Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
David R. Bush, State Bar No. 154511 LAW OFFICE OF DAVID R. BUSH 321 South Main Street #502 Sebastopol CA 95472 Telephone: (707) 321-5028 [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON, by and through successor in interest SARAH GATLIFF, and SARAH GATLIFF individually
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON, by and through successor in interest SARAH GATLIFF, and SARAH GATLIFF individually, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, DAVID DOMINGUEZ, JOHN BABA, CITY OF HALF MOON BAY, and DOES 1-150, Defendants.
Case No. 21-CV-01463-VC SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. EXCESSIVE FORCE/ UNREASONABLE SEIZURE (42 U.S.C. §1983) 2. MUNICIPAL LIABILITY FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES (42 U.S.C. §1983) 3. LOSS OF FAMILIAL ASSOCIATION (42 U.S.C. §1983) 4. WRONGFUL DEATH/NEGLIGENCE PER SE (C.C.P. §377.6) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REQUEST FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66 Filed 11/15/21 Page 1 of 22
1
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COME NOW PLAINTIFFS, ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON, by and through
successor in interest SARAH GATLIFF, and SARAH GATLIFF individually, who make
complaint against each and every Defendant and allege as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This civil rights action arises out of the killing of SANDRA LEE HARMON
(“HARMON”) on May 5, 2020, in CITY OF HALF MOON BAY, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
by San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (“SMCSO”) deputy DAVID DOMINGUEZ
(“DOMINGUEZ”). That day, Ms. HARMON was a mentally ill person in crisis. She was
convinced of an impending “race war” that would start that night. She was walking the streets
warning people to go home and prepare. She was carrying a bottle of wine and a shotgun, but
she never threatened anyone at any time. Not only was she not an imminent threat, she was shot
in the back while complying with orders; hands in the air, back to the officer. All Ms.
HARMON wanted was for people to be safe from the “race war” she was convinced was coming
that evening.
2. Ms. HARMON was a loving mother to SARAH GATLIFF (“GATLIFF”), and
she was loved deeply in return. SARAH GATLIFF was dependent on Ms. HARMON in all the
ways a daughter with a close relationship to her mother is dependent, including but not limited to
love, emotional support, physical contact, conversation, and advice. Ms. HARMON raised
GATLIFF alone from age twelve as a single parent providing a loving home to her daughter.
The two maintained this loving relationship and continued to be in constant contact and
communication throughout GATLIFF’s adult life--until the day Ms. HARMON lost her life. As
the sole parental figure in GATLIFF’s life since age twelve, HARMON provided all the things,
physical and emotional, that a loving parent provides for a child after Ms. GATLIFF’s father
abandoned her at age 12. GATLIFF also provided the loving support for her mother that only a
daughter can. At the time of her death, HARMON and GATLIFF were living together,
Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66 Filed 11/15/21 Page 2 of 22
2
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
demonstrating just how close their relationship was and how they relied on each other. The two
were strongly committed to supporting each other in any way possible. Ms. HARMON’s death
has been an immeasurable loss and sadness to Ms. GATLIFF, who lost her mother, her closest
confidant and friend, and the sole parent in her life on May 5, 2020.
3. DOMINGUEZ, the SMCSO deputy primarily responsible for Plaintiff’s death,
violated SMCSO and standard policing protocol at least twice on the night of the shooting:
a) failing to wait for back-up to arrive before initiating contact with people inside the RV; and
b) failing to turn on his body camera even though he had ample time to do so and nothing was
causing him to hurry or react. According to the investigation by San Mateo County District
Attorney’s Office (“SMCDAO”) and Stephen Wagstaffe (“Wagstaffe”), he simply forgot to do it
and there were no consequences. In the alternative to DOMINGUEZ’ failure to turn on his body
camera, DOMINGUEZ turned on his body camera before initiating contact, but the captured
footage was not uploaded as required and its existence has been covered-up by all Defendants.
4. In either alternative, on the night of the shooting, SMCSO sergeant James Goulart
(“Goulart”) was in charge at the scene after his arrival. Inspectors from the SMCDAO were also
present and took possession of several items from DOMINGUEZ and SMCSO deputy JOHN
BABA (“BABA”), except for their body worn cameras (“body-cams”), which the SMCSO
maintained in their possession and control. The footage from BABA’s body-cam was held by
Goulart and/or BABA and was not uploaded to the SMCDAO investigators until the next day,
12-18 hours after the shooting. The deputies, Goulart and even the SMCDAO inspectors failed
to maintain proper chain-of-custody information for the BABA video, and the body-cams of
DOMINGUEZ and BABA.
5. Defendants were all aware the video from BABA’s body-cam had been shot in
high-resolution and altered at some point to low-resolution, although the Critical Incident Video
labeled the video “unaltered.” This change made the video appear grainy and hard to see in
Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66 Filed 11/15/21 Page 3 of 22
3
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
detail. Further, Defendants purposefully failed to include critical audio recordings in the
investigation that demonstrate unequivocally that DOMINGUEZ fired first at Ms. HARMON
that night. Defendants also failed to request DOMINGUEZ’ body-cam records from Axon, the
company that controls the information, per standard investigatory protocol, to determine if
DOMINGUEZ’ body-cam had captured footage of the incident.
6. At all relevant times it was known to Defendants COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
and CITY OF HALF MOON BAY, as well as SMCDAO, SMCSO, Bolanos, and Wagstaffe that
75-80% of all police shootings in the COUNTY OF SAN MATEO involve mentally ill people,
and that across the state that number is well over 50%. Nevertheless, these Defendants
knowingly chose tactical responses in these instances for use by its officers instead of training
them in what is known as Crisis Intervention Training (“CIT”). CIT teaches de-escalation and
introduces officers to mental health experts and to mentally ill people and their families. Further,
since 1998 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO has maintained a Critical Incident Stress Management
Team (“CISMT”) that is available to SMCSO deputies, city police, and other county first
responders to deal with their own stress. This program claims it is available to first responders
before, during, and after a critical incident. But there was no crisis intervention for Ms.
HARMON or any other mentally ill people. This is because COUNTY OF SAN MATEO as a
custom or practice uses SMCSO officers and other police officers, as opposed to fire or health
services, to deal with mental ill people in crisis. The officers are severely undertrained in CIT,
but they are all heavily trained in tactical responses and they are given multiple tactical weapons.
For Ms. HARMON that meant multiple officers— multiple guns pointed at her—multiple orders
shouted over each other; just as the officers had been instructed to do. Rather than de-escalate
the situation, the deputies’ actions, especially those of DOMINGUEZ who actually created the
crisis, escalated the situation to a terminal point.
Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66 Filed 11/15/21 Page 4 of 22
4
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. It is a matter of COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and SMCSO policy that SMCSO
deputy officers will receive inadequate CIT, and instead Defendants will use available funds for
tactical training and equipment. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and SMCSO knowingly choose to
send these untrained and undertrained officers to patrol knowing such officers will encounter
mentally ill persons and will respond with inappropriate and excessive force. This is in
opposition to at least one adjacent county, Alameda, which has chosen to use their fire
departments to respond to mentally ill people in crisis instead of officers. The COUNTY OF
SAN MATEO policy to use tactical responses over CIT has led to multiple shootings by SMCSO
deputies, as well as other city police, of people who suffer from mental illness. In Ms.
HARMON’S case, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and SMCSO were also aware that
DOMINGUEZ had failed to pass his field training with San Mateo P.D. and had been dismissed
shortly before being hired by the SMCSO.
8. The history of mentally ill people in crisis who were killed by COUNTY OF SAN
MATEO officers untrained or undertrained in CIT by COUNTY OF SAN MATEO includes but
is not limited to SANDRA LEE HARMON, Chinedu Okobi, Fernando Cazares, Stanley Wong,
Edgar Aristondo, Robert Carron, Yanira Serrano Garcia, and Errol Chang. On October 3, 2018,
Mr. Okobi was walking down the street when a SMCSO deputy decided to stop him, allegedly
for running between traffic even though dash-cam video would prove this to be false. Within
two minutes of initiating contact with Mr. Okobi, who suffered from mental illness, five SMCSO
deputies had killed him with tasers while a SMCSO sergeant looked on and shouted instructions.
Wagstaffe, Bolanos, and the deputies involved then knowingly provided false testimony and
reports of the incident to cover-up the facts. On June 4, 2014, SMCSO deputies shot and killed
eighteen-year-old Yanira Serrano Garcia outside her home after relatives called 911. The family
who witnessed the event blamed the cavalier attitude and lack of CIT training of the SMCSO
deputy as the cause of the escalation that led to a knife being wielded by Ms. Garcia, who was
Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66 Filed 11/15/21 Page 5 of 22
5
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
five feet tall, weighed 200 pounds, and had a birth defect for which she limped badly and could
not run. Like Ms. Harmon, a slight woman who stood with her hands above her head and her
back to Deputy DOMINGUEZ, her physical presence presented no danger to the deputy or
anyone else at the time he took her life. In August 2010, Edgar Aristondo was shot and killed by
Burlingame police after his mother called for help because of his erratic behavior. Police claim
they killed him because he was wielding a kitchen knife, which was denied by his mother, who
blamed the police on escalating the situation. In September 2006, San Mateo police shot and
killed Stanly Wong, a mentally ill homeless man known by police as someone who would
benefit from outreach. Instead, he was shot and killed when allegedly wielding a small
pocketknife at the officer. In March 2005, Redwood City police killed Fernando Cazares inside
his home after the schizophrenic man refused to be subdued. In February 2011, Robert Carron, a
schizophrenic man, was shot by San Mateo police in his backyard after he allegedly opened fire
upon their arrival. It was the actions of the officers in all these cases that escalated emotions and
heightened the tensions that led directly to the deaths of these people who suffered from mental
illness in COUNTY OF SAN MATEO.
JURISDICTION & VENUE
9. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is based upon 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and
1343.
10. The claims alleged herein arose in COUNTY OF SAN MATEO in the State of
California. Venue for this action lies in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2).
11. Pursuant to Gov. Code §910, and the Governor’s Executive orders extending the
time to submit California government claims, government claim forms were timely submitted to
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO on November 4, 2020 (“Claimant’s name: SARAH ELIZABETH
Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66 Filed 11/15/21 Page 6 of 22
6
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
GATLIFF”), and the CITY OF HALF MOON BAY on November 29, 2020 (“[Claimant’s]
Name: Family of Sandra Lee Harmon (Sarah Gatliff) through attorney David R. Bush”), for the
May 5, 2020, shooting. Additional tort claims for conspiracy and spoliation were submitted in
January and February 2021 to both Defendants. All forms adequately state damages on behalf
of SARAH GATLIFF individually and ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON.
12. With respect to Plaintiff SARAH GATLIFF’s supplemental state claim, Plaintiff
requests this Court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claim as it arises from the same
facts and circumstances that underlie the federal claims.
PARTIES
13. SANDRA LEE HARMON was, at all relevant times, a resident of COUNTY OF
SAN MATEO, and is the natural mother of SARAH GATLIFF.
14. The claims made by the ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON, are brought by
and through SARAH GATLIFF, the authorized representative of the successor-in-interest to the
ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON, William Harmon. Mr. Harmon is the long estranged,
but not divorced, husband of Ms. HARMON. William Harmon transferred the right to pursue
this action on behalf of the ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON to SARAH GATLIFF by
written assignment. This assignment is included with the Amended Declaration pursuant to
California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §377.32 filed with this Court by Plaintiffs, which
includes the requisite declaration, death certificate, and written assignment of the right to pursue
this action pursuant to C.C.P. §377.32.
15. SARAH GATLIFF, an individual, brings her own state law claim for the
wrongful death of her mother. Ms. GATLIFF complied with CCP §§911.2 and 954.4 by
submitting timely government claims to COUNTY OF SAN MATEO on November 4, 2020,
and to CITY OF HALF MOON BAY on December 3, 2020. HARMON had two children,
GATLIFF and her brother, Dustin Gatliff. Dustin Gatliff asked not to be named in any court
Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66 Filed 11/15/21 Page 7 of 22
7
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
proceedings and strenuously objected to signing anything or being involved in any way. Even
though he is a “necessary party” to be joined in this matter, his joinder is not feasible. Similar
to William Harmon, the brother wishes to have nothing to do with any claims or lawsuits for the
incident. Stating the reasons for the brother’s vehement refusal to be involved would be
speculation, but he did make his wishes clear. GATLIFF included this information in her
C.C.P. 377.32 declaration. Although both William Harmon and the brother were given the
opportunity to join the government claims and this suit, both refused and failed to comply with
the government claims requirements, leaving SARAH GATLIFF as the only person to have met
this obligation.
16. A great injustice would be done both to HARMON and GATLIFF if GATLIFF
were refused the right to bring this suit because William Harmon and her brother do not want to
join. Further, service upon the brother would be exceedingly difficult or impossible, and there
are jurisdictional issues since he lives outside California. Making the brother an involuntary
plaintiff would also not be feasible for all the reasons stated and would serve no purpose in
terms of final adjudication of the matter as he has already given up the right to pursue state
claims. William Harmon has assigned his rights to GATLIFF and stated in his declaration he
does not wish to participate in any portion of the suit, including the wrongful death claim.
Therefore, proceeding without these two persons would serve no injustice and would be in-line
with the wishes of both. As stated above, neither William Harmon nor Dustin Gatliff
administratively exhausted their claims, despite being given the opportunity to do so as part of
this suit.
17. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO is a public entity situated in the State of California
and organized under the laws of the State of California. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO is
responsible for the actions, omissions, policies, procedures, practices and customs of its various
agents and agencies, as well as for presenting Critical Incident Training (“CIT”) to all officers
Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66 Filed 11/15/21 Page 8 of 22
8
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
located within the county, including city police. At all times relevant to the facts alleged herein,
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO was responsible for assuring that the acts, omissions, policies,
procedures, practices and customs of its employees complied with the laws and the
Constitutions of the United States and of the State of California.
18. SMCSO and SMCDAO are both subdivisions and/or agencies of COUNTY OF
SAN MATEO. Both agencies have jurisdiction throughout all of COUNTY OF SAN MATEO,
including within incorporated cities.
19. At all relevant times, Bolanos was the elected Sheriff of San Mateo County and
an agent of COUNTY OF SAN MATEO.
20. At all relevant times, Wagstaffe was the elected District Attorney of San Mateo
County and an agent of COUNTY OF SAN MATEO.
21. At all relevant times, DOMINGUEZ was an SMCSO officer and employee of the
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, acting at the time of the shooting as CITY OF HALF MOON
BAY police, by contract between the SMCSO and the CITY OF HALF MOON BAY.
22. At all relevant times, BABA was an SMCSO officer and employee of the
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, acting at the time of the shooting as CITY OF HALF MOON
BAY police, by contract between the SMCSO and the CITY OF HALF MOON BAY.
23. At all relevant times, Goulart was an SMCSO officer with the rank of sergeant
and employee of the COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, acting at the time of the shooting as CITY OF
HALF MOON BAY police, by contract between the SMCSO and the CITY OF HALF MOON
BAY.
24. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or
otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 through 150, inclusive, are unknown to the Plaintiffs, who
therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious names. Defendants DOES 1 through 150, and
each of them, were responsible in some manner for the injuries and damages alleged herein.
Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66 Filed 11/15/21 Page 9 of 22
9
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege upon information and belief that each of
them is responsible, in some manner, for the injuries and damages alleged herein.
25. In doing the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, the individual Defendants,
including DOES 1 through 150, acted in concert with each of the other Defendants herein.
26. At all relevant times, DOMINGUEZ and BABA acted under color of state law in
the course and scope of their duties as agents and employees of the COUNTY OF SAN
MATEO and CITY OF HALF MOON BAY.
27. Each of the Defendants caused and is responsible for the unlawful conduct
resulting in the death of SANDRA LEE HARMON by personally participating in the conduct or
acting jointly and in concert with others who did so; or by authorizing, acquiescing or failing to
take action to prevent the unlawful conduct; or by promulgating policies and procedures
pursuant to which the unlawful conduct occurred; or by liability through contractual relations.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
28. SANDRA LEE HARMON was fifty-six years old when she was killed by
DOMINGUEZ. Plaintiff was a functional member of society despite her mental illness. She
had no history of violence or arrest.
29. On May 5, 2020, Ms. HARMON became agitated about an impending “race war”
and began walking around downtown Half Moon Bay to warn people to be safe. At the time,
she was seen carrying a bottle of wine and a shotgun held in a non-threatening position. A
witness called 9-1-1 from downtown and told the operator what was happening and reported
under questioning that she had not been threatened in any way. In fact, just the opposite, she
said Ms. HARMON was warning people to be safe.
30. Within minutes of the 9-1-1 call, SMCSO deputies, including DOMINGUEZ,
acting as de facto Half Moon Bay Police, arrived downtown and began asking people if they
had seen Ms. HARMON. Deputies also found the 9-1-1 caller, who provided no further
Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66 Filed 11/15/21 Page 10 of 22
10
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
information, but while interviewing her another male individual approached and mentioned the
“trailer behind Pasta Moon” (the “RV”) as a possible location for HARMON. Deputies
searched downtown for more than 20 minutes but did not find Ms. HARMON. Then, for
reasons unknown, DOMINGUEZ proceeded alone to Pasta Moon restaurant to check the RV.
31. DOMINGUEZ, who had been on the force for at least 20 months at the time,
drove to Pasta Moon restaurant where there was a lone RV in the rear corner of the parking lot.
For reasons unknown and in violation of SMCSO protocol and basic policing protocol,
DOMINGUEZ failed to request or to wait for back-up before approaching the RV and
purportedly did not turn his body-cam on, despite having no time constraints. He pounded on the
side of the RV and ordered the occupants to exit. Ms. HARMON looked out the side door and
exited the RV holding the shotgun in a non-threatening position. DOMINGUEZ immediately
panicked and began moving toward his vehicle as he discharged three rounds in quick
succession, possibly wounding her in the right arm, even though Ms. HARMON had not fired
the shotgun. Such action by DOMINGUEZ was in contravention of CIT, which dictates the
officer engage in dialog to attempt to calm the situation. Instead, DOMINGUEZ began shooting.
After his three shots at her, Ms. HARMON discharged two rounds harmlessly into the air in a
direction toward the restaurant and away from DOMINGUEZ, who was moving to the front of
his vehicle. The fact she shot into the air and away is supported by the fact no shotgun pellets
were recovered in the parking lot of Pasta Moon and wadding allegedly from HARMON’s
shotgun was found on the roof of Pasta Moon, approximately 100 feet and 60 degrees away from
where DOMINGUEZ was located at the time she fired. Ms. HARMON then emerged from
behind the RV and DOMINGUEZ began shouting orders with his 9 mm pistol drawn.
DOMINGUEZ ordered Ms. HARMON to stand holding the shotgun with both hands over her
head and her back to the deputy. Ms. HARMON immediately complied. When DOMINGUEZ
fired his fourth shot, into HARMON’s back, she had her back to DOMINGUEZ, with her arms
Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66 Filed 11/15/21 Page 11 of 22
11
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
above her head and the shotgun held horizontally in both hands so it was impossible to fire. At
the moment of the fifth and final shot of the series, the shotgun was laying approximately four to
six feet away from her, having fallen from above her head when she was hit by DOMINGUEZ’
fourth shot.
32. Since she had just been shot while complying with orders, Ms. HARMON
understandably reacted in fear as BABA arrived and he and DOMINGUEZ both were shouting
orders at her. First she attempted to flee, but realizing she had no escape she turned back toward
the officers and screamed at them in frustration. She then ran back to the shotgun that was lying
on the ground and as she reached down she was shot an additional six times by both deputies.
Even though she was fatally wounded, Ms. HARMON would continue to live and to suffer for
several more minutes. In all, Ms. HARMON was shot eight times. The San Mateo County
Coroner’s Office, who deemed the killing a homicide, found DOMINGUEZ’ seventh shot
overall, and the fourth in his second volley of shots, went into Ms. Harmon’s back and was the
primary cause of her death. In the totality of the circumstances, Ms. HARMON was never a
threat to anybody, including herself and DOMINGUEZ. But for the actions of DOMINGUEZ,
Ms. HARMON would not have felt the need to protect herself from further attack by
DOMINGUEZ.
33. These events were partially captured on both video from the body worn camera of
BABA, who arrived on the scene after the shooting had begun, and the dash-cam audio from
BABA and other officers in the vicinity who were responding to the call for help from
DOMINGUEZ. BABA’s body-cam video shows HARMON with her hands above her head and
her back to DOMINGUEZ preceding and at the moment she is fatally wounded by
DOMINGUUEZ as he fires his seventh shot overall into her back.
34. The audio files obtained from the recording devices of BABA, Deputy Daniel
Cuevas’ in-car audio, and possibly other officers, confirm that DOMINGUEZ discharged his
Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66 Filed 11/15/21 Page 12 of 22
12
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
weapon three times prior to any shots that Ms. HARMON might have fired, despite
DOMINGUEZ and the other Defendants falsely reporting that Ms. HARMON fired first.
35. In the official investigation, DOMINGUEZ’ violations of protocol are not cited:
failure to turn on his body camera when initiating contact and failure to call in and wait for back-
up at the scene before initiating contact with the occupants of the RV.
STATEMENT OF DAMAGES
36. As a result of the acts and/or omissions alleged herein, Plaintiff SANDRA LEE
HARMON, bringing this action by and through her Estate, suffered general damages including
death due to unreasonable force and/or seizure, extreme and severe pain and suffering, both
physical and mental, in an amount to be determined according to proof.
37. As a result of the acts and/or omissions alleged herein SARAH GATLIFF, an
individual, was deprived of familial association with her mother, including the loss of her
comfort and society in an amount to be determined according to proof. Further, GATLIFF
suffered extreme emotional distress at the wrongful death and further at the release of the
distorted Critical Incident video.
38. The acts and omissions of Defendants COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, SMCSO,
SMCDAO, DOMINGUEZ, BABA, , Wagstaffe, and CITY OF HALF MOON BAY were
willful, wanton, reckless, malicious, oppressive and/or done with a conscious or reckless
disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs.
39. Plaintiffs have retained private counsel to represent them in this matter and are
entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
///
Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66 Filed 11/15/21 Page 13 of 22
13
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
EXCESSIVE FORCE/UNREASONABLE SEIZURE
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Against DEFENDANTS DOMINGUEZ AND BABA
By ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON
40. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference as though fully set forth
herein all prior paragraphs of this Complaint.
41. Defendants DOMINGUEZ and BABA violated SANDRA LEE HARMON’s
right to be free from excessive and unreasonable force and seizure as guaranteed by the First and
Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution. At the time of her killing, Ms. HARMON
was not engaging in threatening behavior toward DOMINGUEZ or anybody else. Under the
totality of the circumstances, she posed no threat to DOMINGUEZ, BABA, or anyone.
42. An objectively reasonable officer would have known that the use of the force
exerted on Ms. HARMON was excessive and unreasonable and would cause severe and
excruciating pain, suffering and death.
43. Defendants DOMINGUEZ and BABA acted willfully, wantonly, maliciously,
oppressively, and with conscious disregard to Plaintiff’s safety and rights, and therefore punitive
damages are warranted against these individual defendants.
44. These Defendants’ misconduct caused Plaintiff to suffer excruciating pain, mental
anguish, and fear before she died.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON prays for relief as hereinafter
set forth.
///
Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66 Filed 11/15/21 Page 14 of 22
14
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
MUNICIPAL LIABILITY FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL CUSTOMS AND PRACTICES
42 U.S.C. §1983
Against COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, CITY OF HALF MOON BAY, DOES 1-5
By ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON and SARAH GATLIFF, individually
45. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate through reference all prior paragraphs
of the Complaint.
46. On or before May 5, 2020, and prior to Ms. HARMON’s death, COUNTY OF
SAN MATEO and CITY OF HALF MOON BAY were aware, or should have been, that
SMCSO officers were improperly trained in CIT, engaged in a custom and practice of reckless
and dangerous use of violence when dealing with mentally ill persons, and that DOMINGUEZ
and BABA were improperly trained according to custom and practice, and thus would likely
escalate any situation they responded to involving a mentally ill person in crisis. Nearly all
training the officers received from COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and CITY OF HALF MOON
BAY focused on tactical responses employing lethal force rather than CIT.
47. The COUNTY OF SAN MATEO became aware that DOMINGUEZ was unfit to
perform the work for which he was hired due to lack of training and experience prior to May 5,
2020. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO knew that DOMINGUEZ was not trained, or improperly
trained, in CIT, especially in dealing with mentally ill persons in crisis, including the use of de-
escalation tactics. Instead of CIT, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO provided extensive tactical
training in how to exert lethal force in dealing with mentally ill people in crisis, as well as
tactical gear and weapons. Further, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO knew DOMINGUEZ had
failed his Field Training Assignment with San Mateo P.D. and was terminated by that agency as
being unfit for service. Despite this knowledge, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO refused to address
DOMINGUEZ’s glaring deficiencies as an officer and allowed his dangerousness to go
Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66 Filed 11/15/21 Page 15 of 22
15
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
unmitigated, without appropriate training or discipline. CITY OF HALF MOON BAY is liable
through contract because it retained SMCSO as its municipal police and it should have known of
these deficiencies.
48. With deliberate indifference to the rights of Ms. HARMON and her family, and of
the public in general, especially people who suffer from mental illness, COUNTY OF SAN
MATEO and CITY OF HALF MOON BAY, through its final policymakers knowingly
maintained, enforced, and applied customs and practices of:
a. Encouraging, accommodating, or ratifying DOMINGUEZ’s use of excessive,
unreasonable, and deadly force against mentally ill persons instead of providing and encouraging
the use of CIT techniques.
b. Encouraging, accommodating, or facilitating a code of silence among deputies,
employees, and supervisors, pursuant to which false reports were generated, evidence was
spoliated, excessive and unreasonable force was covered up, whistleblowers were punished, and
internal and SMCDA investigations were performed with predetermined outcomes. Further,
vital evidence was purposefully not sought in the investigation by the SMCDAO and Wagstaffe,
and instances of perjury and dishonesty were ignored.
c. Employing and retaining deputies such as DOMINGUEZ and BABA, who
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and CITY OF HALF MOON BAY, or in the exercise of
reasonable care should have known, were untrained or undertrained in CIT, violent, unfit for
duty, abused their authority, and mistreated members of the public, especially those with mental
illness.
d. Inadequately supervising, training, and disciplining deputies including
DOMINGUEZ and BABA, who COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and CITY OF HALF MOON
BAY knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, would improperly escalate
Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66 Filed 11/15/21 Page 16 of 22
16
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
any confrontation with a mentally ill person, would improperly use lethal force, would be
violent, would abuse their authority, and would mistreat members of the public.
e. Maintaining grossly inadequate procedures for reporting, supervising,
investigating, reviewing, disciplining and controlling reckless and intentional misconduct by
SMCSO deputies, especially by using the SMCDAO to investigate all police shootings and
failing to follow minimally sufficient investigation protocols and procedures.
f. Never disciplining deputies for excessive force, no matter the circumstances,
thereby adopting a de facto policy that officers would never be disciplined no matter how much
force they used. Deputy DOMINGUEZ was aware of this practice and of the predetermined
outcome that the SMCDA would provide in finding no wrongdoing in any police shooting or
killing of a mentally ill person, as demonstrated by the named cases in COUNTY OF SAN
MATEO since at least 2014.
49. By reason of the aforementioned customs and practices of COUNTY OF SAN
MATEO and CITY OF HALF MOON BAY, SANDRA LEE HARMON was grievously injured
and subjected to unbearable and excruciating physical and mental pain and suffering, before
being ultimately killed by DOMNINGUEZ and BABA.
50. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO through officials named and unnamed had actual or
constructive knowledge of the constitutionally deficient customs and practices alleged above.
Yet despite this knowledge, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO accepted and condoned these illegal
customs and practices, thereby ratifying them, and acted with deliberate indifference to the
foreseeable effects and consequences of these policies with respect to rights of Ms. HARMON,
her family, and the general public, especially those who suffer from mental illness.
51. These customs and practices were so closely related to the deprivation of
Plaintiffs’ rights as to be the moving force that caused the ultimate injuries to SANDRA LEE
HARMON.
Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66 Filed 11/15/21 Page 17 of 22
17
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
52. By reason of the aforementioned acts and omissions, SANDRA LEE HARMON
was killed, and her daughter suffered the irreparable loss of her love, affection, society, and
moral support.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON and SARAH GATLIFF, an
individual, pray for relief as hereinafter set forth.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
DEPRIVATION OF FAMILIAL ASSOCIATION
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Against DEFENDANTS DOMINGUEZ and BABA
By SARAH GATLIFF, an individual
53. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference as though fully set forth
herein all prior paragraphs of this Complaint, with emphasis on paragraph 2.
54. By and through the acts and omissions alleged herein, Defendants DOMINGUEZ
and BABA deprived Plaintiff SARAH GATLIFF of the familial relationship between mother and
daughter, thereby violating Plaintiffs’ rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States. These Defendants acted with a specific purpose to harm
SANDRA LEE HARMON, as demonstrated by the facts: DOMINGUEZ had time to deliberate
prior to initiating contact with the occupants of the RV; DOMINGUEZ knew from the 9-1-1 call
and talking to the 9-1-1 caller downtown that he was dealing with a mentally ill person in crisis;
DOMINGUEZ suspected Ms. HARMON was in the RV; DOMINGUEZ had time to request and
wait for back-up; protocol dictates he should have called and waited for back-up; DOMINGUEZ
fired the first three shots at HARMON even though she presented no threat; DOMINGUEZ shot
HARMON fatally as she complied with his orders and with her back to DOMINGUEZ and her
hands above her head. Even if it is found DOMINGUEZ’ actions were merely indifferent, these
facts readily shock the conscience of the reasonable person. We do not speculate here; the
Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66 Filed 11/15/21 Page 18 of 22
18
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
community of Half Moon Bay was shocked to the core by the facts surrounding Ms.
HARMON’s shooting. The Half Moon Bay City Council demanded a special public meeting
with San Mateo County District Attorney Stephen Wagstaffe and then, after the meeting, voted
unanimously to ask the California Attorney General to investigate the HARMON shooting due to
the large number of inconsistencies in the investigation and the facts surrounding the shooting.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SARAH GATLIFF prays for relief as set forth. The acts, or failures to
act, of Defendants, especially DOMINGUEZ, were the direct cause of Ms. HARMON’S death.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(PENDENT STATE CLAIM)
WRONGFUL DEATH
Cal. Civ. Pro. §377.60
Against DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, CITY OF
HALF MON BAY, DOMINGUEZ and BABA
By SARAH GATLIFF, an individual
55. Plaintiffs hereby re-alleges and incorporates through reference all prior
paragraphs of the Complaint.
56. Defendants DOMINGUEZ and BABA, while working in the course and scope of
their employment as SMCSO deputies, employed negligent and/or defective tactics and
intentionally and/or without due care killed SANDRA LEE HARMON. Plaintiff’s death directly
resulted from DOMINGUEZ’s and BABA’s unsafe, improper, unnecessary, and negligent and/or
intentional acts, and because of these intentional and/or negligent acts, SANDRA LEE
HARMON suffered serious physical and mental injuries and ultimately died. DOMINGUEZ
and BABA lacked any reasonable justification for killing SANDRA LEE HARMON, who in the
totality of the circumstances presented no threat to DOMINGUEZ, BABA, or anyone else at the
time she was killed.
Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66 Filed 11/15/21 Page 19 of 22
19
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
57. DOMINGUEZ’s and BABA’s actions were in direct violation of Cal. Pen. Code §
835(a), use of force by a police officer.
58. DOMINGUEZ’s and BABA’s actions were in direct violation of Cal. Pen. Code §
243(d), battery causing serious bodily injury.
59. DOMINGUEZ’s and BABA’s actions were in direct violation of Cal. Pen. Code §
245(a)(1), assault with a deadly weapon.
60. DOMINGUEZ’s and BABA’s actions were in direct violation of Cal. Pen. Code §
245(a)(4), assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury.
61. DOMINGUEZ’s and BABA’s actions were in direct violation of Cal. Pen. Code
§§ 192(a), voluntary manslaughter, 192(b), involuntary manslaughter, and/or 187(a), murder in
the second degree.
62. The violations of these laws were a substantial factor in causing the death of
SANDRA LEE HARMON.
63. The COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and CITY OF HALF MOON BAY are
vicariously liable for the unlawful acts and omissions of DOMINGUEZ and BABA as alleged
herein.
64. SARAH GATLIFF has one sibling, Dustin Gatliff, who is the son of Ms.
HARMON. Similar to William Harmon, Dustin wishes to have nothing to do with any claims or
lawsuits for the incident. Further, Dustin will not sign any documents. Although both William
Harmon and Dustin Gatliff were given the opportunity to join the government claims and the
suit, both refused and failed to comply with the government claims requirements and did not
administratively exhaust the claim, leaving SARAH GATLIFF as the only person to have met
this obligation. Dustin lives outside the State of California and service is impractical and
infeasible.
Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66 Filed 11/15/21 Page 20 of 22
20
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
65. It was SARAH GATLIFF alone who fulfilled requirements for filing timely
government claims for the incident with the COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and CITY OF HALF
MOON BAY on her own behalf as well as her mothers’. William Harmon has disavowed his
right to be involved in this matter and even assigned any rights he might have to GATLIFF for
the wrongful death claim.
66. A great injustice will have been done if GATLIFF is denied her wrongful death
claim because William Harmon and Dustin Gatliff do not wish to be involved, especially since
the judgment can be shaped around them and there would be limited, or no, accountability for the
wrongful shooting of Ms. HARMON by the parties responsible.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SARAH GATLIFF prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:
1. For compensatory and economic damages according to proof;
2. For general damages according to proof;
3. For an award of exemplary or punitive damages against DOMINGUEZ and
BABA in their individual capacity;
4. For an award of attorneys’ fees and costs as permitted by law; and
5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem necessary and
appropriate.
///
Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66 Filed 11/15/21 Page 21 of 22
21
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiffs hereby request a jury trial on all issues so triable.
Dated: 11/15/2021
Respectfully Submitted, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID R. BUSH
By: ________/david r. bush/______________ David R. Bush, Attorney for Plaintiffs ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON and SARAH GATLIFF
Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66 Filed 11/15/21 Page 22 of 22
DECLARATION PURSUANT TO CCP §377.32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
David R. Bush, State Bar No. 154511 LAW OFFICE OF DAVID R. BUSH 321 South Main Street #502 Sebastopol CA 95472 Telephone: (707) 321-5028 [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON, by and through successor in interest SARAH GATLIFF, and SARAH GATLIFF individually
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ESTATE OF SANDRA LEE HARMON, by and through successor in interest SARAH GATLIFF, and SARAH GATLIFF individually, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, DAVID DOMINGUEZ, JOHN BABA, CITY OF HALF MOON BAY, and DOES 1-150, Defendants.
Case No. 3:21-cv-01463
DECLARATION OF SARAH GATLIFF PURSUANT TO CCP §377.32
Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66-1 Filed 11/15/21 Page 1 of 3
1 DECLARATION PURSUANT TO CCP §377.32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I, Sarah Gatliff, declare as follows:
1. The decedent SANDRA LEE HARMON was my mother.
2. SANDRA LEE HARMON was shot dead in Half Moon Bay, CA, on May 5, 2020.
3. No probate or administration proceeding has happened or is now pending in California for
SANDRA LEE HARMON.
4. SARAH GATLIFF is authorized to act on behalf of the decedent’s successor in interest (as
defined in Section 377.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure) with respect to the
decedent’s interest in the action or proceeding.
5. No other person has a superior right to commence the action or proceeding or to be
substituted for the decedent in the pending action or proceeding.
FACTS IN SUPPORT
6. William Harmon and SANDRA LEE HARMON were legally married at the time of
HARMON’s death, although the two had been estranged for more than 20 years. The two did
not communicate and had not for more than 20 years. On the other hand, SARAH GATLIFF
and her mother enjoyed intimate association on a daily basis and had for Ms. GATLIFF’s entire
adult life. HARMON raised GATLIFF as a single parent from the time GATLIFF was 12 years
old. HARMON and GATLIFF lived together at the time of HARMON’s death.
7. Accordingly, William Harmon is the successor-in-interest to HARMON’s claims. However,
William Harmon does not wish to become involved in any litigation related to his estranged
wife, so he assigned the right to bring the suit on behalf of HARMON to GATLIFF, by written
assignment filed with this Court. It includes assignment of the personal claim for wrongful death
or simply disavowal of this claim by William Harmon.
8. The assignment of the right to bring the survivor claim was voluntary and intentional, as
GATLIFF made it known to William Harmon that he owned the right to bring the suit and that
Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66-1 Filed 11/15/21 Page 2 of 3
2 DECLARATION PURSUANT TO CCP §377.32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
he was transferring that right to GATLIFF, who would solely receive the financial compensation
for the suit if successful. He understood and agreed.
9. If GATLIFF is denied the right to bring this suit, a great injustice will have been done as there
would be no accountability for the wrongful shooting of Ms. HARMON by the persons
responsible nor the COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and CITY OF HALF MOON BAY.
10. It was SARAH GATLIFF alone who fulfilled requirements for filing timely government
claims for the incident with the COUNTY OF SAN MATEO and CITY OF HALF MOON BAY
on her own behalf as well as her mothers’. William Harmon did not wish to proceed in this
matter from the very beginning and told GATLIFF she could proceed with the claim.
11. SARAH GATLIFF also has one sibling, Dustin Gatliff, who is the son of Ms. HARMON.
Similar to William Harmon, Dustin wishes to have nothing to do with any claims or lawsuits for
the incident. Further, Dustin will not sign any documents. Although both William Harmon and
Dustin Gatliff were given the opportunity to join the government claims and the suit, both
refused and failed to comply with the government claims requirements and did not
administratively exhaust the claim, leaving SARAH GATLIFF as the only person to have met
this obligation. Dustin lives outside the State of California and service is impractical and
infeasible.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true
and correct.
Date: Nov. 15, 2021 ______________________________________ Sarah Gatliff
Case 3:21-cv-01463-VC Document 66-1 Filed 11/15/21 Page 3 of 3