, demanding a jury trial, bring this civil rights action against all named
Defendants inclusive, for general, consequential, compensatory, punitive and statutory damages,
costs and attorneys’ fees resulting from defendants’ unconstitutional and tortious conduct, and
therefore allege as follows:
I. PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Fabian Johnson, is an individual who is currently an inmate housed in the San
Francisco County Jail in San Francisco, CA. At all times relevant to this complaint, this Plaintiff
has lived in San Francisco, which is located within the Northern District of California.
2. Plaintiff Mathew Rabbitt, is an individual who is currently an inmate housed in the San
3. Plaintiff Travis Rosette, is an individual who is currently an inmate housed in the San
4. Plaintiff LaCarl Dow is an individual who is currently an inmate housed in the San
5. Plaintiff Darnell Sullivan is an individual who is currently an inmate housed in the San
6. Plaintiff Antonio Gilton is an individual who is currently an inmate housed in the San
7. Plaintiff Marvin Spencer is an individual who is currently an inmate housed in the San
2
8. Plaintiff Dana Gains is an individual who is currently an inmate housed in the San
9. Plaintiff Robert Vella is an individual who is currently an inmate housed in the San
10. Plaintiff Bryon Gross is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
County Jail in San Francisco, CA during the time of the incidents in question. At all times
relevant to this complaint, this Plaintiff has lived in San Francisco, which is located within the
Northern District of California.

11. Plaintiff Vernon Carmichael is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
Francisco County Jail in San Francisco, CA during the time of the incidents in question. At all
times relevant to this complaint, this Plaintiff has lived in San Francisco, which is located within
the Northern District of California.
12. Plaintiff Barry Gilton is an individual who is currently an inmate housed in the San
13. Plaintiff Paul Keglar is an individual who is currently an inmate housed in the San
14. Plaintiff Alfonzo Williams is an individual who is currently an inmate housed in the San
15. Plaintiff Charles Heard is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
County Jail in San Francisco, CA during the time of the incident in question. At all times
relevant to this complaint, this Plaintiff lived in San Francisco, which is located within the
3
16. Plaintiff Michael Alexis is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
17. Plaintiff Khalid Barrow is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
18. Plaintiff Edward Blanche III is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
Francisco County Jail in San Francisco, CA during the time of the incident in question. At all
times relevant to this complaint, this Plaintiff lived in San Francisco, which is located within the
19. Plaintiff Michael Boyle is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
20. Plaintiff Darrell Buckins is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco

21. Plaintiff Cory Butler is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
22. Plaintiff Armando Carlos is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
4
23. Plaintiff Anthony Carrion is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
24. Plaintiff Teryll Chaplin is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
25. Plaintiff Deshun Jamal Cobia-Augman is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
San Francisco County Jail in San Francisco, CA during the time of the incident in question. At
all times relevant to this complaint, this Plaintiff lived in San Francisco, which is located within
26. Plaintiff Louis Conceicao is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
27. Plaintiff Danty Curry is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco

28. Plaintiff Mark Dascenzo is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
29. Plaintiff Peter Elisary is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
5
30. Plaintiff Jose Fernandez Catala is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
31. Plaintiff James Flanagan is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
32. Plaintiff Edilberto Garcia is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
33. Plaintiff Tyshaun Guillory is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
34. Plaintiff Christopher Hardee is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San

35. Plaintiff Marshall Harris is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
36. Plaintiff Shelly Hart is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
6
37. Plaintiff Phillip Hill Jr. is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
38. Plaintiff James R. Isham is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
39. Plaintiff Russell Jefferson is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
40. Plaintiff Jarel Jones is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
41. Plaintiff Lavon Jones is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco

42. Plaintiff Thomas Kaina Jr. is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
43. Plaintiff Ronald Latney III is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
7
44. Plaintiff Homer Matthews is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
45. Plaintiff Hiubert Mendoza is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
46. Plaintiff Lamonte Mims is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
47. Plaintiff Michael Onate is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
48. Plaintiff Joshua Pittman is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco

49. Plaintiff Rashad Preston is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
50. Plaintiff Joseph Ramirez is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
8
51. Plaintiff Marcus Ransburg is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
52. Plaintiff Derrium Riggins is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
53. Plaintiff Damon Robinson is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
54. Plaintiff Sean Robinson is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
55. Plaintiff Michael Smith is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco

56. Plaintiff Eugene Stevens is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
57. Plaintiff Walter Stokes III is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
9
58. Plaintiff Bernard Thomas Jr. is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
59. Plaintiff Craig Thomas is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
60. Plaintiff Cameron Vincent is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
61. Plaintiff Frank Wallace is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
62. Plaintiff Adrian K. Williams is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San

63. Plaintiff Esau Ferdinand is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
64. Plaintiff Ricky Quarels is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
10
65. Plaintiff Michael Haga is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
66. Plaintiff Antoine DeWhitt is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
67. Plaintiff Crazy Bull is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
68. Plaintiff Pierre Kittress-Leaks is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
69. Plaintiff Christopher Kjelson is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San

70. Plaintiff Damion Jones is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
71. Plaintiff Monzell Harding is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
11
72. Plaintiff Joseph Barnett is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
73. Plaintiff Richard Merrill is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
74. Plaintiff David Archer is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
75. Plaintiff Tyrell Baldwin is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
76. Plaintiff Kenneth Scarborough is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San

77. Plaintiff Shaka Pope is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
78. Plaintiff Rene Garcia is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
12
79. Plaintiff David Henry Rodriguez is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
80. Plaintiff Lewis Wingfield is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
81. Plaintiff Adrian Gordon is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
82. Plaintiff Michael Brown is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
83. Plaintiff Reginald Elmore is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San

84. Plaintiff Roman Carrasco is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
85. Plaintiff Alexis Mencia is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
13
86. Plaintiff Deandre Quinnine is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
87. Plaintiff Tyrell Baldwin is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
88. Plaintiff Elijah Brandon is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
89. Plaintiff Robert Gibson is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
90. Plaintiff Tommy Boggs is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco

91. Plaintiff Rashaad Hill is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
92. Plaintiff Raman Hill is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
14
93. Plaintiff Devante Lindsey is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
94. Plaintiff Billy Ladd is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
95. Plaintiff Justin Eliot is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
96. Plaintiff Geoffrey Tobias is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
97. Plaintiff Robert Steinmiller is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San

98. Plaintiff Korey Gray is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
99. Plaintiff Joseph Johnson is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
15
100. Plaintiff Robert Steinmiller is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
101. Plaintiff Jesse Ali is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco
102. Plaintiff Miguel Sanchez is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
103. Plaintiff Shawn Pettway is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San
104. Plaintiff Jamar Babers is an individual who was an inmate housed in the San Francisco

105. Plaintiff Isaiah Thompson Bolden is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
106. Plaintiff Antoine Lax is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
16
107. Plaintiff Don Jaun Burrell is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
108. Plaintiff Marcel Jackson is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
109. Plaintiff Morzell Willis is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
110. Plaintiff Deshawn Blake is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
111. Plaintiff Kareem Sims is an individual who was an inmate housed in the

112. Plaintiff Andre Alverty is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
113. Plaintiff Terrence Watkins is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
17
114. Plaintiff Melvin Junior is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
115. Plaintiff Silas Omari Bryant is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
116. Plaintiff Jullian Shoats is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
117. Plaintiff Alba Crocker is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
118. Plaintiff Jesse Ray Vaughan is an individual who was an inmate housed in the

119. Plaintiff Derell Richards is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
18
120. Plaintiff Ty-Rell Brown is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
121. Plaintiff Henry Hall is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
122. Plaintiff Travis Jones is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
123. Plaintiff Bryan Stevens is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
124. Plaintiff Douglass Huges is an individual who was an inmate housed in the

125. Plaintiff Dontae Taylor is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
126. Plaintiff Christopher Bailey is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
19
127. Plaintiff Larry Raymond Scarbrough is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
128. Plaintiff Anthony Sims is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
129. Plaintiff Saer Sow is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
130. Plaintiff Nicolas Adelman is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
131. Plaintiff Andre Dangerfield is an individual who was an inmate housed in the

132. Plaintiff Craig Hall is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
133. Plaintiff Leanard Seely is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
20
134. Plaintiff Antonio Stewart is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
135. Plaintiff Charles Walker is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
136. Plaintiff Charles Walker is an individual who was an inmate housed in the
137. Defendant San Francisco Vicki Hennessy is an individual and was the Sheriff of the
City and County of San Francisco at all times relevant to this complaint. This Defendant is being
sued in her individual capacity.
138. Defendant San Francisco Under Sheriff Mathew Freeman is an individual and was
employed by the Sheriffs office of the City and County of San Francisco at all times relevant to
this complaint. This Defendant is being sued in his individual capacity.
139. Defendant Chief Deputy Sheriff of Custody Operations Paul Miyamoto is an individual
and was employed by the Sheriffs Office of the City and County of San Francisco at all times
relevant to this complaint. This Defendant is being sued in his individual capacity.
140. Defendant San Francisco Sheriff Captain Jackson is an individual and was employed
by the Sheriffs Office of the City and County of San Francisco at all times relevant to this
complaint. This Defendant is being sued in his individual capacity.
141. Defendant San Francisco Sheriff Sergeant Dolly is an individual and was employed by
the Sheriffs office of the City and County of San Francisco at all times relevant to this
complaint. This Defendant is being sued in his individual capacity.
21
142. Defendant Does 1-25 are defendants whose capacities are unknown to Plaintiffs, but
upon ascertaining these individuals identities, the Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend to name
these individuals as defendants in this case.
143. All defendants acted under the color of law as it pertains to this complaint.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
144. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988 and 12132 and the Eighth
Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This Court has
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a).
145. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the events giving
rise to this action occurred in the County of San Francisco, which is located in the Northern
District.
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
146. On or about 2016, there was a plumbing malfunction at 850 Bryant Street, (Hall of
Justice) in San Francisco where Defendants housed Plaintiffs, inmates, at the San Francisco
County Jail.
147. The faulty plumbing caused raw sewage and other hazardous toxins to flood the floor in
the Hall of Justice that contains the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office in January 2017.
148. The City’s immediate response to this flooding was to evacuate the District
Attorney offices until the flooding was stopped and a Hazmat crew properly cleaned and
properly disinfected the area.

149. Subsequently, plumbers contracted by Defendant City and County San Francisco placed
a “trap” device into the pipes at the Hall of Justice, which prevented the District Attorney’s
office from being subjected to that type of flooding again.
150. However, this “trap” device caused the sewage pipes to “back up” and flood
the jail area inside the building (County Jail # 4 or CJ 4).
151. From that time period to the present, in a continuing violation, raw sewage floods
occurred almost every day and at times occurred three times a day affecting inmates housed in
the A- Block, B-Block, C-Block and D-Block sections of CJ4, all located on the seventh floor.
22
152. During the time of the incidents in question, all of the named Plaintiffs suffered injuries
as result of the above flooding.
153. The floods occurred in the middle of the day and at times in the middle of the night
while the Plaintiffs were asleep, forced the inmates to wake up in the middle of the night to raw
sewage, which they were forced to clean without proper safety equipment.
154. When the raw sewage floods occurred, on average, there was between a half-inch
and an inch and a half of raw sewage which would flood the approximately 8’ by 20’ living
spaces for the inmates.
155. When the raw sewage floods occurred, the Plaintiffs were able to observe visible
pieces of fecal matter and used toilet tissue in the water invading their living areas, soiling the
Plaintiffs’ personal belongings and causing the Plaintiffs to experience physical injuries.
156. Additionally, when the raw sewage floods occurred, Defendant City and County of San
Francisco sheriff’s deputies turned all running water off on the entire floor for several hours at a
time. During these periods of no running water, the Plaintiffs were forced to hold their urine and
bowels, causing extreme pain and discomfort for hours at a time.
157. The beds in the Plaintiffs’ cells do not have a storage shelf, so during the raw sewage
flooding periods, the Plaintiffs were forced to place their personal belongings such as books,
hygiene products, commissary food items and court documents on the floor under their bed
areas.
158. When the raw sewage flooding occurred, these personal items belonging to the
Plaintiffs were almost always severely damaged (contaminated) and or destroyed.
159. When the raw sewage flooding occurred, the Plaintiffs were forced to use their
own personal bedding materials (jail issued blankets) to soak up the sewage, and were not given
any protective gear such as Hazmat suits or masks to clean up the sewage or provided with
proper disinfectant agents to adequately sanitize the contaminated areas.
160. As a result, the Plaintiffs’ cell space consistently smelled of human feces, urine and
other sewage materials.
23
161. Pursuant to jail policy, the Plaintiffs are forced to eat all of their meals in their cells, so
they were forced to endure hazardous fumes and nauseating smells while eating all of their
meals.
162. Due to the direct exposure to the raw sewage emanating from these constant floods,
the Plaintiffs have developed intestinal problems, are having difficulty breathing and have been
suffering from constant headaches. Several Plaintiffs also reported having suffered from rashes
and other medical injuries.
163. Plaintiffs, and all of them, were exposed to these horrendous conditions.
164. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendants were, each of them, aware of the
above conditions. The Plaintiffs notified Defendants and/or other sheriff deputies of the
unsanitary and dangerous conditions caused by the raw sewage flooding, and have submitted
numerous grievance forms giving the Defendants notice of these hazardous and or dangerous
conditions.
165. Despite Plaintiffs’ written and verbal notices to Defendants, the horrendous and
dangerous conditions were never properly addressed and or abated by the Defendants.
166. Plaintiffs filed timely government claims against Defendants pursuant to California
Government Code §910, et seq. and have exhausted their administrative remedies.
IV. CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CLAIM
(Violation of Fourteenth Amendment Rights 42 U.S.C §1983 (Due Process – As to All

Defendants)
167. Plaintiffs, and each of them, who were housed in areas of San Francisco County Jail
CJ4 which were affected by the above flooding, incorporates herein by reference the preceding
paragraphs of this complaint as fully set forth herein.
168. The conditions described above directly exposed Plaintiffs, and each of them, to
contact with human waste, including feces, urine, and sewage and other unsanitary conditions
between sometime in 2016 through at least September 2018.
24
169. That the direct exposure to feces, urine, and sewage posed, and continues to pose, a
serious health risk to the Plaintiffs.
170. That the conditions described above directly exposed the Plaintiffs to the hardship
and extra judicial punishment of not being able to go to the bathroom for up to several hours a
day three to four times a week, while the water was turned off by the Defendants due to
inadequate remedies of dealing with the flooding, which led to the Plaintiffs suffering from
severe stomach cramps because they cannot relieve themselves, which caused unbearable pain
and emotional distress.
171. That all of these conditions mentioned above violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights
to be free from extra judicial punishment including but not limited to Plaintiffs’ right to adequate
and habitable shelter, sanitation, and basic human dignity.
172. The Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs’ constitutional
rights in that Defendants knew of the horrendous conditions that were adversely affecting the
Plaintiffs, the Defendants knew of the health risks that the conditions had created, and yet they
failed to take any corrective action to remedy these conditions from the time that these
conditions started to the present.
173. The acts and omissions of all named Defendants, with respect to Plaintiffs, constitute
a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
174. Plaintiffs suffered damages, including physical and emotional injury, as a result of
Defendants’ acts and omissions.
Monell Claim
175. Defendant City and County of San Francisco and Does 1-25 have deprived Plaintiffs
of their rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the United States Constitution by, among
other things, failing to train, or inadequately training its staff and deputies regarding the handling
of inmates in their custody, so as not to cause these individuals’ to be exposed to hazardous
waste, such as raw sewage and being prevented from being able to go to the bathroom for
several hours at a time three to four days a week.
25
176. Furthermore, the City and County of San Francisco has a widespread or longstanding
custom and practice of not providing adequate housing conditions for their inmate population
housed in their county jails, together with its lack of adequate training, amounts to deliberate
indifference towards the constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs.
177. As a direct result of the City and County of San Francisco, and Does 1-25’s actions
and inactions, Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were violated, resulting in Plaintiffs’ injuries.
178. The conduct of the named Defendants as alleged, was intended to cause injury to
Plaintiffs and was done in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights and safety and thus
constitutes malice.
179. Because the above acts were performed in a malicious, and/or oppressive manner,
Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages from named Defendants Officers in an amount
according to proof.
SECOND CLAIM
(Violation of Eighth Amendment Rights 42 U.S.C §1983 (Due Process – As to All
Defendants)
180. Plaintiffs, and each of them, who were housed in areas of San Francisco County Jail
CJ4 which were affected by the above flooding, incorporates herein by reference the preceding
paragraphs of this complaint as fully set forth herein.
181. The conditions described above directly exposed Plaintiffs, and each of them, to
contact with human waste, including feces, urine, and sewage and other unsanitary conditions
between sometime in 2016 through at least September 2018.
182. That the direct exposure to feces, urine, and sewage posed, and continues to pose, a
serious health risk to the Plaintiffs.
183. That the conditions described above directly exposed the Plaintiffs to the hardship
and extra judicial punishment of not being able to go to the bathroom for up to several hours a
day three to four times a week, while the water was turned off by the Defendants due to
inadequate remedies of dealing with the flooding, which led to the Plaintiffs suffering from
severe stomach cramps because they cannot relieve themselves, which caused unbearable pain
26
and emotional distress.

184. That all of these conditions mentioned above violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights
to be free from extra judicial punishment including but not limited to Plaintiffs’ right to adequate
and habitable shelter, sanitation, and basic human dignity.
185. The Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs’ constitutional
rights in that Defendants knew of the horrendous conditions that were adversely affecting the
Plaintiffs, the Defendants knew of the health risks that the conditions had created, and yet they
failed to take any corrective action to remedy these conditions from the time that these
conditions started to the present.
186. The acts and omissions of all named Defendants, with respect to Plaintiffs, constitute
a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. (Cruel and
Unusual Punishment)
187. Plaintiffs suffered damages, including physical and emotional injury, as a result of
Defendants’ acts and omissions.
Monell Claim
188. Defendant City and County of San Francisco and Does 1-25 have deprived Plaintiffs
of their rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the United States Constitution by, among
other things, failing to train, or inadequately training its staff and deputies regarding the handling
of inmates in their custody, so as not to cause these individuals’ to be exposed to hazardous
waste, such as raw sewage and being prevented from being able to go to the bathroom for
several hours at a time three to four days a week.
189. Furthermore, the City and County of San Francisco has a widespread or longstanding
custom and practice of not providing adequate housing conditions for their inmate population
housed in their county jails, together with its lack of adequate training, amounts to deliberate
indifference towards the constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs.
190. As a direct result of the City and County of San Francisco, and Does 1-25’s actions
and inactions, Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were violated, resulting in Plaintiffs’ injuries.
27
191. The conduct of the named Defendants as alleged, was intended to cause injury to
Plaintiffs and was done in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights and safety and thus
constitutes malice.
192. Because the above acts were performed in a malicious, and/or oppressive manner,
plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages from named Defendants Officers in an amount
according to proof.
THIRD CLAIM
(Negligence Claim – As to all Defendants and Does 1-25)
193. By virtue of the foregoing, Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty of due care not to
cause the Plaintiffs to be exposed to raw sewage and other hazardous materials, and not to
prevent the Plaintiffs from being able to go to the bathroom for several hours at a time three to
four days a week, and that these duties were breached by the Defendants’ negligence and failure
to exercise due care in their care of the Plaintiffs, while in their custody.
194. As a direct and proximate cause of the aforementioned acts of Defendants, Plaintiffs
were injured as set forth above and are entitled to damages according to proof at the time of trial.
195. Defendants are liable for all injuries caused by their acts, to the same extent as a
private person pursuant to California Government Code Section 820(a).
196. Defendants as public employees are not exonerated or immune from liability for
negligence for causing the Plaintiff to suffer harm pursuant to California Government Code
Section 820.8.
197. Because the Defendants were acting as employees of the City and County of San
Francisco at the time of the incident, and because they were acting within the scope and course
of their employment and under the direct control and supervision of the City and County of San
Francisco, San Francisco is liable to the Plaintiff for negligence pursuant to California
Government Code §815.2.
28
FOURTH CLAIM
(Declaratory and Injunctive Relief)
198. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint
as fully set forth herein.
199. There is a real and significant possibility that Defendants will repeat their
misconduct (or that they have committed similar acts in the past). To prevent the Plaintiffs and
other San Francisco County inmates from being deprived of their Fourteenth and Eighth
Amendment rights, Plaintiffs request that this Court declare that the Defendants’ acts were
unlawful as a matter of law.
V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follows:
1. For compensatory damages in the amount according to proof per plaintiff who was
exposed to the hazardous sewage waste, and other special damages according to proof;
2. For punitive damages against all individual Defendants according to proof;
3. The prejudgment interest at the legal rate according to proof;
4. For costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided by law; and
5. For such other relief as the Court may deem fit and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury in this action.
LAW OFFICE OF STANLEY GOFF
Dated: February 26, 2019 _____/s/ STANLEY GOFF______________

STANLEY GOFF
Attorney for Plaintiffs
LAW OFFICE OF FULVIO F. CAJINA
Dated: February 26, 2019 _____/s/ Fulvio F. Cajina______________

FULVIO F. CAJINA
Attorney for Plaintiffs
29

SAC Fabian Johnson v. CCSF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

SAC Fabian Johnson v. CCSF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Case 3:18-cv-04890-JCS Document 31 Filed 02/27/19 Page 1 of 29

Stanley Goff (Bar No. 289564)

Fulvio F. Cajina (SBN 289126)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Fabian Johnson et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FABIAN JOHNSON, MATHEW RABBITT, CASE NO.: 3:18-cv-04890

Northern District of California.

Northern District of California.

Northern District of California.

Northern District of California.

Northern District of California.

Northern District of California.

Northern District of California.

Northern District of California.

Northern District of California.

Northern District of California.

Northern District of California.

Northern District of California.

Northern District of California.

Northern District of California.

the Northern District of California.

the Northern District of California.

the Northern District of California.

the Northern District of California.

properly disinfected the area.

(Violation of Fourteenth Amendment Rights 42 U.S.C §1983 (Due Process – As to All

Defendants’ acts and omissions.

and emotional distress.

V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

LAW OFFICE OF STANLEY GOFF

Dated: February 26, 2019 _____/s/ STANLEY GOFF______________

LAW OFFICE OF FULVIO F. CAJINA

Dated: February 26, 2019 _____/s/ Fulvio F. Cajina______________

Você também pode gostar

Dated: February 26, 2019 _/s/ STANLEY GOFF__________

Dated: February 26, 2019 _/s/ Fulvio F. Cajina__________