kendrec mcdade's family files civil lawsuit

8/2/2019 Kendrec McDade's family files civil lawsuit

1/14

I23

456789

l0l112131415l6l718t9202l22232425262728

pqry_e Hamer SBN 219048lA^W_OrFrcES oF CAREE FTARPER168 N, C_4mden Drive Snit--Ob -B_everly Hills, CA902i0 -- -""L3 I 0)-281 -0063 Tel.Bmarl : inyourdefens e@ao l. c omAttorney for Plaintiffs

:I!I

il;il-rIIII

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTTN AND FOR THE CBNTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH McDADE,ANYA SLAUGHTER,And TFIE ESTATE OF KENDRECMcDADE

t yl2: {}eg g Zvuu(Case No.: CV_

1. WRONGFUL DEATH/ViolStign of Civil Rishls(42 IJ.S.C. g 1983) d----2. UNrAIryr,.UL CUSTOM.rBACTr_CES c POl,rCTns(42 U.S.C. g le83)3. WRONGFUL DEATH/Negligence4. RALPH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT(CA. Civil Code g 51.7)

Plaintiffs,

CITY OF PASADENA, PASADENAPOLICE CHIEF PHILLP SANCHEZ.OFFICER MATTI{EW GRIFFIN #3I35,OFFICER JEFFREY NEWLEN#6113, & DET. KEITH GOMEZ #3196,individually and in their official capacityand DOES 1-10 inclusive. *JURY TRIAL DEMAND*Defendants.

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINTFOR DAMAGES. 1

-*!

n=

a


2/14

l:llr,l{ltltllIlflaintiffs allege:rlI I. JURISDICTION AND VBNUB Ill

| 1. Jurisdiction is vested in this Court under 28 U.S.C. S1343 (3)(a) for Ilthe violation of the l97l Civil Rights Enforcement Act, as amended, includins^42 ||,4|IU.S.C Sections 1983, l33l and 1367 (a). II Z. Venue is proper in Central District of California and the Counry of Ill-os Angeles under 28 U.S.C. Sl39l (b). I| - \",,' II rr. alr,ncarroNs covrvroN ro ar-r causns or,acrrox Itllll-rI This action at law for money damages arises under Title 42 u.s.c. IIIlSections, 1983 and 1988 andthe United States Constitution, the laws of the StatJlrrllof California and common law principles to redress a deprivation under color odrllstate law of rights, privileges and immunities secured to plaintiffs by said statutesj| - 'I -" 1land bf the Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. II rrr. plnrms

Il. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs KENNETH McDADE andI

ANYA SLAUGHTER were and are residents of the United States, residing in the ICounty of Los Angeles, State of California. Plaintiff ANYA SLAUGHTER is theInatural mother of decedent KENDREC McDADE. plaintiff KENNETHIMcDADE is the decedent's natural father. Plaintiffs McDade and Slaugther are Ithe only heirs of the decedent. All plaintiffs are African AmericanI2. Defendant GITY oF PASADENA (hereinafter "cITy") is Iresponsible for the actions of its employees, officials, and officers. The I

PASADENA POLICE DEPARTMENT (hereinafter "PPD") is a subdivision of thelCITY OF PASADENA. The CITY is sued in its own right and on the basis of the Iacts of its officials, agents, employees, and officers at all times were sworn policeIofficers in City of Pasadena.IiltlII

ICIVIL RIGHTS C.MPLAINT FoR DAMAGES - 2 III

I2aJ456789

l011t2131415t6I718t9202I22232425262728


3/14

I2aJ456.|89

l01lt213l415t6t718t9202122232425262728

3. Defendant CHIEF PHILLIP SANCHEZ, was and is ar all relevant timesthe Chief of the Pasadena Police Department and a sworn police officer withsupervising and policy-making authority at the Pasadena Police Department.

4. Defendant, OFFICER JEFFREY NEWLAN, a caucasian male, is andat all relevant times was a sworn police officer at the Pasadena Police Department.5. Defendant, OFFICER MATTFTEW GRIFFTN, a caucasian male. isand at all relevant times was a sworn police officer at the Pasadena policeDepartment.

6. Defendant, OFFICER KEITH Gor\rEZ, a caucasian male, is and atall relevant times was a swom police officer at the Pasadena Police Department.

7. At all times herein mentioned, DOES I through l0 were and now are,duly appointed and acting PASADENA POLICE OFFICERS in the employ of thePASADENA POLICE DEPARTMENT. In doing the acts he,reafter described,defendants, each of them, were acting in their capacity as officers of the defendantCITY and in doing the acts hereinafter described, acted within the course andscope of their employment.8. Plaintiffs are ignorant as to the true names of the DOE defendants.Once plaintiffs learn the names of the DOE defendants, they will seek leave toamend this complaint to identifo the DoE defendants. Each of the DoEdefendants are sued in their individual and official capacities.9- Each of the acts complained of herein was taken, and each violation ofplaintiffs' rights occurred, pursuant to the policies, practices and/ or customs of thePASADENA POLICE DEPARTMENT, each act complained of was approved,condoned and/ or ratified by persons of authority with the defendant CITy andDefendant Chief S anchez.10. In doing each of the violations of law complained of hereindefendants, their agents and employees, were acting under color of law. The actscomplained of were willful, wanton, malicious and displayed a conscious disregard

CryIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 3


4/14

1

234564

89

1011t2l3t415t6t718t9202l22232425262728

of, and in deliberate indifference to plaintiffs' constitutional rights.IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND RELATIVE TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION.11. on February 19,2009, Leroy Barnes Jr. was shot and killed bv

Pasadena Police officers. Barnes was shot 11 times and most of the bullets enteredhis back. Barnes died at the scene without any emergency CPR being administeredby police. Police initially told the media that Barnes had fired at them first, butthis false version of events was revised a few days later by police spokesmen. Atthat time the former Chief held press conferences and said that Barnes fired at leastone shot at the offtcers, who then returned fire, however, that was not true either,as police were later forced to admit. There, the OIR Group report, dated October2009, was entitled Report to the City of Pasadenu Concerning the OfJicer-Involved shooting of Leroy Barnes, Jr., was prepared by Michael Gennaco &Robert Miller. That committee recommended better training of officers and bettercommunication with the community. In 2010, the Los Angeles County DistrictAttorney's Office concluded that the shooting by the officers was lawful self-defense. These are the same entities DEFENDANT CHIEF SANCHEZ proposesto use in this case.12. Ln2006, a number of Pasadena Police officers beat a young Blackmale named Damian Esteem in front of his two young children who were watchinand screaming "please stop hurting my daddy". This excessive use of forceoccurred after police executed a search warrant at the wrong acidress. Mr.Esteem's questioning of the officers early morning presence rvas met with his facebeing slammed into the pavement while he was handcuffed. police even pointedhandguns at his small children during the incident. Esteem was not convicted ofthe red-herring "battery on an officer" charge and was later successful in a federal

CTVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 4


5/14

I2J456789

10llt2l3l41516l718t9202l22^aJ2425262728

civil rights action against the officers for that incident.13. In 2005, several Black male teens dubbed as the "El Sereno 3" weremerely standing on a sidewalk in broad daylight when Pasadena Police detainedthem for.... standing on the sidewalk. one teen, Michael Miller, was bodyslammed into the pavement for questioning the purpose of their detention asoppose to "assuming the position" without question. His brother was severelybeaten at the scene and his mother was pushed to the ground after trying to keepthe police from killing her child. Multiple residents called 911 and requestedwatch commanders return the call because they witnessed the police beat the teens.The watch commander never returned the call. One of the "El Sereno 3" wascharged with the red-herring "attempt murder on an officer" in order to scare himinto a plea deal. The teens required major medical attention and the allegedlyalmost murdered officers who only had scratches to their fists from beating theteens. Al1 criminal charges were ultimately dismissed against Mr. Miller after atrial- Mr. Miller addressed this injustice with a federal civil rights lawsuit thatresulted in the parties settling after five years and subsequent unrelentingharassment from officers of the pasadena police Department.14. At least two of the above-referenced matters involved DEFENDANTDET. KEITH GOMEZ as the "victim" in the police report. Here, DEFENDANTOFFICERS GRIFFIN and NEWLEN are listed as "victims',.15. GOMEZ has been directly responsible for multiple controversialkillings of young Black men in pasadena yet GoMEZwasthe DEFENDANTCHIEF'S choice to investigate this controversial officer involved shooting. Thiswas not a "split second decision" this was an intentional selection of DET.GOMEZ to investigate and this reeks of a cover-up.16. on March 24,2012, an alleged robbery and car burglary occurrednear a taco stand on Orange Grove Blvd. in Pasadena. This call was reported to a911 dispatcher by Oscar Canillo.

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES - 5


6/14

I2J456189

l01l12131415161718t9202I2223

2425262728

17. This taco stand is a popular gathering place for teens.18. On March 26th at 1 I :00 A.M, DEFENDANT DET. GOIWZtook thestatement of the 911 caller, Oscar Carrillo. Carrillo told GOVIEZ.thathe tolddispatchers the suspects were armed with guns because he was mad at the suspectsand nervous. Also, he believed the false statements regarding the firearms wouldgenerate a quicker response from police personnel. DEFENDANT GOMEZretrieved and retained information from Canillo that he had a grudge against theminor with Kendrec, but did not know Kendrec. DEFENDANT GOMEZ did notarrest Carrillo for the felony committed in his presence nor did he request theDistrict Attorney press charges. DEFENDANT CHIEF SANCHEZ condoned,ratified and aided in this cover up for two days until2 hours after plaintiffs,counsel held a press conference and revealed the lie the 911 caller told dispatchersand called for the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice take ovethe case. with each press conference DEFENDANT SANCHEZ vilifiesKENDREC McDADE all the while knowing Mr. McDade did not engage in afelony that evenittg.19. In accordance with ppD's pattern and practice of covering upexcessive force, DEFENDANT sANCHEZ,who is a policy-maker, has put thedead victim on trial and spun multiple accounts of what occurred on March 24.2012, exacerbating the emotional distress of the plaintiffs.

PASADENA POLICE ACCOUNTING OF INCIDENT20. Pasadena Police Officer Solorzano responded to the area afterhearingthe radio call. As Solorzano responded he heard Offrcer Newlen broadcast he wasin foot pursuit with a suspect. Solorzano drove southbound on Fair Oaks Ave.toward Orange Grove Blvd. and saw a black male walking west on the north crosswalk of Orange Grove Blvd. and Fair Oaks Ave. The minor was wearing a blackT-shirt, dark jeans and a cap. Solorzano made contact with the minor and theyconversed. Solorzano then heard four shots in the area and the minor immediately



7/14

1

2aJ456.,89

l0l1t21314t5t6171819202l22

2425262728

dove to the ground for cover. Solorzano could not tell where the shots werecoming from and asked the minor if he could tell. Solorzano then heardDEFENDANT NEWLEN broadcast "shots fired" at Sunset Ave. north of OrangeGrove Blvd. Solorzano responded to Defendants NEWLEN and GRIFFIN'slocation and saw a black male lying in the middle of Sunset Ave. with multiplegunshots to his upper torso. Officer Reinbold was also on scene. Solorzano beganto secure the scene and saw "the minor" standing on the northwest corner ofOrange Grove Blvd. and Sunset Ave. The minor looked at him and asked ,.Didthey shoot him?" Solorzano believed the minor looked overly concerned, andbecause he was wearing dark clothing Solorzano handcuffed the minor and placedhim in his patrol unit. A field show up was conducted, but Carillo could NOTidentif' "the minor" as having been involved in the incident. According to awitness at the taco stand, they did not see a crime occur, nor did they suffer a loss.The taco stand is NOT listed as a victim in the police report. The onlv .,victimso'Iisted in the report are Carrillo, who was later charged with involu4tarvmanslaughter for lving about an armed robberv" and the officers who shotand killed Kendrec McDade. To date, the minor remains in custody based oncharges stemming from Carrillo's alleged loss allegedly in excess of $950.00.minor was initially charged with murder for the death of his friend.21- According to Officer Solorzano, Carrillo's first description of thealleged suspects was that the first man was wearing a black hooded sweat shirtwith a zipper ("the Minor"), and the second (Kendrec McDade) was wearing ablack beanie and black hooded sweat shirt and black jeans. Canillo ignored policeinstruction not to pursue two armed men who allegedly just robbed him atgunpoint.iltilt



8/14

I2aJ456n89

10ll12131415t6t718t9202l22^aJ2425262728

THE SHOOTING22- The 911 call by Carrillo was internally inconsistent, suspicious andultimately felonious. However, Officers GRIFFIN and NEWLEN responded andindependently made their own decision to shoot Kendrec. Ncither officers norwitnesses saw anything in Kendrec McDade's hands, no bulges in his closely fittedsweater, no bulges to his waistband and no shiny objects- or objects at all. Neitherofficers yelled any commands to identifu themselves that evening; and they did nothave lights and sirens on to alert Kendrec that the Defendant officers were thepolice and that they were attempting to make a lawful detention.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:F FED CIVIL HTS.SPIRA UE AM42 U.S.C. S 1983)23. n,ur o,rr*

paragraphs of this complaint as if set forth in full to this point.24. This action at law for money damages arises under Title 42 U.S.C. $1983 and the United States Constitution, the laws of the State of Califomia and

common law principles to redress a deprivation under color of state law of rights,privileges and immunities secured to Plaintiff by said statutes, and by the UnitedStates Constitution.25. Commencing at or about the aforementioned date and place,defendants GRIFFIN and NEWLEN, without lawful cause or justification, andacting under color of law, intentionally and maliciously seizecl plaintiffs' decedentKENDREC McDADE, causing his death.26. Plaintiffs believe and assert that DEFENDANT GRIFFIN shotmultiple rounds from inside his vehicle, and DEFENDANT ITIEWLEN shotmultiple rounds from a nearby standing position. Witness accounts reflect that



9/14

I2J456789

t0llt213l4151617l8t9202l22ZJ24252627

"28

Kendrec did not die immediately. After being shot multiple times in the chest,witnesses said Kendrec tried to talk with officers. Offrcers handcuffed Kendrecand he began to "twitch". Officers left Kendrec in the street for a protracted periodof time without administering first aid and he died at the hospital. One witnessheard an officer yell "motherfucker" after the shooting. All individual defendantsconspired to suppress these facts.27. Each of the individual defendants acted in conceft, acted withoutauthorization of law, and each of the individual defendants, separately and inconcert, acted willfully, knowingly and with reckless disregard and deliberateindifference to the known consequences of their acts and omissions andpurposefully with the intent to deprive plaintiffs of their federally protected rightsand privileges and did, in fact, violate those rights and privileges, entitlingplaintiffs to punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.28- As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts,omissions, customs and practices of the defendanis, plaintiffs have suffered greatmental and physical pain, suffering, anguish, fright, nervousnbss, anxiety, grief,shock, humiliation, indignity, and embarrassment.29. As a proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of defendants,and each of them, plaintiffs sustained sever emotional injuries and requiresemotional treatment, and has incurred and will continue to incur medical expensesfor said therapy in an amount according to proof attial.30. The aforementioned acts and omissions of Defendants werecommitted by each of them knowingly, willfully and maliciously, with the intentharm, injure, vex, harass and oppress plaintiffs with conscious disregard ofplaintiffs'constitutional rights and by reason thereo{ plaintiffs seek punitive andexemplary damages from Defendants, and each of them, in an amount to be provenat trial.



10/14

IzJA+56

89

10ll12131415161718t9202l22ZJ2425262728

3 1. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, plaintiffs, havedamaged as recited above and demands and is entitled to the damages, including,but not limited to, general and punitive damages and attorney's fees.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:MONEZZ ALLEGATIONS(Aeuiort D"f.rdunt COUNTy & CHIEF SANCHEZ)32- Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference, as though fully setforth herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs above.33. Prior to March 24,2012, rhe DEFENDANT cITy developed andmaintained policies or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to theconstitutional rights of Black males which caused the violation of the plaintiffs,rights. Specifically, the DEFENDANT CHIEF continues to viliff Kendrec as afelon engaged in a felony that evening to distract from the undeniable fact that hisofficers killed and unarmed man. His officers police report are internallyinconsistent and unbelievable. CHIEF SANCIEZ look Plaintiff SLAUGHTERthe truth, yet he perpetrates the remarkably unbelievale story that Kendrec rantoward the police car and GRIFFIN could not get out quick enough whileKENDREC approached holding his waistband GRIFFIN shot through the driversside window while seated in his patrol car while fearing for his safety. It's apractice of the City and its policymakers not to address relevant question like: Whweren't the patrol units video-recorders activated to capture the video and audio ofthe incident34- Witness accounts said there were no commands such as: "stop","halt", "police", "let me see your hands". And the police reports do not say theseorders were ever given to Kendrec McDade before he was gunned down. Insteadof doing any real investigations the policy and practice at PPD is to quash thecommunity uproar with uninformative political style town hall meetings; divideand conquer concerned community groups by calling said meetings at or near the



11/14

1

23456789

10111213t4l515t71819202l22^a)2425262728

same time as NAACP events.35. The defendant CITY and CHIEF was and is aware of the propensity tuse racial profiling as probable cause for detention and subsequent racial profiling.

36. It was the policy and/or custom of the CITY to inadequately andimproperly investi gate citizen complaints of police misconduct, and acts ofmisconduct were instead tolerated by the CITY.37. It was the policy and/ or custom of the cITy to inadequatelysupervise and train its officers, including the defendant officers, therebyfailing to discourage further constitutional violations on the part of their officers.The CITY did not require appropriate in-service training or retraining of deputieswho were known to have engaged in police misconduct.38- As a result of the above described policies and customs officers,including the defendant officers, believed that their actions would be ignored,approved and ratified properly monitored by supervisors and that misconduct andexcessive force would not be investigated or sanctioned, but would be tolerated.39- The above-mentioned policies and customs demonstrated a deliberateindifference on the part of policymakers of the CITY to the constitutional right ofpersons within the CITY, specifically African American males, and were the cause

of the violations of the plaintiffs' rights alleged herein.



12/14

1l

2aJ456789

101112131415t6171819202l22232425262728

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTIONWRONGFUL DEATH cCP S 377.10(b) against Crry, GRTFFTN, NEWLAN

and DOES 1-10 individuallv40. Plaintiffs refer to and replead each and every allegation contained i

the paragraphs above, and by this reference incorporates the same herein anmakes each a part hereof.

41. On or about April 2, 2012, plaintiffs timely filed their claimdamages with the Pasadena City Clerk. pursuant to Govt Code Section 910.42- Plaintiffs bring this action for wrongful death pursuant toprovisions of Code of Civil Procedure S 377 (b) in that, at the time of Decedentdeath, Plaintiffs were Decedent's heirs according to the provision of part 1 oDivision 6 of the Probate Code, and also pursuant to Code of Civil procedure377 (b) as the intestate successors in interest to the estate of decedent.

43. At or about the aforementioned time, date and place, Defendanintentionally, negligently and recklessly assaulted, battered and shot KENDMcDADE to death thereby depriving decedent of his life without due process olaw in violation of his Constitutional rights under the Fourth and FourteenAmendments.44. on and for some time before March 24,2012, Defendant CITY.DOES 1-10, inclusive, and each of them, negligently and carelessly employedretained, trained, supervised, assigned, controlled and negligently and carelesslfailed to adequately discipline Defendants GRIFFIN and NEWLEN, and each othem, at all times material herein knew or reasonably should have knowndangerous and dishonest propensities for abusing their authority and for usiexcessive and punitive force and violence and for falsifuing their accounts

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES. 12


13/14

lll'rltllttllreRor"ts of their actions, especially where unreasonable force was used by saidllDefendants. III| 45. By reason of the aforesaid acts and omissions of Defendantsjt1lPlaintiffs have been and will forever be deprived of the love, affection, society,lttlcompanionship, support and pecuniary benefits of Decedent, all to Plaintiffdllldamages in the sum of according to proof. It-l| 46. The aforesaid acts and omissions of Defendants were done knowinqlvj| ""1lintentionally and for the purpose of depriving Decedent of his life and civil right{lin reckless and callous disregard of the same, and by reason thereof, plaintiffJl-'L-llclaim

exemplary and punitive damages in an amount according to proof.Itt II rouRTH cAUSB oF ACTToN: ItlI VIOLATION OF THE RIZPH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT I^-----lAeainst GRIFFIN and NEWLEN)|47. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference, as though fully set Iforth herein, the allegations contained in paragraphs above. II

48. On or about the above stated dates, and sometime prior thereto, IIDefendants and each of them violated Plaintiffs civil rights, guaranteed by the I-lUnited States Constitution, federal law, the Califomia Constitution and the laws of Ithe State of California thereby violating California Civil Code Sections 51.7. It49. As a proximate result of the aforementioned acts of Defendants, I-land each of them, Plaintiff suffered damage in a sum according to proof, and is Ientitled to the damages, statutory damages, treble damages, attorney's fees and I

I

costs provided for by the Civil Code. Iilt lIilt lt//lIilt lII

ICIVIL RIGHTS C'MPLAINT FoR DAMAGES - 13

III

I2aJ456789

10l1t21314l5t6I718l9202l22232425262728


14/14

I23456

89

l011t213l415t6171819202122232425262728

PRAYER FOR RELIEFWherefore, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:l - For special and general damages in an amount to be determined at trial

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988.2. For compensatory and punitive damages except as to the cITy,as permitted by law and according to proof at trial;3. For costs of suit;

4. For attorneys fees;5. For such other relief as this court deems just and proper"

Dated: 4l2ll2

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIALPlaintiffs hereby demand a trial by ju.y as to all issues and claims for relief.

Dated: 4t2t12 Respectfully submitted,LAW OFFICES

By

Respectfully submitterLAW OFFICESOF C

Attorney for Pl


kendrec mcdade's family files civil lawsuit

Documents