richard malott complaint of violation of civil rights and state law

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

LAW OFFICE OF STEWART KATZ STEWART KATZ, State Bar #127425 555 University Avenue, Suite 270 Sacramento, California 95825 Telephone: (916) 444-5678 Attorney for Plaintiff RICHARD MALOTT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RICHARD MALOTT, Plaintiff,

vs. PLACER COUNTY; NEVADA COUNTY; SACRAMENTO COUNTY; Placer County Sheriffs Department Deputy KEN ADDISON; Placer County Sheriffs Department Undersheriff DEVON BELL; Placer County Sheriff EDWARD BONNER; Sacramento County Sheriffs Department Deputy JAVIER BUSTAMANTE; Nevada County Sheriffs Department Deputy DAVE DEVOGELAIRE; Sacramento County Sheriffs Department Deputy DARIN EPPERSON; Placer County Sheriffs Department Deputy MARK FAIN; Placer County Sheriffs Department Detective MATT HARDCASTLE; Sacramento County Sheriffs Department Detective MICHELLE HENDRICKS; Sacramento County Sheriffs Department Sheriff SCOTT JONES; Nevada County Sheriffs Department Administrative Assistant DONNA NELSON; Nevada County Sheriffs Department Sheriff KEITH ROYAL; Nevada County Sheriffs Department Undersheriff JOE SALIVAR; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants. ___________________________________/

NO.

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND STATE LAW

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Malott - Complaint for Damages 1

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

Plaintiff Richard Malott complains and alleges as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This is a civil rights action with supplemental state law claims arising from

multiple violations of Plaintiff Richard Malotts (hereinafter Malott) rights under the

United States Constitution, California Constitution and laws of the United States and the

State of California. All claims alleged herein flow directly, albeit unexpectedly, from

Malotts misdemeanor arrest for illegally carrying a concealed handgun after he was pulled

over for rolling through a stop sign on April 25, 2013 in Sacramento County. While in the

back of the patrol car, Malott experienced a medical emergency which resulted in his being

taken to the hospital by ambulance and admitted into the hospital. Prior to the arrival of the

ambulance, in an attempt to prove to his partner that Malott was faking, one of the deputies

decided to gratuitously apply unwarranted pain compliance techniques in a manner akin to

kicking away someones crutches to see if they will fall down. Following his arrest, Malotts

personal diary was illegally removed from his vehicle and illegally read by the officers. As a

result of a fanciful misreading that defies rational explanation, detectives from Sacramento

and Placer Counties working in conjunction embraced a delusional interpretation of the

diary and subsequently published patently libelous statements about Malott to his friends,

acquaintances and employees, causing a restraining order to be filed against him. Malotts

attempts to contest the restraining order were thwarted by various law enforcement officers

and agencies who ignored court issued subpoenas for witnesses and documents that were

necessary for his case. Malott subsequently complained to appropriate governmental

agencies about his treatment by the arresting officers and other officials conduct in

connection with the restraining order. As a result of these complaints, Placer County

repeatedly sent deputies acting as enforcers to Malotts property to deter any further

complaining to officials. On one occasion, deputies climbed over a locked gate and on at

least one other occasion they entered Malotts home. Subsequently, the Nevada County

Sheriffs Department was made aware of the nature of these illegal acts and chose to ignore

their illegal nature and assist in a cover up.


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

2. Malotts rights as described herein were violated by each of the defendants Ken

Addison, Devon Bell, Edward Bonner, Javier Bustamante, Dave DeVogelaere, Darin

Epperson, Mark Fain, Matt Hardcastle, Michelle Hendricks, Scott Jones, Donna Nelson,

Keith Royal, Joe Salavar and by the Counties of Nevada, Placer and Sacramento.

II. JURISDICTION

3. This Complaint seeks damages and attorneys fees pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C.

1983 and 1988 for multiple violations of Malotts civil rights. Jurisdiction is founded upon

Title 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Malotts

state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.

III. VENUE

4. Malotts claims arose in the counties of Nevada, Placer and Sacramento, in

California. Venue lies in the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1391(b)(2).

IV. PARTIES

5. Richard Malott is a resident of Nevada City, California.

6. Defendant Nevada County is a public entity organized and existing under the laws

of the State of California.

7. Defendant Placer County is a public entity organized and existing under the laws of

the State of California.

8. Defendant Sacramento County is a public entity organized and existing under the

laws of the State of California.

9. Defendant Javier Bustamante was a Sheriffs Deputy with the Sacramento County

Sheriffs Department and was acting in the scope and course of his employment at all times

mentioned in this complaint.

10. Defendant Darin Epperson was a Sheriffs Deputy with the Sacramento County



11. Defendant Matt Hardcastle was a Detective with the Placer County Sheriffs


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

Department and was acting in the scope and course of his employment at all times mentioned in

this complaint.

12. Defendant Michelle Hendricks was a Detective with the Sacramento County

Sheriffs Department and was acting in the scope and course of her employment at all times

mentioned in this Complaint.

13. Defendant Scott Jones was the Sheriff of Sacramento County, California and was

acting in the scope and course of his employment at all times mentioned in this complaint.

14. Defendant Keith Royal was the Sheriff of Nevada County, California and was

acting in the scope and course of his employment at all times mentioned in this complaint.

15. Defendant Joe Salavar was the Undersheriff of Nevada County, California and

was acting in the scope and course of his employment at all times mentioned in this

complaint.

16. Defendant Donna Nelson was the Administrative Assistant to Defendant Royal

and was acting in the scope and course of her employment at all times mentioned in this

complaint.

17. Defendant Mark Fain was a Sheriffs Deputy with the Placer County Sheriffs

Department and was acting in the scope and course of his employment at all times

mentioned in the complaint.

18. Defendant Edward Bonner was the Sheriff of Placer County and was acting in

the scope and course of his employment at all times mentioned in the complaint.

19. Defendant Devon Bell was the Undersheriff of Placer County Sheriffs


mentioned in the complaint.

20. Defendant Ken Addison was a Sheriffs Deputy with the Placer County Sheriffs




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

21. Defendant Dave DeVogelaere was a Sheriffs Deputy with the Nevada County



22. The true names and identities of Does 1 through 10 are presently unknown to

Malott. Malott alleges on information and belief that each of Defendants Does 1 through 10

were employees of either the Sacramento County Sheriffs Department or the Placer County

Sheriffs Department. Malott alleges that each of Does 1 through 10 violated his rights when

each participated in a vague joint investigation between Sacramento and Placer Counties

as described herein, targeting Malott specifically so as to violate his rights under the Fourth

Amendment, as opposed to investigating any identifiable criminal conduct. Malott will seek

to amend this complaint as soon as the true names and identities of Does 1 through 10 have

been ascertained.


Malott. Malott alleges on information and belief that each of Does 11 through 15 was an

employee of the Placer County Sheriffs Department. Malott alleges that each of Defendant

Does 11 through 15 violated Malotts rights when each accompanied Defendant Addison in

unlawfully entering the Malott ranch on multiple occasions between August 13, 2013 and

August 21, 2013 as alleged herein. Malott will seek to amend this complaint as soon as the

true names and identities of Does 11 through 15 have been ascertained.



employee of the Nevada County Sheriffs Department. Malott alleges that each of Defendant

Does 16 through 20 violated his rights when each participated in a cover up and active

concealment of the illegal conduct of Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15. Malott

will seek to amend this complaint as soon as the true names and identities of Does 16

through 20 have been ascertained.




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

employee of the Placer County Sheriffs Department. Malott alleges that each of Does 21

through 25 violated his rights when each either assisted or directed Defendant Addison to

threaten Malott, as described herein. Malott will seek to amend this complaint as soon as the

true names and identifies of Does 20 through 25 have been ascertained.

26. Defendants Addison, Bell, Bonner, Bustamante, DeVogelaere, Epperson, Fain,

Hardcastle, Hendricks, Jones, Nelson, Royal, Salavar and Does 1 through 25 engaged in the

acts or omissions alleged herein under color of state law.

V. COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT TORT CLAIM PROCEDURES

27. Plaintiff filed a timely claim with Nevada County on January 3, 2014 as a pre-

requisite to the state law claims alleged herein pursuant to California Government Code

810, et seq. By correspondence dated January 30, 2014, Malotts Nevada County

governmental tort claim was rejected. This action has been filed within six months of that

rejection, as required by law.

28. Plaintiff filed a timely claim with Sacramento County on October 18, 2013 as a

pre-requisite to the state law tort claims alleged herein pursuant to California Government

Code 810, et seq. Forty-five days have passed since the claims were filed and the claim is

deemed rejected as a matter of law. This action has been timely filed within six months of

the rejection, as required by law.

29. Plaintiff filed a timely claim with Placer County on December 23, 2013 as a pre-

requisite to the state law claims alleged herein pursuant to California Government Code

810, et seq. By correspondence dated February 11, 2014, Malotts Placer County

governmental tort claim was rejected. This action has been filed within six months of the

rejection, as required by law.

VI. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

30. Plaintiff Richard Malott is a forty-four year old divorced male who, at all times

relevant and for most of his life, was a Nevada City resident in Nevada County, California.

Malott lives in a detached single family home on one of five contiguous parcels of land all

owned by his immediate family and the family trust. These five parcels comprise a 129 acre


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

property commonly called and referred to hereinafter as the Malott ranch. There are five

single family residences and two guest houses on the Malott ranch. Malotts residence sits

on a private road that is protected by multiple electronically coded gates as well as over a

dozen conspicuously displayed signs indicating that the ranch is private property and not

open to the public.

31. Malott is currently the Chief Executive Officer of a privately held real estate

development and holding company. He is a college graduate, a licensed California state real

estate broker, and holds a commercial pilots license. Previously, he has contracted with

numerous federal agencies including the Department of Defense and has served as a reserve

police officer and United States Senate intern.

32. On the evening of April 25, 2013, Malott was driving one of several family ranch

vehicles, a Jeep Cherokee, in Fair Oaks, California.

33. Sacramento County Sheriffs Deputies Javier Bustamante and Darin Epperson

conducted a traffic stop on Malott for rolling through a stop sign.

34. Defendant Epperson requested that Malott exit his vehicle and Malott complied.

35. Defendant Epperson placed Malott in handcuffs and conducted a pat-down

search of Malott.

36. During the search, Defendant Epperson located a .22 caliber Derringer handgun

which Malott carried for self-protection. The handgun was in Malotts pocket.

37. At that time, Malott did not have a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon,

although he had previously held a concealed carry weapons permit and was not statutorily

ineligible from holding a concealed carry weapons permit.

38. Immediately after finding the handgun, Defendants Bustamante and Epperson

placed Malott under arrest for carrying a concealed firearm without a permit, a misdemeanor

offense.1

39. Malott was handcuffed and placed in the back of the police patrol car.

1 The charges were later refiled as felonies based upon the claim that the Derringer was registered to Malotts deceased father 25 years ago and not Malott.


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

40. The elements of the offense of carrying a concealed firearm without a permit

require simply that the person knowingly carry a firearm without having a permit.

Accordingly, there was no need to further investigate the crime.

41. Defendant Bustamante searched Malotts Jeep while Malott sat in the back of the

patrol car.

42. In Malotts Jeep Cherokee, Defendant Bustamante located a hard covered,

ordinary looking, commercially sold red book with the words Daily Reminder Standard

Diary printed on the cover. The book is hereinafter referred to as Malotts diary.

43. Malotts diary was closed and sitting on the passenger seat. Its contents were not

viewable without opening the book.

44. Defendants Bustamante and Epperson removed the diary from the car and read

portions of it out of boredom.

45. Subsequently, Defendants Bustamante and/or Epperson booked the diary and

several selectively chosen items from the Jeep and booked them into evidence.

46. While Malott was in the back of the police car, he began to experience extreme

physical distress including chest pain, pain in his left arm, nausea, lightheadedness, profuse

sweating and difficulty breathing.

47. Malott alerted Defendants Bustamante and Epperson to the onset of his physical

distress.

48. Defendants Bustamante and Epperson asked Malott multiple times if he was

okay. Malott told them that he was not okay and that he thought he was having heat stroke

or some other medical emergency.

49. Malott pleaded for emergent medical care, however Defendants Bustamante and

Epperson ignored his request for a substantial amount of time and told Malott they believed

he was faking his symptoms and that he was still going to jail.

50. While Malotts head was resting on the passengers side back seat door,

Defendant Bustamante opened the door, causing Malotts head to fall out of the car.


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

Defendant Bustamante then closed the door on Malotts head and then pushed his head back

into the police car.

51. Defendant Bustamante told Defendant Epperson that Malott was playing them

and decided to attempt to prove that to Epperson by deliberately causing Malott pain for the

purpose of seeing his reaction in a matter akin to kicking away someones crutches to see if

they fall down.

52. While Malott was leaning forward with his head against the back of the front

passengers seat, Defendant Bustamante used a small hard, narrow object to make contact

with Malotts sternum. Upon information and belief, the object was a Kubaton.

53. Defendant Bustamante dug the Kubaton against Malotts sternum forcefully for

10 to 25 seconds. Upon information and belief, Defendant Bustamante was administering a

pain compliance technique called a sternum rub.

54. Defendant Bustamante used the object against Malotts sternum a second time,

pushing even harder and more forcefully for another 10 to 25 seconds, causing great pain

and bruising.

55. At both times Defendant Bustamante used the Kubaton on Malott, there was no

objective justification for the use of a pain compliance technique or for the application of

force aside from Bustamantes desire to show Epperson that Malott was not having a

medical emergency. Malott had been compliant with all requests and directions of the

deputies. Malott did nothing to reasonably suggest that he posed any threat to the deputies as

he sat handcuffed in the back of the police car.

56. The Sacramento County Sheriffs Department and Sheriff Scott Jones were on

actual notice of Defendant Bustamantes propensity to use unreasonable force as a result of,

among other things, the Countys monetary settlement on the eve of trial, and after the

denial of Bustamantes motion for summary judgment, a civil rights suit in case number CIV

S-09-2245 GEB EFB, arising from Bustamantes shooting multiple times at point blank

range and killing an unarmed citizen named Damian McMurray in front of his mother and

other family members in October of 2008.


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. Malott reported the injuries he sustained from Defendant Bustamantes use of the

Kubaton to medical staff upon admission to the hospital later that evening. Medical staff

documented the injuries. The injuries were further documented by still and video

photographs taken at various times.

58. It has been commonly known among law enforcement administrators since at

least 1991 and the publication of the Christopher Report that a strong positive correlation

exists between the number of reported uses of force and the likelihood of an officer using

excessive force. Despite having this knowledge, the Sacramento County Sheriffs

Department consciously declines to track the number of reported uses of force per officer.

As a result, the Sheriffs Department fails to take appropriate corrective measures including

supervision, training and discipline of officers whose conduct has identified them as being

at a greatly higher risk of using excessive force. Upon information and belief, Defendant

Bustamante has reported uses of force at such a level that would have put any reasonable

supervisor on notice of his need for training, supervision and discipline. Had this been done,

Malotts physical injuries would have been avoided.

59. It finally dawned upon Defendants Bustamante and Epperson that Malott was

actually in the throes of a real medical emergency. After substantial delay, they requested

emergency medical care.

60. Paramedics responded and took Malott by ambulance to the emergency room at

Mercy San Juan Hospital.

61. Hours later that same evening, Malott was admitted to the hospital for a possible

cardiac event based upon the observations and test results obtained while he was in the

emergency room.

62. Once Malott was admitted to the hospital, and likely in order to avoid county

liability for Malotts medical bills, Defendants Bustamante and/or Epperson decided to cite

Malott for his alleged Penal Code violations and release him from custody.

63. Subsequently Defendants Bustamante and/or Epperson forwarded the diary to

Defendant Michelle Hendricks, a Detective with the Sacramento County Sheriffs


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

Department, and/or Defendant Matt Hardcastle, a Detective with the Placer County Sheriffs

Department. Defendants Hendricks and Hardcastle also read the diary.

64. Upon information and belief, Defendants Hendricks, Hardcastle and Does 1

through 10 were acting as part of some vague joint investigation between Sacramento and

Placer Counties. The purpose of this joint investigation was to target Malott specifically as

opposed to investigating any particular alleged criminal conduct.

65. Malotts diary contained the type of entries that are typically found in a persons

private journal, such as those regarding his going on charitable aid missions, making

substantial donations to his church, foreign travels and travel plans, past, present and

potentially future girlfriends, recollection of dreams, ideas for self-improvement, trials and

tribulations of daily life, metaphysical musings and thoughts and speculations on the

meaning and nature of life.

66. Noticeably absent from the diary were any bases for the subsequent

misrepresentations and gross mischaracterizations that would be made by Defendants

Hendricks and Hardcastle. That is, the diary contained no threats, ideations of violence

towards any person, indications of illegal or perverse sexual activities, or of an interest or

proclivity for any criminal conduct.

67. Defendant Hendricks, acting in conjunction with Defendant Hardcastle and Does

1 through 10, proceeded to photocopy the diary and maliciously published the diary to at

least three persons with whom Malott had long term relationships. Specifically, Hendricks

and Hardcastle published the diary to Malotts former girlfriend (hereinafter referred to as

C.C.), and his long-time friend Julie Ferneyhough (hereinafter Ferneyhough), who,

although a registered nurse by training and licensure, was working for the Malott family and

living with her family in one of the houses on the Malott ranch at the time.

68. Although they acted in conjunction, Defendants Hendricks and Hardcastle

conducted separate interviews during which each published the contents of Malotts diary

and relayed false, erroneous or fictional information regarding Malott which placed him in a

false light.


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

69. In an interview at C.C.s home that was partially recorded, Defendant Hendricks

showed both C.C. and Ferneyhough portions of Malotts diary that contained entries about

them while asking questions in a way that clearly and falsely implied that the diary

contained evidence of sexual perversion, cross-dressing, human trafficking and alcohol and

gambling addictions.

70. During an interview with Ferneyhough, in regard to entries in the diary that

referenced Ferneyhough, Defendant Hendricks stated I thought youd be curious about

what hed written about you, and Dont you want to read it?

71. During this same interview, Defendant Hendricks would, at times, turn the tape

recorder off, engage in witness coaching, and then turn the recorder back on and resume the

interview.

72. During their respective interviews, both Defendants Hendricks and Hardcastle

asked C.C. and Ferneyhough about various other women who were referenced in the diary.

Defendant Hardcastle attempted to show Ferneyhough portions of the diary and question her

about her knowledge of a former female friend of Malott who is from Denmark.

73. Defendant Hendricks and Hardcastle knowingly, intentionally and maliciously

published to C.C. and Ferneyhough false, erroneous or fictionalized information about

Malott. The nature of the false, erroneous or fictionalized information published was highly

offensive and placed Malott in a false and derogatory light. Moreover, Defendants

Hendricks and Hardcastle did so with the specific intent that the information given to

Ferneyhough would be further disseminated to Malott family members, neighbors, mutual

friends and other employees of the Malott family.

74. Upon information and belief, the false, erroneous or fictionalized information

about Malott published to C.C. by Defendant Hendricks and Hardcastle includes, but is not

limited to the following: that Malott had alcohol and gambling addictions, that he was

probably following C.C., that he was trying to intimidate C.C., that he intended to harm

C.C., that he was a toddler having a temper tantrum and that he had been unhelpful and

evasive in regard to Defendant Hendricks investigation.


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

75. Defendant Hendricks told both C.C. and Ferneyhough that Malott had a

kidnapping and rape kit in the car when he was arrested. This is untrue. There is not a

scintilla of evidence that Malott ever planned, intended, attempted or even fantasized about

kidnapping or raping anyone. However, this falsehood was stated to both C.C. and

Ferneyhough for the specific purpose of encouraging either to initiate a legal action against

Malott.

76. At a later recorded interview at the Placer County Sheriffs Department,

Defendant Hardcastle questioned Ferneyhough and Ferneyhoughs husband, John, who were

both friends of Malotts dating back to college. Defendant Hardcastle advised the

Ferneyhoughs that Placer County had Malott and his ranch under surveillance and informed

them that their family needed to move out of the ranch because their lives were in danger

and Placer County was going to be raiding the ranch. Hardcastle implied there was going to

be a gunfight and told Julie Ferneyhough that if children were killed in the process, it would

be on her.

77. Defendant Hardcastle also involved Placer County victims advocate Paula

Michels, who likewise contacted Ferneyhough and told Ferneyhough her life was in danger.

78. Defendant Hardcastle and Paula Michels both insinuated that Placer County

would be eager to provide monetary victim assistance funds if Ferneyhough would

cooperate by pressing false criminal charges against Malott for threatening behavior.

79. Defendant Hendricks similarly urged C.C. to file a restraining order against

Malott.

80. On May 23, 2012, as a result of Defendant Hendricks prodding and intentional

dissemination of false information, C.C. filed a request for a family court restraining order

against Malott in the Placer County Superior Court.

81. A hearing was scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on July 8, 2013 in the Placer County

Historic Courthouse at 101 Maple Street, Auburn, CA 95603.

82. On July 1, 2013, Malott obtained from the Placer County Superior Court a

subpoena which the court issued for Defendant Keith Royal, Nevada County Sheriff, to


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

appear in person on July 8, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. as a witness and to produce records described

as any and all law enforcement reports and notes as it [sic] relates to Richard Malott. A

true copy of the subpoena is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

83. The subpoena explicitly ordered Defendant Royal to appear in person and

explicitly stated that [t]he procedure authorized by Evidence Code 1560(b), 1561, and

1562 will not be deemed sufficient compliance with this subpoena.

84. On July 2, 2013, Malott delivered the court issued subpoena to the Nevada

County Sheriffs Department. Defendant Donna Nelson, Administrative Assistant to

Defendant Royal, stamped the subpoena received in the Nevada County Sheriffs Office at

8:12 a.m. on July 2, 2013.

85. Malott also attempted to provide the statutorily required fees to the Nevada

County Sheriffs Department; however, Defendant Nelson refused to tell Malott the required

amount and refused to take a check in any amount at that time.

86. On July 3, 2013, Malott delivered a personal check in the amount of $275 to the

Nevada County Sheriffs Office to pay for the requisite fees for Defendant Royal to appear

as a witness in Malotts case.

87. Sometime between July 2, 2013 and July 8, 2013, Defendants Nelson and Royal

conspired to fabricate a pre-textual and false basis upon which they could claim either (1)

that Malott had insufficiently attempted to serve the subpoena himself, or (2) that Malotts

delivery of the subpoena to the Nevada County Sheriffs Department was deficient such that

subpoena could not be served on Defendant Royal in accordance with the Sheriffs

Departments mandatory, non-discretionary duties under California law.

88. On July 8, 2013, Defendant Royal failed to personally appear at the hearing as

required by the subpoena.

89. Defendant Royal also failed to produce any documents as required by the

subpoena.

90. Subsequently, Malott received a letter from Defendant Nelson dated July 16,

2013. A true copy of this letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B.


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

91. Defendant Nelsons July 16, 2013 letter purported to return Malotts subpoena

properly issued subpoena to Defendant Royal and Malotts check for $275.00 on the

claimed basis that the subpoena was insufficiently served.

92. Defendant Nelsons letter falsely claimed, first, that service was insufficient

under 414.10 of the California Code of Civil Procedure [s]ince you [Richard Malott]

served the subpoena and are a party in the action.

93. Upon information and belief, both Defendants Royal and Nelson were personally

aware that Malott did not himself serve the subpoena on Defendant Royal; rather, Malott

delivered the subpoena and fees to the Nevada County Sheriffs Office for service upon

Defendant Royal in accordance with 26608 of the California Government Code and

262.1 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

94. Defendant Nelsons letter falsely claimed, second, that service was insufficient

because California Evidence Code 1560 requires at least a 15-day notice for service of civil

subpoenas duces tecum. In fact, as stated on the face of the subpoena, the 15 day notice

period of 1560 did not apply to the subpoena.

95. Upon information and belief, both Defendants Royal and Nelson were personally

aware that the subpoena explicitly ordered that the procedures of 1560(b) will not be

deemed sufficient compliance with this subpoena.

96. Malott also obtained a properly issued subpoena for Defendant Mark Fain, Placer

County Sheriffs Deputy, to appear in person on July 8, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. as a witness. A

true copy of this subpoena is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

97. On information and belief, Defendant Fain was properly served with the

subpoena.

98. Defendant Fain failed to appear at the July 8, 2013 hearing in compliance with

the properly served subpoena.

99. Malott additionally subpoenaed and tendered the proper fees for four Sacramento

County sheriffs deputies to attend the July 8, 2013 hearing. Malott did not, however, serve

those subpoenas on the correct sheriffs office, although he is informed and believes that the


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

subpoenas were forwarded to the correct sheriffs office. The four sheriffs deputies from

Sacramento County failed to appear at the hearing. Malotts check to Sacramento County

was never cashed.

100. As a direct and proximate result of each of Defendants Royal and Fain failing to

appear and/or produce documents at the July 8, 2013 hearing, Malott was unable to

effectively present his defense and the court entered a restraining order against him in that

case.

101. Malott submitted complaints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and

Department of Justice complaining that (1) Sacramento County Sheriffs Deputies

Bustamante and Epperson had used excessive force against him on April 25, 2013; (2)

employees of Nevada, Placer and Sacramento Counties had failed to comply with his court

issued subpoenas for the July 8, 2013 hearing; and (3) that Placer County officials had

participated in an ex parte communication with Commissioner Dirk Amara, who presided

over the July 8, 2013 hearing.

102. On or about August 8, 2013 during a break in proceedings at a subsequent and

unrelated hearing, Malott informed Commissioner Amara that he had filed said complaints

with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice. Malott requested

that Commissioner Amara recuse himself, and Amara did in fact recuse himself from the

case.

103. Subsequently, on at least three occasions between August 13, 2013 and August

21, 2013, and possibly as many as five occasions during that time period, Defendant

Addison, Placer County Sheriffs Deputy, and at least one other sheriffs deputy, identified

herein as Does 11 through 15, went to the Malott ranch. The purpose of the visit was

purportedly to speak with Malott, but in reality, to threaten Malott that there would be

further consequences to his complaining about Placer County officials.

104. Upon information and belief, Defendant Addison in particular was selected for

this job because of his physically intimidating appearance. Defendant Addison stands six

feet and three inches tall and weighs approximately 300 pounds. In earlier deposition


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

testimony (Farias v. State of California, et al., No. 08-cv-1493 E.D. Cal.), he readily

acknowledged that he is often assigned to search warrant details as the door breaker.

105. Defendant Addison and Does 11 through 15 wore black swat-type technical gear

which bore little or no indicia that they were law enforcement.

106. Upon information and belief, on at least one occasion, Defendant Addison and/or

Does 16 through 20 entered into Malotts unlocked residence.

107. Defendant Addison and Does 11 through 15 did not have a warrant, probable

cause, or consent authorizing their entry onto the Malott ranch on any occasion between

August 13, 2013 and August 21, 2013, nor were any exigent circumstances present.

108. Upon information and belief, neither Defendant Addison nor any Doe believed

that a warrant, probable cause or consent had authorized their entry onto the Malott ranch on

any occasion between August 13, 2013 and August 21, 2013, nor did they believe that

exigent circumstances existed in regard to Malott, Malotts residence or the Malott ranch.

109. Malott reported to Nevada County Sheriffs Department the illegal conduct by

Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15 in conducting multiple unreasonable searches

and making threats. Defendant Dave DeVogelaere, Nevada County Sheriffs Deputy, thus

became aware of the illegal conduct by Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15.

110. Defendants Addison, DeVogelaere, Does 11 through 15 and, additionally, Does

16 through 20, who are other employees of Nevada County, conspired to fabricate a false

and pre-textual reason for the unlawful entry by Defendant Addison and Does 11 through 15

onto the Malott ranch.

111. Subsequently, Defendant Addison falsely claimed that he and Defendant Does 11

through 15 had entered the Malott ranch on each occasion between August 13, 2013 and

August 21, 2013 for the purpose of conducting welfare checks.

112. On information and belief, neither Defendant Addison nor any Doe relayed any

purported concerns about the well-being of any person at the Malott ranch to any law

enforcement official in Nevada County, which is where the ranch is located. The claimed

welfare checks were purely pre-textual.


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

113. Although Placer County is contiguous to Nevada County, the county in which the

Malott ranch is located, the distance from the Placer County Sheriffs Department to the

Malott ranch is approximately 35 miles.

114. Upon information and belief, Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15

entered Malotts property on each occasion between August 13, 2013 and August 21, 2013

for the purpose of harassing, intimidating, and/or threatening Malott.

115. On information and belief, on one of these occasions, Nevada County Sheriffs

Deputies responded to the Malott ranch on a report relayed through the California Highway

Patrol dispatch of unknown black-clad armed subjects prowling around. This led to an

unusual confrontation between six Nevada County Sheriffs Deputies and the Placer County

interlopers which was later explained away in Nevada County Sheriffs Department

documentation as a failure to communicate between the sheriffs departments of the two

counties, as opposed to Nevada County deputies responding to an unlawful invasion of the

Malott ranch.

116. On information and belief, on the final occasion that Defendant Addison and

Does 11 through 15 went to the Malott ranch, they were unable to enter the property by way

of the electronic gates through which they had previously obtained unauthorized access. On

this final occasion, said defendants entered the Malott ranch by climbing over a locked gate.

117. Defendant DeVogelaere, Defendant Royal and Does 16 through 20 knew about

the illegal conduct of Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15 in conducting multiple

unreasonable searches while trespassing on the Malott ranch.

118. Defendant DeVogelaere and Does 16 through 20 assisted in a cover up of the

illegal actions of Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15 by failing to properly

document or act upon the illegal actions of Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15.

119. On or about August 20, 2013, Defendant Addison initiated telephone contact

with Richard Malotts brother, Russell Malott (hereinafter Russell).

120. Russell has been a peace officer for 25 years and a member of the California

State Bar for more than 20 years.


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

121. Defendant Addison told Russell that he was tired of chasing Malott. Defendant

Addison threatened to have a Placer county arrest warrant issued for Malotts arrest should

Malott refuse to meet with Defendant Addison to Addisons satisfaction. Upon information

and belief, Deputy Addison made this threat with the agreement of, or at the direction of,

defendant Does 21 through 25, who are employees of Placer County. See Declaration of

Russell Malott, attached hereto as Exhibit D.

122. On April 29, 2013, Malott initiated a citizens complaint in Sacramento County

pursuant to 832.5 of the California Penal Code complaining of the conduct of Defendants

Bustamante and Epperson on April 25, 2013 and injuries they caused.

123. Sergeant Robin Kolb with the Sacramento County Sheriffs Department sent

Malott a letter requesting a signed authorization for release of medical records and

photographs related to the injuries Malott sustained on April 25, 2013.

124. Malott attempted repeatedly and unsuccessfully to contact Sergeant Kolb to

provide the requested records, as well as still photographs and video depicting his injuries.

125. Malott also tried unsuccessfully to personally deliver the information requested

about his injuries to Sergeant Kolb.

126. In a letter dated October 10, 2013, Defendant Scott Jones, Sacramento County

Sheriff, rejected Malotts Sacramento County citizens complaint. Defendant Jones informed

Malott that the Internal Affairs investigation was completed. Defendant Jones claimed the

information obtained in the investigation revealed a lack of substantial evidence to support

Malotts claims. This was despite the fact that the medical records requested by Sergeant

Kolb had not been received or reviewed by anyone in Internal Affairs. Malott, through his

attorney, responded to Defendant Jones expressing disappointment that a decision had been

rendered without reviewing the requested medical records and photographs, and renewing

his offer to make those available to Jones and/or subordinates for their review and

consideration, however this communication fell on deaf ears. True copies of Defendant

Jones October 10, 2013 letter and Malotts responsive letter are attached hereto as Exhibit

E.


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

127. On January 15, 2014, Malott initiated a citizens complaint in Nevada County

pursuant to 832.5 of the California Penal Code complaining of the misconduct alleged

herein by Defendants Nelson, Royal and DeVogelaere.

128. In a letter dated March 13, 2014, Defendant Joe Salivar, Nevada County

Undersheriff, rejected Malotts Nevada County citizens complaint as unsubstantiated.

129. On January 15, 2014, Malott initiated a citizens complaint in Placer County

pursuant to 832.5 of the California Penal Code complaining of the misconduct alleged

herein by Defendants Addison, Fain and Does 16 through 20.

130. On February 5, 2014, Defendant Devon Bell, Placer County Undersheriff and/or

Defendant Edward Bonner, Placer County Sheriff, rejected Malotts Placer County citizens

complaint as frivolous.

VII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Unreasonable Seizure/ Excessive Force

(Violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983)

(Against Defendants Bustamante and Epperson)

131. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 130 as

though fully set forth herein.

132. The actions of Deputies Bustamante and Epperson interfered with the exercise

and enjoyment of Malotts civil rights as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution. Specifically, Defendants, and each of them, interfered with Malotts rights

when Defendant Bustamante closed Malotts head in the police car door and forcefully

applied a Kubaton against Malotts sternum while Malott was seated handcuffed in the back

of the police car while Defendant Epperson stood by and failed to intervene.

133. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions and/or omissions, Malott

suffered unreasonable interference with his personal liberty, physical injury, pain and

suffering, humiliation, emotional distress and other injuries.


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

134. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of said Defendants were willful,

intentional, wanton, reckless and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of Malotts

rights entitling Malott to an award of punitive damages.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Unreasonable Seizure/ Excessive Force

(Violation of the Cal. Constitution Art. I 1, 13 and Cal. Civil Code 43: Actionable under Cal. Civil Code 52.1(b)/Bane Act)

(Against Defendants Bustamante and Epperson)



136. The actions of Defendants Bustamante and Epperson, as alleged herein,

interfered with the exercise and enjoyment of Malotts civil rights as guaranteed by Article I,

1 and 13 of the California Constitution. Specifically, Defendants, and each of them,

interfered with Malotts rights when Defendant Bustamante closed Malotts head in the

police car door and forcefully applied a Kubaton against Malotts sternum while Malott was

seated handcuffed in the back of the police car and while Defendant Epperson stood by and

failed to intervene.

137. Defendants actions constituted an excessive use of force, a violation of Malotts

right to bodily integrity, and further interfered with Malotts personal rights as guaranteed

by California Civil Code 43.

138. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions and/or omissions, Malott

suffered unreasonable interference with his personal liberty, physical injury, pain and

suffering, humiliation, emotional distress, and other injuries.

139. Defendants violations of Malotts rights as guaranteed by California Civil Code

52.1 (Bane Act) entitles Malott to compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys fees

as provided for in 52.1(b) and 52 and requested herein.


intentional, wanton, reckless, and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard for Malotts


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

rights as secured by Civil Code 51.2, thereby entitling Malott to an award of punitive

damages under 52(b)(1).

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Battery- Cal. State law

(Against Defendants Sacramento County and Bustamante)



142. The conduct of Defendant Bustamante as alleged herein, including but not

limited to Defendant Bustamantes actions of closing Malotts head in the door of the police

car and forcefully applying a Kubaton to his sternum constituted a battery.

143. Said conduct was a proximate cause of Malotts injuries and damages alleged

herein.

144. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions by Defendant Bustamante were

willful, intentional, wanton, reckless, and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of

Malotts rights entitling Malott to an award of punitive damages.

145. Defendant Sacramento County is vicariously liable for the Defendant

Bustamantes conduct under California Government Code 815.2.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Furnish/Summon Medical Care

(Cal. Govt. Code 845.6) (Against Defendants Sacramento County, Bustamante and Epperson)



147. Defendants Bustamante and Epperson knew or had reason to know that Malott

was in need of immediate medical care and failed to take reasonable action to summon such

medical care or provide that care, resulting in the exacerbation of Malotts injuries and a

violation of California state law and specifically California Government Code 845.6. This

conduct proximately caused damage and injuries to Malott.

148. Defendant Sacramento County is vicariously liable for the conduct of

Bustamante and Epperson.


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

149. The actions of Defendants Bustamante and Epperson were malicious, reckless,

and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of Malotts rights thereby entitling him to

an award of exemplary and punitive damages according to proof and as permitted by law.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Failure to Supervise, Investigate and Discipline

(Actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983) (Against Defendants Nevada County, Placer County, Sacramento County and Jones)



151. The aforementioned violation of Malotts federal constitutional rights by

Defendants Addison, Bustamante, DeVogelaere, Epperson, Fain, Nelson, Royal and Does

11 through 25 occurred as a result of the failure of Defendants Nevada County, Placer

County, Sacramento County, Bonner, Jones and Royal to adequately supervise, investigate

and discipline employee conduct.

a. Sacramento County and Jones

The violations of Malotts federal constitutional rights by Defendants

Bustamante and Epperson occurred as a result of the failure by Defendants Sacramento

County and Jones to adequately supervise, investigate and discipline officers use of force

and excessive force. The failure by Defendant Sacramento County andJones to supervise,

investigate and discipline officers use of force and excessive force amounted to deliberate

indifference to the rights and privileges of citizens of Sacramento County to be free of

excessive force.

b. Nevada County and Royal


DeVogelaere, Nelson, Royal and Does 16 through 20 ooccurred as a result of the failure by

Defendants Nevada County and Royal to adequately supervise, investigate and discipline

employees violations of individual rights under the First Amendment and the Equal

Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment in regard to the service

of subpoenas, and under the Fourth Amendment in regard to the right to be free of


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

unreasonable searches. Said Defendants failure to supervise, investigate and discipline its

employees amounted to deliberate indifference to the rights and privileges of citizens of

Nevada County under the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment and under the Equal

Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

c. Placer County and Bonner


Addison, Fain and Does 11 through 15 and 21 through 25 occurred as a result of the failure

by Defendants Placer County and Bonner to adequately supervise, investigate and discipline

employees violations of individual rights under the First Amendment and the Equal

Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment in regard to the service

of subpoenas, and under the Fourth Amendment in regard to the right to be free of

unreasonable searches and seizures. Said Defendants failure to supervise, investigate and

discipline its employees amounted to deliberate indifference to the rights and privileges of

citizens of Placer County under the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment and under the

Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants

failure to supervise, investigate and discipline in regard to Fourth Amendment violations is

further underscored by the fact that the unreasonable searches by Defendants Addison and

Does 11 through 15 occurred on multiple days and involved substantial officer hours.

152. The inaction of said Defendants was a direct and proximate cause of the injuries

suffered by Malott in that said Defendants tacitly encouraged and/or approved of the

violation of Malotts rights and/or failed to adequately supervise, investigate or discipline

employees to prevent the constitutional violations alleged above.

153. Said Defendants knew or should have known that such conduct was unjustified

and would result in violations of Malotts constitutional rights.

154. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned practices, Malott suffered

injuries and damages as alleged herein.


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

155. The actions of the individually named defendants were malicious, reckless,

and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of Malotts rights thereby entitling him to

an award of exemplary and punitive damages according to proof and as permitted by law.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unreasonable Search/ Right to Privacy


(Against Defendants Bustamante, Epperson, Hardcastle, Hendricks and Does 1 through 10)



157. The actions by Defendants Bustamante, Epperson, Hardcastle, Hendricks and

Does 1 through 10 of performing an unauthorized warrantless search of the contents of the

diary without probable cause and without consent constituted an illegal and unreasonable

search and seizure that violated Malotts rights under the Fourth Amendment.

158. As a direct and proximate result of said acts and/or omissions by said defendants,

Malott suffered unreasonable interference with his property, humiliation, physical upset,

emotional distress and other injuries.




SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unreasonable Search/ Right to Privacy

(Violation of the Cal. Constitution Art. I 1, 13: Actionable under Cal. Civil Code 52.1/Bane Act)

(Against Defendants Sacramento County, Placer County, Bustamante, Epperson, Hardcastle, Hendricks, and Does 1 through 10)



161. The actions of Defendants Bustamante, Epperson, Hardcastle, Hendricks and

Does 1 through 10 in performing an unauthorized warrantless search of the contents of the

diary without probable cause and without consent constituted an illegal and unreasonable


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

search that violated Malotts civil rights as guaranteed by Article I, 1 and 13 of the

California Constitution.

162. As a direct and proximate result of said acts and/or omissions by Defendants,

Malott suffered unreasonable interference with his personal property, mental anguish and

physical upset.

163. Defendants violations of Malotts rights as guaranteed by 52.1 of the Civil

Code (Bane Act) entitles Malott to compensatory and punitive damages and attorney fees,

all of which are provided for in Civil Code 52.1(b) and 52, and are requested herein.

164. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of Defendants Bustamante, Epperson,

Hardcastle and Hendricks were willful, intentional, wanton, reckless and/or accomplished

with a conscious disregard of Malotts rights, thereby entitling Malott to an award of

punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code 52(b)(1).

165. Defendant Sacramento County is liable for the injuries caused by Defendants

Addison and Does 1 through 10 under 815.2 of the California Government Code.

166. Defendant Placer county is liable for the injuries caused by Defendant Hardcastle

under 815.2 of the California Government Code.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION False Light Invasion of Privacy- Cal. State Law

(Violation of the Cal. Constitution Art. I 1, self-executing) (Against Defendants Sacramento County, Placer County,

Hardcastle, Hendricks, and Does 1 through 10)



168. Defendants Hardcastle, Hendricks and Does 1 through 10 also knowingly,

intentionally and maliciously published to C.C. and Ferneyhough false, erroneous or

fictionalized information purported to have been gleaned from Malotts diary, but which was

not actually contained in the diary.


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

169. The nature of the false, erroneous or fictionalized information published by

Defendants Hardcastle and Hendricks to C.C. and Ferneyhough was highly offensive and

placed Malott in a false and derogatory light.

170. The actions of Defendants Hardcastle and Hendricks in publishing false,

erroneous or fictionalized information to a third party as described herein constituted a

violation of Malotts right to privacy as guaranteed by Article I, 1 of the California

Constitution.

171. As a proximate result of said publication by Defendants Hardcastle and

Hendricks, Malott has suffered damages, including but not limited to, extreme

embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, physical upset and emotional distress.

172. Defendant County of Sacramento is liable for the injuries caused by Defendant

Hendricks under 815.2 of the California Government Code.

173. Defendant County of Placer is liable for the injuries caused by Defendant

Hardcastle.

174. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of Defendants Hardcastle, Hendricks

and/or Does 1 through 10 were willful, intentional, wanton, reckless and/or accomplished

with a conscious disregard of Malotts rights, thereby entitling Malott to an award of

punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code 52(b)(1).

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION Interference with Malotts Right of Access to Courts

(Violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV:

Actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983) (Against Defendants Nelson, Royal, Fain, and Does 1 through 10)



176. The actions of Defendants Nelson, Royal, Fain and Does 1 through 10 as alleged

herein, interfered with the exercise and enjoyment of Malotts civil rights as guaranteed by

the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, Defendant Royal interfered with

Malotts right of access to courts when he intentionally and unlawfully disregarded the


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

properly issued subpoena ordering his attendance at a July 8, 2013 hearing in Placer County

Case No. S-DR-0043475. Both Defendants Royal and Nelson interfered with Malotts right

of access to courts when they conspired to return the properly issued subpoena to Malott and

did so, falsely claiming that it was insufficiently served.

177. As a direct and proximate result of said acts and/or omissions by said defendants,

Malott suffered unreasonable interference with his First Amendment right to access the

courts and to sue and defend in court.

178. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of said defendants were willful,



TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Denial of Equal Protection

(Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983)

(Against Defendants Nelson and Royal)



180. Under 26608 of the California Government Code and 262.1 of the California

Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant Royal has a mandatory, non-discretionary duty to serve

all process, orders and notices regular on their face and issued by competent authority in the

manner prescribed by law.

181. For purposes of this equal protection claim, individuals similarly situated to

Malott are those who have likewise delivered properly issued subpoenas to the Nevada

County Sheriffs Office for service upon Defendant Royal and who have likewise paid the

requisite witness and service fees.

182. Upon information and belief, Defendant Royal does not intentionally and

unlawfully disregard and fail to comply with properly issued subpoenas delivered to the

Nevada County Sheriffs Office by individuals similarly situated to Malott.

183. Upon information and belief, Defendants Royal and Nelson do not unlawfully


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

return properly issued subpoenas delivered to the Nevada County Sheriffs Office to

individuals similarly situated to Malott falsely claiming that the subpoenas were

insufficiently served.

184. There exists no rational basis for the difference in treatment between Malott and

the similarly situated individuals identified and described herein.

185. The actions of Defendants Nelson and Royal, as alleged herein, interfered with

the exercise and enjoyment of Malotts equal protection rights as guaranteed by the

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

186. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of said defendants were willful,



ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Procedural Due Process

(Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983)




188. Malott had a legitimate claim of entitlement under California law to have his

properly issued subpoena served on Defendant Royal pursuant to 26608 of the California

Government Code and 262.1 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

189. The actions of Defendants Nelson and Royal in returning the properly issued

subpoena to Malott unserved in the manner described herein deprived Malott of his property

interest in having the served in accordance with California law and constituted a violation of

his Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process.

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unreasonable Search


(Against Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15)



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


191. Upon information and belief, Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15

conducted their unauthorized search of Malotts private property to harass and/or intimidate

Malott.

192. The actions of Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15 in unlawfully

entering Malotts private property without a warrant, without probable cause, without

consent and absent exigent circumstances as described herein constituted an illegal and

unreasonable search that violated Malotts rights under the Fourth Amendment.

193. As a direct and proximate result of said acts and/or omissions by Defendants

Addison and Does 11 through 15, Malott suffered unreasonable interference with his

personal liberty, property humiliation, emotional distress and other injuries.

194. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of said Defendants were wilful,



THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unreasonable Search


(Against Defendants Placer County, Addison, and Does 11 through 15)



196. The actions of Defendants Addison and Doe in unlawfully entering the curtilage

of Malotts property without a warrant, without consent, and absent exigent circumstances

as described herein constituted an illegal and unreasonable search that violated Malotts civil

rights as guaranteed by Article I 1 and 13 of the California Constitution.

197. As a direct and proximate result of said acts and/or omissions by Defendants

Addison and Does 11 through 15, Malott suffered unreasonable interference with his

personal liberty and property, physical upset, emotional distress and mental anguish.

198. Defendants violations of Malotts rights as guaranteed by Civil Code 52.1


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

(Bane Act) entitles Malott to compensatory and punitive damages and attorney fees, all of

which are provided for in Civil Code 52.1(b) and 52, and are requested herein.

199. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions of Defendants Addison and Does 11

through 15 were willful, intentional, wanton, reckless and/or accomplished with a conscious

disregard of Malotts rights, thereby entitling Malott to an award of punitive damages

pursuant to Civil Code 52(b)(1).

200. Defendant Placer County is liable for the injuries caused by Defendants Addison

and Does 11 through 15 under 815.2 of the California Government Code.

FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Trespass- Cal. State Law




202. Defendant Addison and Does 11 through 15 intentionally or recklessly entered

Malotts property without permission.

203. As a direct and proximate cause of defendants entry onto Malotts land without

permission, Malott suffered anxiety, physical upset and emotional distress.


through 15 were willful, intentional, wanton, reckless, and/or accomplished with a conscious

disregard of Malotts rights entitling Malott to an award of punitive damages.

205. Defendant Placer County is liable for the injuries caused by Defendants Addison

and Does 11 through 15 under California Government Code 815.2.

FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unreasonable Seizure by Threat


(Against Defendant Addison and Does 21 through 25)




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

207. Based on Defendant Addisons August 20, 2013 threat, a reasonable person

would have believed that he or she was not free to refuse to meet with Defendant Addison.

208. Malott did in fact meet with Defendant Addison in front of the Sacramento office

of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

209. The actions of Defendant Addison and Does 21 through 25 in threatening to have

an arrest warrant issued from Placer County for Malotts arrest should Malott refuse to meet

with Defendant Addison to Defendant Addisons satisfaction as described herein constituted

an unreasonable seizure that violated Malotts rights under the Fourth Amendment.

210. As a direct and proximate result of said acts and/or omissions by defendants,

Malott suffered unreasonable interference with his personal liberty, humiliation, emotional

distress, physical upset and other injuries.


intentional, wanton, reckless, and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of Malotts


SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unreasonable Seizure by Threats, Intimidation or Coercion





213. The actions of Defendants Addison and Does 21 through 25 in threatening to

have an arrest warrant issued from Placer County for Malotts arrest should Malott refuse to

meet with Defendant Addison to Defendant Addisons satisfaction as described herein

constituted an illegal and unreasonable search that violated and interfered with Malotts civil

rights as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article

I 1 and 13 of the California Constitution.

214. As a direct and proximate result of said acts by Defendants Addison and Does 21

through 25, Malott suffered unreasonable interference with his personal liberty, mental


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

anguish and physical upset.

215. Said individual defendants violations of Malotts rights as guaranteed by Civil

Code 52.1 (Bane Act) entitles Malott to compensatory and punitive damages and attorney

fees as provided for in Civil Code 52.1(b) and 52 and as requested herein.


through 25 were willful, intentional, wanton, reckless and/or accomplished with a conscious

disregard of Malotts rights, thereby entitling Malott to an award of punitive damages under

52(b)(1).

217. Defendant Placer County is liable for the injuries caused by Defendant Addison

under 815.2 of the California Government Code.

SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Conspiracy to Violate Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights (Diary):

Actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (Against Defendants Bustamante, Epperson, Hardcastle,

Hendricks, and Does 1 through 10)



219. Defendants Bustamante, Epperson, Hardcastle, Hendricks and Does 1 through 10

entered into a conspiracy to violate Malotts Fourth Amendment rights by seizing,

reproducing and disseminating for unlawful purposes. Overt acts in furtherance of the

conspiracy include, but are not limited to: (a) Said defendants gratuitously showed copies of

the diary to friends, acquaintances and persons known to Malott, including but not limited to

C.C., Julie and John Ferneyhough; (b) Said defendants used their possession of the diary to

disseminate false, erroneous or fictional and injurious information about Malott, thereby

placing him in a false light.

220. In committing the described overt acts, Defendants, and each of them, violated

Malotts rights right to be free from unreasonable seizure of personal property as guaranteed

by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

221. As a proximate result, Malott has suffered the injuries described herein and


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

accordingly seeks compensation and punitive damages.

222. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions were willful, intentional, wanton,

reckless, and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of Malotts rights entitling him to

an award of punitive damages.

EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Conspiracy to Violate Plaintiffs Fourth Amendment rights

Actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (Against Defendants Addison, DeVogelaere, Royal, and Does 11 through 20)



224. Sometime in or around August of 2013, Defendants Addison, DeVogelaere,

Royal and Does 11 through 20 entered into a conspiracy to violate Malotts Fourth

Amendment rights by performing an unreasonable search of his property with the purpose of

harassing or intimidating Malott. Overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy include, but are

not limited to: (a) On more than one occasion between August 13 and August 21, 2013,

Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15 entered Malotts property to conduct an

unreasonable search; and (b) Defendant DeVogelaere and Does 16 through 20 covered up

and actively concealed the illegal conduct of Defendants Addison and Does 11 through 15

by failing to report Defendants illegal conduct.

225. In committing the described overt acts, Defendants, and each of them, violated

Malotts right to be free from unreasonable search as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment

to the United States Constitution.



227. The aforementioned acts and/or omissions were willful, intentional, wanton,

reckless, and/or accomplished with a conscious disregard of Malotts rights entitling him to

an award of punitive 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

NINETEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Conspiracy to Violate Plaintiffs Access to Courts,

Equal Protection and Procedural Due Process rights: Actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983




229. Sometime between July 2, 2013 and July 8, 2013, Defendants Nelson and Royal

entered into a conspiracy to violate Malotts rights of access to courts, equal protection,

and/or procedural due process by manufacturing a false basis upon which to claim that

Malott had insufficiently served a subpoena on Defendant Royal. Overt acts in furtherance

of the conspiracy include, but are not limited to: (a) Nelsons July 16, 2013 letter; and (b)

Defendant Royals failure to personally appear and produce documents at the July 8, 2013

hearing.

230. In committing the described overt acts, defendants, and each of them, violated

Malotts rights of access to courts, equal protection and/or procedural due process.



TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION Ratification of Constitutional Violations

(Actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983) (Against Defendants Nevada County, Placer County, Sacramento County, Bell, Bonner, Jones and Salavar)



233. The acts of Defendants Addison, Bustamante, DeVogelaere, Epperson, Fain,

Nelson and Royal as described herein deprived Malott of his rights under the United States

Constitution.

234. The cavalier rejection of each of Malotts citizens complaints by Nevada

County, Placer County and Sacramento County, respectively, constituted ratification by each


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

county of the individual conduct of said individual defendants.

a. Placer County, Bell and Bonner

By delegation or otherwise, Defendant Bell and/or Defendant Bonner had final

policymaking authority for Placer County regarding Malotts citizens complaint. Defendant

Bell and/or Bonner knew of, specifically approved of and ratified the acts of Defendants

Addison and Does 11 through 15 and the bases for those acts by rejecting Malotts Placer

County citizens complaint as frivolous.

b. Sacramento County and Jones

Defendant Jones had final policymaking authority for Sacramento County

regarding Malotts citizens complaint. Defendant Jones knew of, specifically approved of,

and ratified the acts of Defendants Bustamante Epperson and the bases for those acts when

he rejected Malotts Sacramento County citizens complaint without any investigation and

without reviewing the requested medical records and proffered photographic evidence.

c. Nevada County and Salavar

By delegation or otherwise, Defendant Salavar had final policymaking authority,

for Nevada County regarding Malotts citizens complaint. Defendant Salavar knew of,

specifically approved of, and ratified the acts of Defendants DeVogelaere, Nelson, Royal,

and the bases for those acts when he rejected Malotts Nevada County citizens complaint as

unsubstantiated.

235. The inaction of said Defendants was a direct and proximate cause of the injuries

suffered by Malott in that said Defendants knew of, approved of, and ratified the

constitutional violations alleged.

236. Said Defendants knew or should have known that such conduct was unjustified

and would result in violations of Malotts constitutional rights.

237. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned practices, Malott suffered

injuries and damages as alleged herein.


richard malott complaint of violation of civil rights and state law

Documents

malott rights

placer counties

state of california

california constitution

supplemental state law

united states constitution

state bar

malotts personal diary