Federal Lawsuit Filed by Charles Towns' Family

Case 2:23-cv-04447-MEMF-PD Document 5 Filed 06/09/23 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:31
1 Caree Harper SBN 219048

LAW OFFICES OF CAREE HARPER
2 100 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 700
Santa Monica, CA 90401
3 (213) 386-5078 Tel.
Email: [email protected]
4
5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs: BARSHA KNOX, CARLOS TOWNS
& “CT2” by & through his Guardian ad Litem FIONA BELL
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 IN AND FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12 BARSHA KNOX, CARLOS Case No.: 23-CV-04447
TOWNS & “CT2” by and through his
13 Guardian ad Litem FIONA BELL
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
14
Plaintiffs,
1. CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
15
vs. (Excessive Force /False Arrest)
16 2. MONELL ALLEGATIONS
17 3. CONSPIRACY
CITY OF PASADENA, CHIEF 4. BATTERY
18 EUGENE HARRIS, PASADENA 5. NEGLIGENCE
19 P.D. OFC. RALPH PALACIOS, 6. BANE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
SGT. BLANCHARD, & LT. CHRIS 7. TORTS-IN-ESSENCE
20
KIRBY, individually and in their
21 official capacities and DOES 1-10
22 inclusive,
23 Defendants.
24
25
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
1
KNOX (FIRST AMENDED) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 Plaintiffs allege:
2 INTRODUCTION.
3 1. This civil rights action seeks compensatory and punitive damages
4 from Defendants for violating various civil rights under the United States
5 Constitution and state law in connection with the fatal use force on the
6 PLAINTIFFS.
7 PARTIES
8 2. BARSHA KNOX, at all relevant times is a Black female and
9 resident of Pasadena, California, and is the natural mother of Plaintiff CARLOS
10 TOWNS and Minor, “CT2”.
11 3. CARLOS TOWNS, at all relevant times is a Black male and resident
12 of Pasadena, California.
13 4. “CT2” A Black male Minor who sues through his Guardian ad Litem
14 and maternal aunt, FIONA BELL.
15 5. Defendant, RALPH PALACIOS, a White male1, at all relevant times
16 was and is a sworn police officer at the PASADENA POLICE DEPARTMENT
17 who was acting under color of law within the course and scope of his duties as a
18 peace officer at the Pasadena Police Department (“PPD”) when he used excessive
19 force on PLAINTIFF TOWNS and would have battered PLAINTIFF KNOX,
20 but-for the swift intervention of Pasadena PD rookie officer TAISYN
21 CRUTCHFIELD, a Black woman.
22 6. Defendant, SGT. BLANCHARD, at all relevant times was and is a
23 White male and supervisor at the Pasadena Police Department who was acting
24 under color of law within the course and scope of his duties as a peace officer and
25 supervisor for the Pasadena Police Department (“PPD”) with the complete
26 authority and ratification of his principal, Defendant CITY, when he stood by and
27 failed to intervene in the unnecessary use of force on Plaintiff TOWNS and assault
28
1
Possibly Latino.
2
1 on Plaintiff KNOX. BLANCHARD2 then conspired and continues to conspire

2 with Internal Affairs supervisor, DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER KIRBY to
3 terminate rookie TAISYN CRUTCHFIELD for being brave enough to protect
4 BARSHA KNOX from certain doom at the hands of hothead/ man-child
5 Defendant Officer PALACIOS.
6 7. Defendant, LT. CHRISTOPHER KIRBY #4949, at all relevant
7 times was and is a White male and supervisor at the Pasadena Police Department
8 who was acting under color of law within the course and scope of his duties as a
9 peace officer and supervisor for the Pasadena Police Department (“PPD”) with the
10 complete authority and ratification of his principal, Defendant CITY, as he
11 conspired and continues to conspire with Internal Affairs supervisor
12 DEFENDANT SGT. BLANCHARD.
13 8. Defendant, PASADENA POLICE CHIEF EUGENE HARRIS, at
14 all relevant times, was a sworn police officer, supervisor and policymaker at the
15 Pasadena Police Department.
16 9. At all relevant times, Defendant CITY OF PASADENA (“CITY”)
17 is and was a duly organized public entity, form unknown, existing under the laws
18 of the State of California. At all relevant times, CITY was the employer of
19 Defendants and DOES who were either police officers or firefighters, and DOES
20 1-10 who were police officer and supervisorial officers, and who were managerial,
21 supervisorial, and policymaking employees of the CITY police department.
22 11. At all relevant times, Defendants and DOES 1-10 were duly
23 appointed officers and/or employees or agents of the CITY, subject to oversight
24 and supervision by CITY’s elected and non- elected officials.
25 12. In doing the acts and failing and omitting to act as hereinafter
26 described, Defendants were acting on the implied and actual permission and
27
2
BLANCHARD was recently involved in the cover-up and improper handling and destruction
28 of evidence in the Anthony McClain case (Williams et. al. v. City of Pasadena et. al. 20-cv-
9042VAP). He allowed shooting officer DUMAGUIDIN to dispose of bloody gloves in his
patrol car after Mr. McClain was shot twice in the back by DUMAGUINDIN.
3
1 consent of CITY.
2 13. At all times mentioned herein, each and every CITY defendant was
3 the agent of each and every other CITY defendant and had the legal duty to
4 oversee and supervise the hiring, conduct and employment of each and every CITY
5 defendant.
6 14. The true names of defendants DOES 1 - 10, inclusive, are unknown to
7 Plaintiffs, who therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names.
8 Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this complaint to show the true names and
9 capacities of these defendants when they have been ascertained. Each of the
10 fictitious named defendants is responsible in some manner for the conduct and
11 liabilities alleged herein.
12 15. In May 2023, Plaintiffs filed comprehensive and timely claim for
13 damages with CITY pursuant to applicable sections of the California Government
14 Code.
15 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16 16. This civil action is brought for the redress of alleged deprivations of
17 constitutional rights as protected by 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, and the
18 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction
19 is founded on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367.
20 17. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because
21 Defendants reside in, and all incidents, events, and occurrences giving rise to this
22 action occurred in, the County of Los Angeles, California.
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26
27
28
4
1 BACKGROUND ON THE INSTANT LAWSUIT

2 18. On January 22, 2023, Charles TOWNS was shot and killed by Los
3 Angeles Sheriffs' deputies on El Sereno Ave. in Altadena, California, on a street
4 that boarders Pasadena. Some Pasadena police officers provided mutual aid and
5 crowd control at the scene of the shooting although it is the County’s jurisdiction.
6 One of the officers that responded was RALPH PALACIOS. Plaintiffs KNOX,
7 TOWNS and "CT2" went to the scene because Charles TOWNS and KNOX are
8 the parents of Carlos TOWNS and "CT2". Upon their arrival, they encountered
9 Defendant PALACIOS who treated them very harshly even after they told him
10 that they believed their father was the person who was shot. PALACIOS did not
11 care and instead yelled at them to move although they could see Charles TOWNS
12 lying dead in the street, uncovered and freshly executed by police.
13 19. A short, heavy-set Caucasian LASD Deputy at the El Sereno shooting
14 scene approached PLAINTIFFS and PALACIOS and ordered PALACIOS away
15 from PLAINTIFFS and attempted to console PLAINTIFFS and explain that the
16 scene needed to be secured. PLAINTIFFS later confirmed that their father was
17 deceased and had no further contact with Defendant PALACIOS that evening.
18 ///
19 ///
20 ///
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
1 STATEMENT OF FACTS
2 20. A few weeks later, on or about February 20, 2023, at approx. 2AM
3 while PLAINTIFFS, were standing outside their home near the Pasadena Police
4 station at the corner of Walnut and Marengo Ave. in the City of Pasadena.
5 Unfortunately for the Plaintiffs, they were in their feelings over the loss of Mr.
6 Towns and caught the eye of an officer believed to be Jared BLEDSOE. Officer
7 Bledsoe made contact with the three Plaintiffs and was conversing with them when
8 Defendant PALACIOS suddenly ran over from the police department and
9 aggressively took hold of Plaintiff TOWNS. PALACIOS violently face-planted
10 unarmed Plaintiff TOWNS in the flower planter and handcuffed him causing pain
11 and bruising. Ms. KNOX observed her son being hurt so she protested and tried to
12 intervene. PALACIOS yelled at her and she was handcuffed by an unknown
13 White female. KNOX feared for the life of her children and she recognized
14 PALACIOS from the El Sereno Ave. shooting where he was rude and aggressive
15 there as well. She told PALACIOS words to the effect that "you should not be on
16 the street because you are too aggressive", to which he responded that she should
17 respect "his officers". Although PALACIOS has only been at the Pasadena Police
18 Department a couple of years, and although Defendant Sgt. BLANCHARD was
19 on scene, PALACIOS assumed control. PALACIOS continued to yell at the
20 handcuffed Barsha KNOX and suddenly approached her coming within 1-2 feet
21 and causing her to have an apprehension of an imminent, unlawful and harmful
22 touching. But to Plaintiff KNOX' relief, Black female rookie officer TAISYN
23 CRUTCHFIELD swiftly intervened, and moved between PALACIOS and
24 KNOX, thereby protecting KNOX from the assaulting PALACIOS. Defendant
25 PALACIOS was guided away from KNOX by CRUTCHFIELD and that
26 situation was de-escalated. But PALACIOS responded by violently pushing the
27 CRUTCHFIELD and yelling "Don't fucking touch me!" or words to that effect.
28 ///
6
1 21. Both officers were ordered away from the scene by Defendant Sgt.
2 BLANCHARD who watched PALACIOS face-plant TOWNS but failed to
3 intervene, as required by law.
4 22. DEFENDANTS did not transport the PLAINTIFFS to jail, nor were
5 they cited for any violation. PLAINTIFFS believe that neither a Use of Force
6 report nor any other report was written. PLAINTIFFS were not given any forms
7 after being battered, handcuffed and placed in patrol units.
8 23. Defendant Officer PALACIOS, BLANCHARD and Lt. KIRBY
9 then conspired to terminate probationary officer /college track star (100-meter
10 national title holder) / educated Black female and holder of a Masters' degree in
11 Criminology from a UC school because she fulfilled her Constitutional obligation
12 to protect PLAINTIFFS as required by law. Defendants (excluding Chief
13 HARRIS) waited until the only other Black female at the department, Lt.
14 GORDON, was no longer over the Internal Affairs Department to put rookie
15 TAISYN CRUTCHFIELD on administrative leave for intervening.
16 CRUTCHFIELD is believed to have been put on leave sometime in
17 April, just before she would have completed probation in May, causing her
18 probation to be extended and overtly signaling to everyone in the Department that:
19 -she will soon be terminated, and
20 -this is what happens to anyone who does not back "Blue"3 whether the
21 actions of the officer is wrong or right.
22 Defendants PALACIOS, BLANCHARD, and KIRBY then engaged in
23 specific actions amounting to witness-tampering by causing witness
24 CRUTCHFIELD to be subjected to an internal affairs investigation and placed on
25 administrative leave rendering her unable to speak about the excessive force.
26 Witness CRUTCHFIELD, daughter of Pasadena Sports Hall of Famer, Tony
27 Crutchfield, Sr., has approx. 100,000 Instagram followers. If Defendants treat this
28 high-profile Black female in this manner, one need only image how they treat the
3
“Thin Blue line” aka Code of Silence in law enforcement.
7
1 average Black citizen in Northwest Pasadena. As a patrol officer, this is how Lt.
2 KIRBY (now IA Supervisor) treated Black folks:
3 -In 2009, the CITY settled a lawsuit against KIRBY, Keith GOMEZ
4 and others in which KIRBY was sued for violently throwing an unarmed
5 elderly Black female to the ground and beating up her three teenaged
6 children on El Sereno Ave. The mother and teens were then repeatedly
7 subjected to pretext stops used as a method to harass them afterwards.
8 (Miller v. City of Pasadena, Case #05-cv-7467 R-PJW). The mother said:
9 I tried to complain about the treatment of [my son], but
10 instead of answering any questions Officer KIRBY shoved
me to the ground. Sgt. GOODMAN also pushed me, as racial slurs,
11 such as “Nigger” was used, I feel that [my son] and I were
12 mistreated, threatened and abused because of race. [Dkt 86]
13
14 -In 2009, the CITY settled a lawsuit in which KIRBY and others were sued
15 after KIRBY deceived a Superior Court judge with trumped-up Field
16 Interrogation (FI) cards to get a search warrant and serving said search
17 warrant at the wrong address. When unarmed Black male resident
18 questioned the police presence, KIRBY and Keith GOMEZ beat him up in
19 front of his children as the kids cried and said, “stop hitting my Daddy”.
20 The resident, Damien Esteem, was not arrested or cited at the scene after
21 being face-planted into the cement. It was not until he made a personnel
22 complaint on KIRBY, GOMEZ and others that the CITY filed charges
23 against him for 148 PC. Said charge was later dismissed. (Esteem v. City
24 of Pasadena, Case# 04-662 GHK (MANx).
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28
8
1 The harsh reality that should cause Defendant CHIEF EUGENE HARRIS
2 to stop burying his head in the sand and clear out the management level of
3 suspected White Supremacists, is the fact that the Department allows non-Black
4 officers to kill, beat-up and harass Black folks through “pretext stops” and trumped
5 up “field-interrogation” cards, but punishes or fires Black officers for very
6 minor infractions or in this case, a heroic effort that preserved life and/ or limb.
7 Recent incidents more meritorious of examination of Pasadena IA have gone
8 unaddressed:
9 24. In July, 2020, Pasadena Police Sergeant Michael GLIGORIJEVIC,
10 a 20-year veteran of the department, fled from a CHP officer on foot in the Santa
11 Clarita area while he was off duty. The sergeant was quietly offered diversion by
12 embattled former District Attorney Jackie Lacey rather than face prosecution on
13 allegations of resisting arrest, driving under the influence, child endangerment and
14 leaving his weapon unattended in a vehicle. The California Highway Patrol
15 provided Sgt. GLIGORIJEVIC with a date to appear in court recommending all
16 of the alleged offenses be charged, but he was ultimately only charged with one
17 misdemeanor count of resisting arrest. He never actually entered a plea to the
18 charge and it was dismissed after he completed six months of diversion. 4
19 25. Former CHIEF PEREZ and the Defendant CITY did not discipline
20 Sgt. Michael GLIGORIJEVIC, who was captured on video committing the afore-
21 mentioned crimes, or Lt. Shawn DAWKINS who was also at the scene with CHP.
22 Former Chief JOHN PEREZ had the benefit of having a video which depicted
23 GLIGORIJEVIC and DAWKINS committing actual crimes and he failed to put
24 either of them on administrative leave for one single day, but witness
25 CRUTCHFIELD, who is tantamount to a whistle-blowers, has seemingly been on
26 leave for months now.
27 (https://www.facebook.com/TheConversation.Live/videos/724956018914441)
28
4
By Brennon Dixson Pasadena Star-News Published March 25, 2022 at 10:41 a.m. updated June
1, 2022 at 1:34 p.m.
9
1 26. Defendant CHIEF HARRIS has failed to put DAWKINS or

2 GLIGORIJEVIC on administrative leave for one single day for these crimes or
3 policy violations. These White officers’ careers have been unfettered but this
4 Black female rookie's career has been changed forever. This disparate treatment
5 trickles down and affects the community and the PLAINTIFFS.
6 27. In January 2023, rookie officer Osi NEGRETE had a party at her
7 house while off-duty to which uninformed on-duty Pasadena Police officers
8 attended and consumed copious amounts of alcoholic beverages before
9 returning to patrol the streets of Pasadena.
10 28. Defendant Chief HARRIS, Defendant KIRBY and Sgt.
11 BLANCHARD failed to put one single drunk officer on administrative leave or
12 even open an Internal Affairs investigation about the on-duty officers’ actions
13 until, NEGRETE's ex-husband/ retired Pasadena Police officer Omar EL
14 HOSSEINY went to the police station to complain in March, 2023. EL
15 HOSSEINY made national headlines after a devastating diagnosis and a month of
16 being in a coma he woke up and married NEGRETE in the hospital bed5
17 ///
18 ///
19 ///
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
"Police Officer wakes up paralyzed, marries from hospital bed" Source: Today Show August 4,
2016 9:48 AM PDT.
10
1 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Unreasonable Search and Seizure—Excessive Force, False Arrest, Assault
2 & Battery
3 (42 U.S.C. § 1983) (Against All Officer Defendants)
4 29. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation in the
5 paragraphs above in this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set
6 forth herein.
7 30. The unjustified detention, assault and battery of Plaintiffs deprived
8 them of their rights to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and
9 seizures as guaranteed to them under the Fourth Amendment to the United States
10 Constitution and applied to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment.
11 31. The unreasonable use of force by all Defendant OFFICERS
12 (excluding Chief HARRIS, and Lt. KIRBY) deprived the PLAINTIFFS of their
13 right to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures as
14 guaranteed to under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
15 applied to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment.
16 32. As a result, PLAINTIFFS suffered pain, discomfort and humiliation.
17 33. As a result of the conduct of the Officer Defendants, they are liable
18 for Plaintiffs injuries, either because they were integral participants in the use of
19 excessive force, or because they failed to intervene to prevent these violations.
20 34. This use of force was unreasonable under the circumstances,
21 especially since PLAINTIFFS never physically injured or attempted to physically
22 injure the Officer Defendants, or anyone else prior to being arrested. Further,
23 PLAINTIFFS never verbally threatened anyone and never brandished a weapon at
24 the Officer Defendants, or anyone else, prior to being accosted by Defendant
25 PALACIOS.
26 ///
27 ///
28
11
1 35. Defendants’ actions deprived PLAINTIFFS of their right to be free

2 from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment and applied
3 to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment.
4 36. The conduct of the Officer Defendants was willful, wanton, malicious,
5 and done with reckless disregard for the rights and safety of PLAINTIFFS and
6 therefore warrants the imposition of exemplary and punitive damages as to the
7 Officer Defendants.
8 37. Plaintiffs also seek attorney fees under this claim.
9 ///
10 ///
11 ///
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
1 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Monell Allegations
2 Municipal Liability for Unconstitutional Custom or Policy
3 (42 U.S.C. § 1983) (Against HARRIS, KIRBY, BLANCHARD & CITY)
4 38. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation in paragraphs
5 listed above in this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth
6 herein.
7 39. The assault, battery and false arrest of the PLAINTIFFS was
8 immediately defended and covered up by supervisor and Defendant
9 BLANCHARD was at the scene and failed to intervene. Defendants
10 BLANCHARD and KIRBY neglected their duties to immediately admonish
11 Defendant PALACIOS, but instead concocted a scheme to cover PALACIOS’
12 and BLANCHARD’s wrongdoing, by not filling out the requisite “Use of Force”
13 forms. Instead, Defendant KIRBY placed witness CRUTCHFIELD on
14 administrative leave just before her probationary period was set to expire and in
15 order to tamper with her testimony as a witness against PALACIOS.
16 40. Defendant Chief HARRIS, seemingly devoid of the concept of
17 witness tampering and equal protection under the law, ratified policies that
18 inherently jeopardizes the safety the Black citizens in Pasadena, specifically in the
19 Northwest Pasadena. Chief HARRIS has condoned and ratified policies that allow
20 officers to view their body worn camera (“BWC”) footage and patrol camera
21 footage before making a statement; he refuses implement the recommendations of
22 his own police consultant, Michael Gennaco, counseling against this practice and a
23 number of other things6 discipline officers accused of wrongdoing against
24 community members of color and he has emboldened the officers by creating and
25 maintaining an environment where they know that no matter what they do they will
26 6
The OIR Report investigated the shooting deaths of Black men, Leroy Barnes, Kendrec
27 McDade and Anthony McClain who recently fled from a pretext car stop while riding as a
passenger. Former police Chief John Perez who later testify in a deposition in August 2022 that
28 Mr. McClain had a right to walk away from the officer who shot him in the back twice.
https://www.cityofpasadena.net/city-manager/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/Pasadena-McClain-
Review-Final-4-12-23.pdf?v=1682096147705
13
1 not be punished in any way for inflicting serious bodily injury or killing people of
2 color. Top brass at the Pasadena Police Department have a long history of refusing
3 to discipline officers for excessive for on people of color, especially when they are
4 Non-Black officers7.
5 41. As customary with the Pasadena Police Department, Defendant CITY,
6 Chief and Chiefs before him have never been disciplined for the use of excessive
7 force on people of color.
8 42. For some time prior to February 2023 (and continuing to the present
9 date) the Defendant CITY, deprived PLAINTIFFS of the rights and liberties
10 secured to them by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
11 Constitution, in that, said defendants and their supervising and managerial
12 employees, agents, and representatives, acting with gross negligence and with
13 reckless and deliberate indifference to the rights and liberties of the public in
14 general, and PLAINTIFFS, and of persons in their class, situation and comparable
15 position in particular, knowingly maintained, enforced and applied an official
16 recognized custom, policy, and practice of:
17 (a) Employing and retaining as police officers and other personnel, including
18 the Officer Defendants, DOES 1- 5, at all times material herein knew or reasonably
19 should have known had dangerous propensities for abusing their authority and for
20 mistreating citizens by failing to follow written CITY police department’s policies,
21 including the use of excessive force;
22 (b) Of inadequately supervising, training, controlling, assigning, and
23 disciplining CITY officers, and other personnel, including the Officer Defendants,
24 who Defendant CITY knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have
25 known had the aforementioned propensities and character traits, including the
26 propensity for violence and the use of excessive force;
27
7
Specifically in the case of the killing of Leroy Barnes, Kendrec McDade and Anthony
28 McClain. In all three of those instances the CITY engaged the services of Michael Gennaco to
evaluate the actions of the officers involved yet failing on each account to implement his
recommendations.
14
1 (c) By maintaining grossly inadequate procedures for reporting, supervising,

2 investigating, reviewing, disciplining and controlling the intentional misconduct by
3 Defendant the Officer Defendants, who are police officers of CITY;
4 (d) By failing to discipline CITY officers’ conduct, including but not limited
5 to, excessive force;
6 (e) By ratifying the intentional misconduct of Defendants BLANCHARD,
7 K, who are officers of CITY;
8 (f) By having and maintaining an unconstitutional policy, custom, and
9 practice of using excessive force, including deadly force, which also is
10 demonstrated by inadequate training regarding these subjects. The policies,
11 customs, and practices of DOES 1- 5, were done with a deliberate indifference to
12 individuals’ safety and rights; and
13 (g) By failing to properly investigate claims of unlawful detention and
14 excessive force by CITY police officers. The Pasadena Police Department has a
15 pattern and practice of using excessive or deadly force on young men of color:
16 43. On April 24, 2004, Keith GOMEZ shot and killed a Black man,
17 Maurice Clark. Initially, detectives could not locate Clark’s weapon, leading to
18 speculation that Clark was unarmed. [Similarly, no weapon was initially found at
19 the scene in the 2020 Anthony McClain case – (which Keith GOMEZ responded
20 to). Although there was heavy foot traffic, a “ghost-gun” was later allegedly
21 “recovered” by Pasadena Police Officer Association rep. Officer DUNCAN who
22 mysteriously turned off his body camera before allegedly finding the weapon and
23 after receiving a call/text from Defendant Sgt. BLANCHARD who
24 mishandled/destroyed evidence when he allowed McClain shooter, Ofc.
25 DUMAGUINDIN, to dispose of his bloody gloves in BLANCHARD’s patrol car.
26 The CITY would later attempt to sell the story that Anthony McClain’s blood was
27 on the ghost gun “found” by DUNCAN- not Anthony’s sweat, or fingerprints but
28 blood. Oh, and DUNCAN was in charge of marking Anthony’s blood evidence
15
1 splattered on the street at the street8.]

2 44. In 2004, rogue Pasadena Police officers choked unarmed Black man,
3 LAMONT ROBINSON to death saying they were attempting to prevent him from
4 swallowing drugs. Officers involved were and are still the subject of repeated
5 complaints of misconduct and excessive force. Pasadena Police elected to pay out
6 hundreds of thousands of dollars to resolve the civil litigation, but again failed to
7 discipline or fire the officers responsible including, but not limited to, Keith
8 GOMEZ, again. Neither officer alleged they were in fear of their own lives
9 justifying the deadly chokehold, and to date, neither officer have been charged
10 with murder. This was just a gratuitous killing of a Black man they suspect of
11 swallowing narcotics evidence- No drugs were found in Mr. Robinson’s body.
12 45. In 2003, Pasadena Police officers face-planted DAMIEN
13 ESTEEM’s, face into cement after he merely asked why police was on his
14 property. Officers released Mr. Esteem, a Black man, without arrest of citation,
15
16 Deposition of Officer Conner DUNCAN 8/22/22 in the matter of Williams et. al. v. City of
Pasadena, Case No. 20-9042VAP page 181:2-18:
17
18 Q.· · Now, your duties that day when you found ·
3· · the alleged handgun, your duties were to mark blood ·
19 4· ·. evidence on Raymond Avenue; isn't that true?
5· · · ·A.· ·Yes, ma'am.
20 6· · · ·Q.· ·And you marked, what, a dozen or so
21 ·7· ·. different droplets of blood up and down Raymond ·
8· ·. Avenue?·Yes?
22 ·9· · · ·A.· ·Yes, approximately.
10· · · Q.· ·So you were in possession of Anthony
23
11· ·. McClain's blood evidence prior to finding the
24 12· ·. alleged handgun; correct?
13· · · A.· ·Yes.· I marked blood --
25 14· · · Q.· ·I asked a "yes" or "no" question.
15····dYes or no?
26
16· · · ·A.· ·Yes.·But I don't know who the blood
27 17· ·belonged to.
18· · · ·Q.· ·I didn't ask you that, did I? [Duncan later changed his answer to
28 marking blood after allegedly finding ghost-gun]
16
1 but later charged him criminally when he made a personnel complaint for
2 excessive force. The criminal charges were dismissed and Mr. Esteem accepted a
3 monetary
4 settlement to dismiss his excessive force lawsuit for the scratches to his face. In the
5 Esteem matter CHRISTOPHER KIRBY presented false and unreliable
6 information, namely, unreliable field interview cards to a Superior Court
7 Magistrate Judge and caused a search warrant to issue at 3057 N. Glen Ave.
8 Altadena, CA 91001, without legal cause and sufficient information on
9 the intended target: “Daniel Brown”. Further, Officer KIRBY knew or should have
10 known that Daniel Brown did not live at the above location on the date of entry.
11 On or about October 9, 2003, the defendant officers, there, forcibly and illegally
12 entered the plaintiffs’ residence without providing “knock and notice”. Officers
13 smashed a window and entered the bedroom of 15 year-old female, clad only in
14 pajamas, and chased the child with their guns drawn as she ran, screaming for her
15 mother. KIRBY, KEITH GOMEZ and others pointed handguns at women and
16 children who posed no threat and who were clearly not the male adult target they
17 had the search warrant for. The child was handcuffed for approx. 30 minutes.
18 46. In March 2012, unarmed Black teenager KENDREC McDADE was
19 fatally shot by Defendant Officers Jeffrey NEWLEN and Matthew GRIFFIN,
20 which left him bleeding out asking “why did they shoot me?” before dying. Griffin
21 and Newlen failed to perform CPR or first aid and even hit him with a patrol car
22 after shooting him. The District Attorney’s Office immediately rubberstamped the
23 statements of the officers with little or no investigations and ignored independent
24 counsel Michael Gennaco’s early indications that the Pasadena PD had failed to
25 implement the recommendations offered in the Barnes Report after the fatal 2009
26 officer involved shooting (“OIS”) of Leroy Barnes.
27 47. In September 2016, Officers Aaron VILLACANA and others tased
28 and choked unarmed and mentally unavailable Reginald THOMAS to death after
he called police for help. When asked under deposition testimony about the cold-
17
1 blooded murder, all Defendant Officers, including VILLACANA pled the 5th and
2 refused to answer questions for fear that they would be criminally implicated.
3
4 Aaron VILLACANA was a paramedic but refused to administer potentially life-
5 saving medical assistance to Mr. Thomas. The CITY did not discipline
6 VILLACANA but they allowed him to continue being a field training officer
7 (“FTO”) and simply paid out on the wrongful death lawsuit (Lindsey et. al v. City
8 of Pasadena et. al. Case # 16-8602). The Defendant CITY also allowed Officers
9 Jeffrey NEWLEN and Matthew GRIFFIN to train officer Edwin
10 DUMAGUINDIN and Ryan MULROONEY after they killed unarmed teenager
11 Kendrec McDADE by shooting him eight times and then running him over with a
12 patrol car afterwards. Before dying at the hospital, Kendrec asked a paramedic,
13 “Why did they shoot me?
14 In August 2020, Officers Edwin DUMAGUINDIN and his partner, Ryan
15 MULROONEY initiated a pretext car stop on a car Anthony McClain was a
16 passenger in. While MULROONEY spoke with the driver on the sidewalk,
17 DUMAGUINDIN, (in a move that would later be criticized by police consultant
18 Michael Gennaco) ordered Anthony McClain out of the vehicle. Mr. McClain ran
19 and was shot twice in the back by DUMAGUINDIN. The CITY settled part of
20 that wrongful death lawsuit for over $8 million dollars in payments to Mr.
21 McClain’s children and most recently, his father. The final portion of the lawsuit
22 involving McClain’s putative mother/ grandmother is still pending in federal
23 district court (Irene Bailey et. al. v. City of Pasadena et. al. Case. No. 22-cv-
24 05752-FMO-MAR).
25 48. Defendants, together with various other officials, whether named or
26 unnamed, had either actual or constructive knowledge of the deficient policies,
27 practices and customs alleged in the paragraphs above. Despite having knowledge
28 as stated above these defendants condoned, tolerated and through actions and
inactions thereby ratified such policies. Said defendants also acted with deliberate
18
1 indifference to the foreseeable effects and consequences of these policies with

2 respect to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs, and other individuals similarly
3 situated.
4 49. By perpetrating, sanctioning, tolerating and ratifying the outrageous
5 conduct and other wrongful acts, “supervisory DEFENDANTS”, acted with an
6 intentional, reckless, and callous disregard for Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
7
8 Each of their actions were willful, wanton, oppressive, malicious, fraudulent, and
9 extremely offensive and unconscionable to any person of normal sensibilities.
10 50. Furthermore, the policies, practices, and customs implemented and
11 maintained and still tolerated by the CITY, and “supervisory DEFENDANTS” and
12 unknown Defendants were affirmatively linked to and were a significantly
13 influential force behind the injuries of Plaintiffs.
14 51. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions of Defendants
15 DOES 1-10, Plaintiffs have suffered, and accordingly, Defendants DOES 1-10,
16 each are liable to Plaintiffs for compensatory damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
17 52. By reason of the aforementioned policies and practices of Defendants,
18 PLAINTIFFS have been injured and subjected to pain and suffering.
19
20 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
CONSPIRACY
21 (Per 42 U.S.C. Section 1985)
23 above in this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
24 54. Defendant PALACIOS, BLANCHARD, KIRBY and DOES 1-10,
25 have joined in and carried out a mutually supportive conspiracy to deprive
26 PLAINTIFFS of their rights against unreasonable seizures, and due process
27 guarantees by participating in a mutually supportive, corrupt effort to deny and
28 violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and to tamper with witnesses against them
by fast tracking the termination of rookie, Taisyn CRUTCHFIELD.
19
1 55. Defendants, together with other unknown co-conspirators, including

2 police supervisors, and command personnel, together reached an understanding,
3 engaged and continue to engage in a course of conduct, and otherwise jointly acted
4 and conspired among and between themselves to commit unconstitutional overt
5 acts, including the racial discrimination, racial profiling and harassment of African
6 Americans in Northwest Pasadena, retaliation against those who object to the
7
8 violations of constitutional rights, and deliberate indifference to those officers who
9 deprive others of constitutional rights. In this case, Defendants PALACIOS,
10 BLANCHARD, and KIRBY engaged in specific actions amounting to witness
11 tampering by causing witness CRUTCHFIELD to be subjected to an internal
12 affairs investigation and placed on administrative leave where she is prohibited
13 from speaking about the excessive force. Witness CRUTCHFIELD appears to
14 have a considerable Instagram following at nearly 100,000.
15 56. Because the conspiracy or conspiracies and the overt actions in
16 furtherance thereof were done and continue to be done with the knowledge and
17 purpose of depriving PLAINTIFFS, who are African American, and numerous
18 other African-American victims of the equal protection of the laws and equal
19 privilege and immunities under the law, and with racial animus toward the
20 Plaintiffs and the other victims of this racially motivated conspiracy, the
21 Defendants also deprived Plaintiffs of their right to equal protection of the laws
22 under the Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C.§1985.
23 57. Defendants together with other as yet unnamed Doe co-conspirators,
24 knowing that the above § 1985 conspiracy to deprive African-Americans of their
25 rights, and having the power, authority and duty to prevent or aid in preventing the
26 commission of the acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, neglected and refused to
27 do so, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § l986.
28 58. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, PLAINTIFF
sustained injury and damage as alleged above.
20
1 ///
2 ///
3 ///
4
5
6
7
8 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Battery
9 (Cal. Govt. Code § 820 and California Common Law)
10 (Against the Defendant PALACIOS & Does 1-10)
11
59. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation in paragraphs
12
above in this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
13
60. Defendant Officer PALACIOS, while working as police officer was
14
acting within the course and scope of his employment with the CITY, intentionally
15
face-planted Plaintiff CARLOS TOWNS by shoving him face forward into a
16
planter without cause, thereby using unreasonable and excessive force against him.
17
PALACIOS also assaulted and falsely imprisoned BARSHA KNOX and minor
18
“CT2”.
19
61. As a result of the actions of Defendant Officers actions, the plaintiffs
20
suffered pain and humiliation. There was no legal justification for using force
21
against PLAINTIFFS, and their use of force while carrying out their duties as
22
officers for the CITY was an unreasonable and non-privileged use of force.
23
62. The CITY is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of Defendants
24
and DOE OFFICERS pursuant to section 815.2(a) of the California Government
25
Code, which provides that a public entity is liable for the injuries caused by its
26
employees within the scope of the employment if the employee’s act would subject
27
him or her to liability.
28
///
21
1 ///
2 ///
3
4
5
6
7
8
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
9 Negligence
10 (Cal. Govt. Code § 820 and California Common Law)
12 above in this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
13 64. The actions and inactions of the Defendants, were negligent and
14 reckless, including but not limited to:
15 (a) the failure to properly and adequately assess the need to detain, arrest,
16 and use force on Plaintiffs;
17 (b) the negligent tactics and handling of the situation,
18 (c) the negligent detention, arrest, and use of force,
19 (d) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and
20 (e) the negligent handling of evidence and witnesses.
21 65. Specifically, CHIEF and unknown supervisors at the Pasadena Police
22 Department had a duty to instruct and institute policies and procedures and as a
23 direct result of their failure and as a proximate result of defendants’ conduct as
24 alleged above, and other undiscovered negligent conduct, PLAINTIFFS were
25 caused pain and suffering. Also, as a direct and proximate result of defendants’
26 conduct as alleged above, Plaintiffs suffered extreme and severe mental anguish
27 and pain and have been injured in mind and body.
28 66. CITY is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of the Officer
Defendants pursuant to section 815.2 of the California Government Code, which
22
1 provides that a public entity is liable for the injuries caused by its employees
2 within the scope of the employment if the employee’s act would subject him or her
3 to liability.
4 ///
5 ///
6 ///
7
8
9 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
10 (Violation of the BANE Act Cal. Civil Code § 52.1)
11 (By All Plaintiffs against PALACIOS and Does 1-10)
13 above this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
14 68. California Civil Code, Section 52.1 (the Bane Act), prohibits any
15 person from using violent acts or threatening to commit violent acts in retaliation
16 against another person for exercising that person’s constitutional rights.
17 69. On information and belief, Defendant Officers and DOE OFFICERS,
18 inclusive, while working for the CITY and acting within the course and scope of
19 their duties, intentionally committed and attempted to commit acts of violence
20 against by integrally participating in the above violence.
21 70. The conduct of Defendants was a substantial factor in causing
22 Plaintiffs’ harms, losses, injuries, and damages.
23 71. CITY is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of Defendants and
24 DOE OFFICERS, inclusive, pursuant to section 815.2(a) of the California
25 Government Code, which provides that a public entity is liable for the injuries
26 caused by its employees within the scope of the employment if the employee’s act
27 would subject him or her to liability.
28 72. The conduct of Defendants was malicious, wanton, oppressive, and
accomplished with a conscious disregard for PLAINTIFFS’s and Plaintiffs’ rights,
23
1 justifying an award of exemplary and punitive damages as to the individual

2 responding Defendants and DOE OFFICERS.
3 73. Plaintiffs seek attorneys’ fees.
4 ///
5 ///
6 ///
7
8 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
“TORTS-IN-ESSENCE”
9 (Against Individual Defendant OFFICERS excluding CHIEF)
10 74. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate by reference, as though fully set
11 forth herein, the allegations contained in all paragraphs above. Pursuant to CA
12 Gov. Code Section 815.6, which creates a private right of action for the alleged
13 breaches of the various penal code sections listed in this Complaint, the officers
14 Defendants and each of them, owed to Plaintiffs non-consensual duties, and
15 Plaintiffs hereby set forth that the individual Officer Defendants violated the
16 following California Penal Code Sections: 149, felonious excessive force by a
17 peace officer (PALACIOS and Does 1-10 only), 240, assault (PALACIOS and
18 Does 1-10 only), and 242 (PALACIOS and Does 1-10 only) §182, conspiracy, (All
19 DEFENDANTS except Chief HARRIS) §136.1, witness tampering, (All
20 DEFENDANTS except Chief HARRIS).
21
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
22
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray, and request entry of judgment in their favor
23
and against Defendants, as follows:
24
75. For compensatory damages, in the amount to be proven at trial;
25
76. For punitive damages against the individual defendants in an amount
26
to be proven at trial;
27
77. For interest;
28
78. For reasonable costs of this suit and attorneys’ fees; and
24
1 79. For such further other relief as the Court may deem just, proper, and
2 appropriate.
3
4 DATED: 6/9/23 LAW OFFICES OF CAREE HARPER
5 /S/ Caree Harper
6 Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS
7
8
9
10
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
11
12 All Plaintiffs demand a jury trial.
13
LAW OFFICES OF CAREE HARPER
14
15 /S/ Caree Harper
16 Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
25

Federal Lawsuit Filed by Charles Towns' Family

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Federal Lawsuit Filed by Charles Towns' Family

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:23-cv-04447-MEMF-PD Document 5 Filed 06/09/23 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:31

1 Caree Harper SBN 219048

1 on Plaintiff KNOX. BLANCHARD2 then conspired and continues to conspire

1 BACKGROUND ON THE INSTANT LAWSUIT

1 26. Defendant CHIEF HARRIS has failed to put DAWKINS or

1 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

1 35. Defendants’ actions deprived PLAINTIFFS of their right to be free

1 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

1 (c) By maintaining grossly inadequate procedures for reporting, supervising,

1 splattered on the street at the street8.]

1 indifference to the foreseeable effects and consequences of these policies with

1 55. Defendants, together with other unknown co-conspirators, including

1 justifying an award of exemplary and punitive damages as to the individual

You might also like