Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06242008 - C.29 AMENDED CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA `COUNTY BOARD ACTION:JI,(,l'��i Claim Against the County, or District Governed by ) the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section refer z o II+� D The copy of this document mailed to California Government Codes. ((��11 D you is your notice of the action taken MAY 2 3 Z008 on your claim by the Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), MARTINEZCAALJF� given Pursuant to Government Code Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all AMOUNT: "Warnings". CLAIMANT: I 5K4Wr3 ATTORNEY:J. MiC 1lffb 6rMn DATE RECEIVED: Vam.m. r qWq ADDRESS: 6510 al b avd --4J BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON: o 61g6Vo BY MAIL POSTMARKED: G� 1 ' FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. JOHN CUL Clerk Dated: 02Zo�g By: Deput , II. FROM ounty Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: �J� ���� By: Deputy County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator(2) O Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). 1V, BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: ( This Claim is rejected in full. ( ) Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: t' JOHN CULLEN, CLERK, By eputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to certain exceptions,you have only six(6)months from the to this notice was personally served or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim.See Government Code Section 945.6.You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney,you should do so immediately. *For Additional Warning See Reverse Side of This Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of per jufy that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Board Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the cl ' ra,�t as shown above. Dated: C>V __ JOHN CULLEN, CLERK By Deputy Clerk AMENDED CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA (COUNTY BOARD ACTION:�..1VA& �z'Lfi 'ZC Claim Against the County, or District Governed by ) the Board of Supervisors, Routing Endorsements, ) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT and Board Action. All Section references are to ) The copy of this document mailed to California Government Codes. ) you is your notice of the action taken on your claim by the Board of Supervisors. (Paragraph IV below), given Pursuant to Government Code AMOUNT: (�1L X � Section 913 and 915.4. Please note all "Warnings". CLAIMANT: ATTORNEY:,. M tC61(✓G, 6666--)n DATE RECEIVED: c r o2 ADDRESS: 55Lo 3WI)b Otvd' - A5 BY DELIVERY TO CLERK ON. (I(Jb(,f, BY MAIL POSTMARKED: I FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above-noted claim. JOHN CUL , Clerk G Dated, - a' By: Deput II. FROM` owity Counsel TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ( ) This claim complies substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2. ( ) This Claim FAILS to comply substantially with Sections 910 and 910.2, and we are so notifying claimant. The Board cannot act for 15 days (Section 910.8). ( ) Claim is not timely filed. The Clerk should return claim on ground that it was filed late and send warning of claimant's right to apply for leave to present a late claim (Section 911.3). ( ) Other: Dated: By: Deputy County Counsel III. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: County Counsel (1) County Administrator (2) ( ) Claim was returned as untimely with notice to claimant (Section 911.3). IV. BOARD ORDER: By unanimous vote of the Supervisors present: ( ) This Claim is rejected in full. O Other: I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. Dated: JOHN CULLEN, CLERK, By Deputy Clerk WARNING (Gov. code section 913) Subject to ceitain exceptions,you have only six(6)months from the date this notice was personally sewed or deposited in the mail to fide a court action on this claim.See Government Code Section 945.6.You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. U you Want to consult ml attorney,you sthordd do so irunrediately. *For Additional Warnurg See Reverse Side of Jbis Notice. AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I declare under penalty of per jury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned, have been tI citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited in the United Slates Postal Service in Martinez, Califoruia, postage fully prepaid a certified copy of this Bosu-d Order and Notice to Claimant, addressed to the claimant as shown above. Dated: __ _ JOHN,CLI.LLEN, CLERK By Deputy Clerk LAW OFFICE OF J. MICHAEL BROWN Tel:(925)484-2200 5510 Sunol Boulevard Fax:(925) 484-2208 Suite 5 jmb®mbrown-law.com Pleasanton,CA 94566 May 22, 2008 RECEIVED MAY 232008 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County of Contra Costa CLERKCONTRSUPERVISORS RA COSTA CO. 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Skarry v County of Contra Costa Gentlepersons: Enclosed are an original and one copy of a claim on behalf of my client, Michael Skarry, against the County of Contra Costa and my check for the $25.00 filing fee. Please stamp the copy to indicate it has been received by your office and return the copy to the person who delivers this claim to you. Thank you for your assist Very truly your l G J. MICHEL BRO Encl. LAW OFFICE OF J. MICHAEL BROWN Tel: (925)484-2200 5510 Sunol Boulevard Fax: (925)484-2208 Suite 5 jmb®mbrown-law.com May 16, 2008 Pleasanton, CA 94566 CLAIM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA TORT CLAIMS ACT DEFENDANT ENTITIES: COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA WARREN RUPF, SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA DEPUTIES DOE ONE THROUGH TWENTY, DEPUTY SHERIFFS OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA CLAIMANT: MICHAEL SKARRY CLAIMANT'S ADDRESS: C/O J. MICHAEL BROWN LAW OFFICE OF J. MICHAEL BROWN 5510 SUNOL BLVD., SUITE 5 PLEASANTON, CA 94566 ATTORNEY FOR CLAIMANT: J. MICHAEL BROWN LAW OFFICE OF J. MICHAEL BROWN 5510 SUNOL BLVD., SUITE 5 PLEASANTON, CA 94566 (925) 484-2200 DATE OF OCCURRENCE: DECEMBER 1, 2007 PLACE OF OCCURRENCE: BRADFORD ISLAND, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA At all times relevant herein Warren Rupf, was the Sheriff of the County of Contra Costa. This claim is against him individually and in his capacity as the Sheriff at the time of the incident which is the subject of this lawsuit. At all times relevant herein Deputies Doe One through Twenty were and are deputy sheriffs of the County of Contra Costa. This claim is against them in their individual capacities and in their capacities as deputy sheriffs. The true names of Deputies Doe One through Twenty are unknown to claimant because at all times Claim Against County of Contra Costa - Page 1 of 5 herein the County of Contra Costa has refused to divulge their identities. CIRCUMSTANCES OF OCCURRENCE: On or about December 1, 2007, Deputy Sheriffs Doe One through Twenty of the County of Contra Costa, police officers Doe Twenty One through Forty of the City of Antioch, and agents, wardens and officers Doe Forty One through Sixty of the State of California Department of Fish and Game, while making an illegal arrest of claimant did so negligently, carelessly and deliberately attack, assault and beat claimant, spray claimant with pepper spray after claimant was in custody and cause a police dog to attack and repeatedly bite claimant after claimant was in custody. As a direct result of the acts and conduct of said persons claimant suffered severe and debilitating physical injuries. Claimant is informed and believes that the office of the Sheriff of the County of Contra Costa received a report of a disturbance on Bradford Island in the County of Contra Costa. In response to that report of a disturbance supervisors of the office of the Sheriff of Contra Costa and deputy sheriffs, including Deputy Sheriffs Does One through Twenty, organized a task force of law enforcement officers including Antioch Police Officers Does Twenty One through Forty and California Department of Fish and Game Agents or Wardens Forty One through Sixty to respond to that report of a disturbance. At all times relevant herein all of the members of the task force of law enforcement officers were dressed in SWAT camouflage uniforms which concealed their identities. At all times relevant herein all of the members of the law enforcement task force were acting within the course and scope of their employment of their employing agencies and were under the supervision of the Sheriff and deputy sheriffs of the County of Contra Costa, including deputy sheriffs One through Twenty and were acting in concert with each other and each of them conspired with each of the other members of the law enforcement task force in the acts described herein. While claimant was on the property on which he resided members of the law enforcement task force assaulted and grabbed plaintiff and with great force pulled claimant from a ladder and threw claimant to the surface of a dock with such force that claimant landed on his back and struck his head against the hard surface of the dock causing claimant to suffer severe personal injuries. Thereafter members of the law enforcement task force took claimant into custody and removed claimant to the levee road adjacent to the claimants home and while Claim Against County of Contra Costa - Page 2 of 5 claimant was in custody and offering no resistance they did cause a police dog to attack claimant without provocation by claimant causing claimant to received multiple dog bites and wounds on claimant's head, neck, arms, legs and body. Thereafter, and while claimant was in custody and offering no resistance, members of the law enforcement task force began to beat claimant with police batons by using their police batons as clubs in a manner inconsistent with and in violation of proper police practices for the use of police batons thereby causing injuries to claimant's body. Thereafter, and while claimant was in custody and offering no resistance, members of the law enforcement task force began to spray claimant with mace or pepper spray to claimant's face and eyes in a manner inconsistent with and in violation of proper police practices for the use of mace or pepper spray thereby causing injuries to claimant's body. Thereafter while claimant was in custody, injured and bleeding, members of the law enforcement task force forced claimant to walk approximately one mile to the Bradford Island ferry dock, notwithstanding that there were police boats at the location where claimant was assaulted and beaten which could have transported claimant to the ferry dock or to the main land where police vehicles were parked. By forcing claimant to walk while suffering from his injuries the members of the law enforcement task force subjected claimant to cruel and unusual punishment. After claimant was transported to the main land claimant was denied medical care and treatment even though there were paramedical personnel present. Thereafter claimant was transported to jail and held in custody and although claimant was in need of medical care for his injuries claimant was denied medical care. Thereafter but only after several hours during which claimant remained in custody did members of the law enforcement task force finally take claimant to the Contra County Hospital for emergency care and treatment. Claimant was kept in custody for four days without being charged with any crime before being released. Claimant has not been charged with any crime arising out of the events described herein. The conduct of the members of the law enforcement task force was malicious, wanton and oppressive and said members of the law enforcement task force acted out of a deliberate and intentional desire and willingness to harm and to injure Claim Against County of Contra Costa- Page 3 of 5 claimant and such conduct justifies an award of punitive and exemplary damages and plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive and exemplary damages against said members of the law enforcement task force. At all times mentioned herein, members of the law enforcement task force were subject to a duty of care to avoid causing unnecessary physical harm and duress to citizens in the exercise of police powers and functions. The County of Contra Costa and Warren Rupf, Sheriff of the County of Contra Costa, had a duty to employ, train, supervise and discipline deputy sheriffs employed by the County of Contra Costa. Sheriff Rupf so carelessly and negligently did employ, train, supervise and discipline deputy sheriffs employed by the County of Contra Costa as to cause the members of the law enforcement task force to be unfit to perform the duties upon which they engaged. The members of the law enforcement task force failed to properly evaluate the situation existing at the time to determine whether extreme and potentially deadly force was required to investigate the reports of a disturbance and to question claimant or to take claimant in to custody. The members of the law enforcement task force further failed to attempt to resolve the matter peacefully but instead assaulted, battered and beat claimant as described herein thereby causing severe and disabling physical injuries and unlawful arrest and confinement without probable cause. The members of the law enforcement task force acted in a hasty, disorganized and unwarranted manner without properly assessing any potential threat claimant may or could have posed to any persons present. In doing the acts and in the conduct described herein-above treated the situation as one involving a suspect resisting and interfering with law enforcement officers when that was not true and in so doing escalated the existing situation unnecessarily and unreasonably. The conduct of the Sheriff of the County of Contra Costa and the members of the law enforcement task force breached said standard of care and did not comply with the standard of care required to be exercised by reasonable law enforcement authorities and officers. In addition to violating generally accepted police standards and procedures, the actions of members of the law enforcement task force were in violation of established County of Contra Costa Sheriff's Department procedures and policies. The conduct of the Sheriff of Contra Costa County in failing to properly train and supervise the members of the law enforcement task force have caused claimant to suffer severe personal injuries, severe emotional and physical distress and loss of earning capacity. Claim Against County of Contra Costa - Page 4 of 5 The act and conduct of all persons named were in violation of claimant's rights as a citizen of the State of California and the United States of America and did interfere with and deprive claimant of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States or by the Constitution or laws of California. DAMAGES: Claimants damages are expenses for medical care and treatment in an amount to be determined; loss of earning capacity in an amount to be determined; general non- economic damages in the amount of $2,500,000 and exemplary and punitive damages in the amount of$5,000,000.00. L AW""F L BROWN Claim Against County of Contra Costa - Page 5 of 5