Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Marlowe v. City and County of San Francisco Et Al.
Marlowe v. City and County of San Francisco Et Al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Plaintiff,
vs.
25
26
Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1. VIOLATION OF
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS,
42 U.S.C. 1983
2. VIOLATION OF EQUAL
PROTECTION,
42 U.S.C. 1983
3. VIOLATION OF EQUAL
PROTECTION,
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1, 7
[DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL]
Date of Filing: January 6, 2016
27
28
1
COMPLAINT
1
2
NATURE OF ACTION
1. Plaintiff is an individual who reported her sexual assault to the San Francisco Police
Department (SFPD). The SFPD failed to investigate diligently the allegations made
by Plaintiff, including failing to test Plaintiffs rape kit. Plaintiff seeks damages resulting
from violations of due process, equal protection, and the California Constitution.
Plaintiff also seeks a writ of mandate to compel the City and County of San Francisco to
test her rape kit, or in the alternative, release the results of her tested rape kit to Plaintiff.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
mission of the Police Commission is to set policy for the Police Department
16
17
5. Defendant Greg Suhr is, and was at all times relevant, the Chief of Police of the SFPD.
Defendant Suhr is responsible for overseeing the entire SFPD.
18
6. Defendant Mikail Ali is, and was at all times relevant, Deputy Chief of the SFPD in
19
charge of the Forensic Division, which includes oversight of the SFPD forensic lab.
20
7. Defendant Joe Cordes was at all times relevant, an officer with the SFPD.
21
8. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Constitution of the State of
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
group of friends.
12. While at Bay to Breakers, Marlowe was handed a beer in a red plastic cup by a male
attendee, and Marlowe drank the beer.
13. Subsequently, Marlowe began feeling much more inebriated than would have been
normal given her moderate alcohol consumption up to that point. Marlowe regained
consciousness inside an unfamiliar home approximately 8 hours after she was last seen
at Bay to Breakers. Marlowe was physically injured, experienced vaginal and pelvic
pain, was nauseous and vomited several times, was dazed, confused, and had no memory
10
14. After gathering herself, Marlowe went to the nearest emergency room and contacted
11
SFPD. SFPD arrived thereafter, and drove Marlowe to San Francisco General Hospital
12
(Hospital).
13
14
15. While at Hospital, Marlowe underwent a rape kit procedure performed by a Sexual
Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) nurse.
15
16. At the end of the rape kit examination, Marlowe was assured by Hospital and SFPD
16
that the results would be processed, and the results would be returned to her within
17
18
17. Around May 17, 2010, Marlowe returned to the neighborhood where she believed the
19
house was located in which the rape occurred. She recognized what she believed to be
20
the house in which it occurred, and immediately called Officer Joe Cordes of the SFPD.
21
18. Around May 24, 2010, Marlowe met Cordes at the house that she had identified. They
22
knocked on the door and a man answered. Cordes demanded that Marlowe enter the
23
home while Cordes distracted the owner to see if Marlowe could identify the home as
24
25
19. Cordes actions contributed to and increased the risk of harm to Marlowe, as well as
26
changed the risk of harm that otherwise existed. Marlowe was terrified that she would
27
encounter her rapist inside the home with no protection from Cordes or any other officer
28
of the SFPD.
3
COMPLAINT
1
2
20. As Marlowe searched the home, the home owner repeatedly yelled at Marlowe and
Cordes that Cordes had no search warrant.
21. Marlowe could not reasonably identify the home as the location of her rape.
22. Around May 25, 2010, Marlowe searched google for what she believed was the name of
her rapist. She found a picture of a man that resembled what she could remember of her
23. Around May 27, 2010, Marlowe met Cordes at the police station. Cordes instructed
Marlowe to make contact with Suspect, and flirt with him in order to elicit a confession
that Suspect had indeed raped Marlowe. Cordes also instructed Marlowe to set up a date
10
with Suspect to prove that Marlowe could identify Suspect in a crowd. Cordes told
11
Marlowe that if she refused to engage in these actions, SFPD would cease its
12
13
24. Around June 8, 2010, Marlowe again met with Cordes at the police station to clarify
14
what Cordes wanted Marlowe to do. At this time, Cordes strongly discouraged Marlowe
15
from further pursuing her case, indicating that it was too much work for the SFPD to
16
17
25. Nonetheless, Marlowe continued to pursue the investigation. Marlowe created an alias
18
and began communicating with Suspect. Marlowe purchased a disposable mobile phone
19
in order to text with Suspect, without revealing her true phone number. Eventually,
20
Marlowe set up a date with Suspect, as required by Cordes. Suspect canceled the
21
date and subsequently cancelled a second date that the two had set up.
22
26. Marlowe then contacted SFPD and informed them that she refused to continue to
23
privately investigate her case. In response, SFPD informed Marlowe that they had
24
brought Suspect in for questioning and had obtained a DNA sample from him.
25
26
27. Marlowe was also told that Suspects DNA was sent to the lab for processing, and that
the results of her rape kit should be available any day now.
27
28. Marlowe contacted SFPD on December 14, 2010 to request an update on the processing
28
of her rape kit. On December 15, 2010, Marlowe received a call back from Officer
4
COMPLAINT
Hutchings, informing Marlowe that neither her rape kit, nor Suspects DNA had yet
been processed. Hutchings told Marlowe to call back in six months to check if her rape
29. On or about May 15th, 2011, Marlowe contacted SFPD to follow up on the status of her
rape kit processing. Marlowe was told that because there was such a backlog at the lab
of more important crimes that it could substantially more time until the processing of
her rape kit. She was told that Suspects DNA may also be in a different lab, but that
SFPD did not know the exact the location of Suspects DNA. Marlowe was told to keep
following up, and that eventually the rape kit would be processed.
10
30. On or about December 2011, Marlowe contacted SFPD. Marlowe was again told that
11
the lab was backed up but that they will eventually get the rape kit processed. Marlowe
12
was also told that SFPD was having trouble locating Suspects DNA could not be
13
located by SFPD.
14
31. Around August 28, 2012, Marlowe went to the SFPD station to follow up on the status
15
of her rape kit. Marlowe was told that due to the passage of time, her case was
16
considered inactive and was placed in a storage facility. SFPD also told Marlowe that
17
because she was a woman, weighs less than men, and has her menstruations, that
18
Marlowe should not have been out partying with the rest of the city on the day she was
19
20
21
22
32. Despite these comments, Marlowe asked SFPD to retrieve her case from storage. SFPD
again told Marlowe to follow up in six months.
33. Around September 25, 2012, Marlowe reached out to a third party, well connected
23
woman (Woman) who had seen a performance written and performed by Marlowe
24
about her experience with the SFPDs investigation of her rape. Woman connected
25
26
34. After several attempts Marlowe was unable to connect with this Victims services
27
representative. Woman then offered to reach out to California Attorney General Kamala
28
Harris and San Francisco Police Commissioner Suzy Loftus to get Marlowes rape kit
5
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
tested.
35. On October 18, 2012, Loftus informed Marlowe that her rape kit had been sent to the lab
to be processed.
36. On October 20, 2012, SFPD informed Marlowe that her rape kit was tested and placed in
their DNA database known as CODIS.
37. In November 2012, Marlowe learned of the national epidemic of law enforcement
contact Loftus to inquire about SFPDs processing of rape kits in light of this new
10
11
12
38. Subsequently, Loftus invited Marlowe to speak about her experience at a City Police
Commissioners meeting.
39. On May 8, 2013, at the City Commissioners meeting, city representatives gave a
13
glowing review of the SFPD lab and represented to Marlowe and the public that every
14
rape kit in its possession had been processed, and that there was no backlog of untested
15
rape kits.
16
40. Due to pressure by the media at the meeting, SFPD promised to perform an audit to
17
substantiate their claims that there was no backlog of rape kits, and that all rape kits had
18
been processed.
19
20
41. On January 14, 2104, Marlowe filed a Citizens Complaint with Defendant San
Francisco.
21
42. Around February 20, 2014, SFPD announced the results of their audit. SFPD admitted
22
that they were in possession of several thousand untested rape kits. However, SFPD
23
only committed to testing 753 of the several thousand untested rape kits.
24
43. On December 10, 2014, SFPD issued a press release confirming that SFPD would only
25
be testing 753 of the several thousand untested rape kits it had identified in its audit.
26
44. Around March 28, 2015, Marlowe read an article in the San Francisco Chronicle that
27
outlined several ways in which the SFPD forensic lab was deficient, including but not
28
COMPLAINT
including rape kit evidence, as well as employment and retention of technicians that had
45. Doubtful that her rape kit had in fact been processed, or processed correctly, Marlowe
made a Public Records Request under the Freedom of Information Act. On May 5, 2015
Marlowe learned that the results of her rape kit, and any other information pertaining to
it, were not public records subject to a Freedom of Information Act request.
46. To this day, Marlowe has never been given the results of her rape kit test, nor has she
been provided with any documentation to substantiate the oral representations that her
10
11
47. Based on information and belief, Marlowes rape kit has, to this day, yet to be processed
by the SFPD.
12
48. Furthermore, to this day, Marlowe has never been given any information, written or oral,
13
that Suspects DNA has been processed, nor has she been assured that Suspects DNA
14
15
16
49. Defendant San Francisco had the policy, practice and/or custom of failing to diligently
17
investigate sexual assault allegations. For example, according to SFPDs own internal
18
audit, several thousand rape kits, including 753 dating back to 2003, in SFPDs
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
51. On information and belief, the failure to investigate crimes of sexual assault were
26
consistent with an institutional practice of the SFPD, which was known to and ratified
27
by the City and County of San Francisco and its agents, the Defendant San Francisco
28
having failed to take any effective action to prevent the SFPD police personnel from
7
COMPLAINT
1
2
willful and wanton, deliberate and/or intentional actions of their employees and agents,
but took no steps to train them, correct abuses of authority, or discourage the unlawful
use of authority. The failure to properly train their employees and agents included the
failure to instruct them as officers of the peace and in applicable laws of California.
7
8
9
53. On information and belief, Defendant San Francisco authorized, tolerated as institutional
practices, and ratified the misconduct above by:
a. Failing to properly supervise SFPD personnel;
10
11
c. Failing to properly discipline, restrict, and control employees, including but not
12
13
14
15
16
f. Failing to establish and/or assure the functioning of a bona fide and meaningful
17
departmental system for dealing with complaints of sexual assault, but instead
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
54. Defendants Loftus, Suhr and Ali were all individually, and collectively, responsible for
creating and perpetuating the policy of failing to test rape kits.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. 1983 - VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
55. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 to 54 as if fully stated herein.
56. At all times relevant herein, Defendants and the SFPD acted under the color of the state.
Upon information and belief, the SFPD was following policies and procedures.
57. At all times relevant herein, Defendant knew that victims of sexual assault had provided
evidence of sexual assault, and that Defendants were not taking steps to investigate
8
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
willfully and wantonly, and/or with reckless disregard deprived Plaintiff of rights and/or
DNA samples, which had been provided and stored at the SFPDs facility, and
10
submit sexual assault kits for testing or failing to report the results to the victims
11
12
13
14
for testing or failing to report the results to the victims whose kits were tested, or
15
16
60. Defendants with deliberate indifference, failed to train its police officers as to the rights
17
of persons with whom the police come into contact, including but not limited to
18
Marlowe.
19
20
21
61. Defendants deliberate indifference, and willful and wanton behavior, created a danger
of and increased the risk of harm by sexual abuse.
62. Defendants violated Plaintiffs civil rights by having an express policy that, when
22
23
practice and/or custom that, although not authorized by written law or express municipal
24
policy, was so permanent and well settled as to constitute a custom or usage with the
25
force of law.
26
27
28
63. The constitutional injury inflicted by Defendants was caused by a person with final
policymaking authority at The City and County of San Francisco.
64. Defendants knew about the above-described conduct and facilitated it, approved it,
9
COMPLAINT
67. At all times relevant herein, Defendants and the SFPD acted under the color of the state.
Upon information and belief, the SFPD was following policies and procedures.
10
68. At all times relevant herein, Defendants knew that victims of sexual assault had
11
provided evidence of sexual assault, and that Defendants were not taking steps to
12
13
14
69. Defendants had a duty to investigate diligently the allegations and to submit the sexual
assault kits for testing.
15
70. At all times relevant herein, Defendants with deliberate indifference, intentionally,
16
willfully and wantonly, and/or with reckless disregard deprived Plaintiffs of rights
17
and/or privileges secured by the constitution, including but not limited to:
18
19
DNA samples, which had been provided and stored at the SFPDs facility, and
20
21
submit sexual assault kits for testing or failing to report the results to the victims
22
23
24
25
for testing or failing to report the results to the victims whose kits were tested, or
26
27
28
71. Defendants with deliberate indifference, failed to train its police officers as to the rights
of persons with whom the police come into contact, including but not limited to
10
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
Marlowe.
72. Defendants deliberate indifference, and willful and wanton behavior, created a danger
of and increased the risk of harm by sexual abuse.
74. Defendants conduct was intentional, and due to Plaintiffs female gender.
75. Defendants have a history of discriminating against females. Defendants have treated
sexual assault reports from women with less priority than other crimes not involving
9
10
11
76. Defendants violated Plaintiffs civil rights by having an express policy that, when
enforced, had the effect of discriminating against women based solely on their gender.
77. Defendants violated Plaintiffs civil rights by having an express policy that, when
12
13
practice and/or custom that, although not authorized by written law or express municipal
14
policy, was so permanent and well settled as to constitute a custom or usage with the
15
force of law.
16
17
18
19
78. The constitutional injury inflicted by Defendants was caused by a person with final
policymaking authority at The City and County of San Francisco.
79. Defendants knew about the above-described conduct and facilitated it, approved it,
condoned it, and/or turned a blind eye to the conduct.
20
21
22
23
24
25
PROTECTION
26
27
82. Defendants violated Plaintiffs civil rights by having an express policy of failing to
28
properly investigate sexual assault reports made by women that, when enforced, caused
11
COMPLAINT
custom of failing to properly investigate sexual assault reports made by women that,
although not authorized by written law or express municipal policy, was so permanent
and well settled as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law.
83. This policy was intentional and, when enforced, had a discriminatory impact on women.
84. The constitutional injury inflicted by Defendants was caused by a person with final
7
8
9
10
11
12
injury, emotional pain, suffering, mental anguish and other non-pecuniary losses.
13
14
15
88. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, Plaintiff is entitled to a writ of
16
mandate to compel Defendant San Francisco to test Plaintiffs rape kit, or if the rape kit
17
has been tested provide Plaintiff with the results of the test. Petitioner is further entitled
18
19
89. Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable costs, including attorney fees under the Civil
20
Rights Act (42 U.S.C., 1988), to enforce constitutional rights in the administrative and
21
judicial proceedings.
22
23
24
Francisco to test Plaintiffs rape kit or release the results of the processed rape kit to Plaintiff;
25
damages; costs; interest; statutory/civil penalties according to law; attorneys fees and costs of
26
litigation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 or other applicable law; and such other relief as the court
27
28
COMPLAINT
1
2
NOW COME Plaintiff, by and through her counsel, and hereby demands a trial by jury as
to all of those issues so triable as of right.
3
4
5
Respectfully submitted,
By:
6
THE ZALKIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
IRWIN M. ZALKIN
DEVIN M. STOREY
ALEXANDER S. ZALKIN
RYAN M. COHEN
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
COMPLAINT
Case 4:16-cv-00076-KAW
Filed 01/07/16 Page 1 of 2
CIVILDocument
COVER 1-1
SHEET
JS 44 (Rev. 12/12)
Cand rev (1/15/13)
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
NOTE:
U.S. Government
Plaintiff
X 3 Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
U.S. Government
Defendant
4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
463 Alien Detainee
510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
530 General
535 Death Penalty
Other:
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement
Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country
Foreign Nation
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
PERSONAL INJURY
365 Personal Injury Product Liability
367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal
Property Damage
385 Property Damage
Product Liability
DEF
BANKRUPTCY
OTHER STATUTES
PROPERTY RIGHTS
820 Copyrights
830 Patent
840 Trademark
LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
720 Labor/Management
Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act
SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))
IMMIGRATION
462 Naturalization Application
465 Other Immigration
Actions
2 Removed from
State Court
3 Remanded from
Appellate Court
Reinstated or
Reopened
5 Transferred from
Another District
6 Multidistrict
Litigation
(specify)
VI. CAUSE OF
ACTION
VII. REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 USC 1983; Cal Constitution Article 1, Section 7
Brief description of cause:
Violation of Substantive Due Process; Violation of Equal Protection;
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
DEMAND $
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
x
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Yes
No
JURY DEMAND:
(See instructions):
JUDGE
DOCKET NUMBER
( x) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND
DATE
January 6, 2016
/s/Alexander S. Zalkin
( ) SAN JOSE
( ) EUREKA
(b)
(c)
Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at
the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In
land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment,
noting in this section "(see attachment)".
II.
Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III.
Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark
this section for each principal party.
IV.
Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more
than one nature of suit, select the most definitive.
V.
VI.
Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII.
Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII.
Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.