1 LOUIS R. MILLER (State Bar No. 54141) [email protected]
2 SCOTI'"J. STREET (State Bar No. 258962) [email protected]
3 MILLER BARONDESS, LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1000
4 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-4400
5 Facsimile: (310) 552-8400
6 BRIAN E. WATKINS (State Bar No. 190599) [email protected]
7 BRIAN E. WATKINS & ASSOCIATES 925 B Street Suite 402
8 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 255-5930
9 Facsimile: (619) 255-5639
10 Att()!neys for Plaintiffs S.R. NEHAD, K.R. NEHAJ?., and ESTATE OF FRIDOON
11 RA WSrtAN NEHAD
12
13
14
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16 S.R. NEHAD, an individual, K.R. NEHAD, an individual, ESTATE OF
17 FRIDOON RA WSHAN NEHAD,
CASE NO.
COMPLAINT FOR:
18 Plaintiffs,
19 v.
(1) DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (FOURTH AMENDMENT); AND
20 NEAL N. BROWDER, an individual, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
259797.1
Defendants.
(2) DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U .S.C. § 1983 (FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT)
DEMAND FOR .JURY TRIAL
Case No. COMPJ.AJNT FOR V!OJ.AT!ON OF C!Vll, RIGHTS
'15CV1386 NLSWQH
Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 1 Filed 06/24/15 Page 1 of 10
c. _, _, ~
"' ""' . Cl~ z < 0 '"
"' " -<. <Qg oe< ""' _, _, ~
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
Plaintiffs S.R. Nehad and K.R. Nehad (the "Nehads") and the Estate of
Fridoon Rawshan Nehad (the "Estate") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") allege as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. On April 30, 2015, Fridoon Rawshan Nehad ("Fridoon") was shot to
death by Defendant Neal N. Browder. Browder was acting under color of authority,
in his capacity as a San Diego police officer. Fridoon was unarmed.
2. The shooting was captured on a surveillance video owned by a private
business named KECO, Inc. (the "KECO Video"). KECO has the video of the
shooting and provided a copy to the San Diego Police Department ("SDPD").
KECO's attorney has agreed to provide a copy of the video to Plaintiffs, but only
pursuant to a legally issued subpoena, necessitating this lawsuit.
3. Individuals have seen the KECO Video. One of them called the video
"shocking" and stated that Browder appeared to shoot Fridoon "on a whim," at a
moment when Fridoon's walking cadence noticeably changed from normal to a
near-stop.
4. Browder was wearing a body camera but it was not activated when the
shooting occurred. The KECO Video is critical direct evidence of the shooting and
will establish whether the shooting was justified.
5. Based on the accounts of the SDPD and individuals who have seen the
KECO Video, Plaintiffs believe that Fridoon's shooting was unjustified. They
bring this action for violation of their civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. They have
also filed an administrative claim with the City of San Diego and intend to amend
this Complaint and add common law claims, if necessary.
6. At this juncture, Plaintiffs' only means of understanding Fridoon's
26
27
untimely death is to see the KECO Video. They have tried to obtain it from the
SDPD but no avail: the SDPD refused to provide the video and told Plaintiffs to file
28 a lawsuit if they wanted to see it. Plaintiffs also tried to obtain a copy of the video
259797.1 1 Case No. COMPLAINT FOR VIOT.ATTON OF CIVIL RIGHTS
Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 1 Filed 06/24/15 Page 2 of 10
1 from KECO, but KECO said it would only produce the video if it receives a
2 subpoena. The City of San Diego would not give Plaintiffs a copy of the video
3 either.
4
5 7.
PARTIES, .JURISDICTION AND VENUE
The Estate is Fridoon's probate estate. Under Section 377.20 of the
6 California Code of Civil Procedure, the Estate has standing to bring claims for
7 Fridoon's pre-death pain and suffering. For jurisdictional purposes, and since
8 Fridoon's death occurred in California, the Estate resides in California.
9 8. Plaintiff S.R. Nehad is a United States citizen. She is Fridoon's mother
10 and resides in San Diego, California. Plaintiff K.R. Nehad is a United States
11 citizen. He is Fridoon's father and resides in San Diego, California.
12 9. Defendant Neal N. Browder is a United States citizen. He resides in
j 13 Temecula, California.
14 10. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants Z t<o ~ E ~ 15 sued herein as Does 1 through 10 and therefore sue those unknown Defendants by -< 2 ~
~ ~! 16 such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege said ~ &;
:: • 17 Defendants' true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed ~ ~
5 ~ 18 and believe that each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some ~ ~
~ 19 manner for the occurrences alleged herein, and that Plaintiffs' injuries were
20 proximately caused by the acts and/or omissions of said fictitiously named
21 Defendants.
22 .JURISDICTION AND VENUE
23 11. This is a civil suit brought under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §
24 1983, for violations of Plaintiffs' rights under the United States Constitution. This
25 Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the parties and this action pursuant to 28
26 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
27 12. This suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages against all
28 Defendants as permitted by law.
259797.1 2 Case No.
C:OMPT.AINT FOR VIOI.ATION OF r:TVIT. RIGHTS
Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 1 Filed 06/24/15 Page 3 of 10
1 13. Venue is proper in this Court because the events or omissions that gave
2 rise to each of these causes of action occurred in San Diego, California, within the
3 Southern District of California.
4
5 A. FACTS
Fridoon and His Family
6 14. Fridoon grew up in Mghanistan. He was an intelligent, kind,
7 thoughtful and creative person. He had a loving and happy childhood. But it was
8 interrupted by the Russian invasion of Mghanistan and the internal civil war after
9 the Russians left.
10 15. The civil war pitted the Mghan government against groups called the
11 Mujahideen (some of these groups would later form the Taliban). Fridoon was
12 drafted into the Mghan army when he was a teenager. While serving, he was
13 captured by one of the Mujahideen groups. He spent nearly two months in captivity
14 and was only released after his mother met face-to-face with the kidnappers and
15 pleaded for the release of her son.
16 16. Fridoon did not talk much about the war. He likely was tortured. The
17 Mujahideen had a well-documented practice of torturing their prisoners of war.
18 17. Mter his release, Fridoon still was in grave danger of further
19 persecution by the Mujahideen (which opposed the government). To save his life,
20 his family got him out of Mghanistan and into refuge in Germany. He was a
21 teenager at the time.
22 18. Fridoon spent the next 14 years in Germany, isolated from his family.
23 He saw his parents just a few times. He did not see his siblings (six sisters) at all.
24 19. In 1991, the Nehads immigrated to the United States, settling in San
25 Diego. They became American citizens. Their daughters attended school and have
26 jobs and careers in the U.S. in medicine, law and business. Fridoon finally joined
27 them in 2003.
28 20. Fridoon suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD"). He
259797.1 3 Case No. COMPLAINT FOR VIOT.ATION OF CIVTT. RIGHTS
Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 1 Filed 06/24/15 Page 4 of 10
1 also was diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
2 21. Fridoon battled against his illnesses. He was intelligent, learning new
3 languages (German and French) and taking classes on computer programming,
4 linguistics and literature. He became a permanent resident of the United States and
5 obtained a work permit. He tried to improve his life. But he sometimes had manic
6 episodes. He was arrested and, in 2008, went to jail for burglary.
7 22. Fridoon was loved. His family spent years and countless hours trying
8 to help him cope with his PTSD and illness. At times, it was difficult.
9 23. Fridoon was receiving treatment for his PTSD and mental illness. But
10 he still had manic episodes. During one episode, he became upset with his mother
11 and sister, who called the police. The police recommended that the Nehads get a
12 restraining order.
13 24. The police told the Nehads that getting a restraining order would help
14 Fridoon get into a shelter in Oceanside, which he had visited. The Nehads trusted
15 the police and followed their advice.
16 B. Fridoon's Shooting
17 25. On April29-30, 2015, Fridoon was walking in downtown San Diego.
18 26. Browder responded to a 911 call from an adult bookstore employee.
19 He arrived at the store around midnight.
20 27. According to a KECO employee who saw the KECO Video, Fridoon
21 was walking in the alley behind the bookstore when Browder arrived in his police
22 car. He was about 15 to 20 feet away from the police car when Browder stepped out
23 of his car and, within seconds, fired his side arm, hitting Fridoon with at least one
24 shot. Fridoon died later at UCSD Medical Center.
25 28. The KECO employee who saw the video, Wesley Doyle, provided a
26 declaration about what he remembers about the KECO Video. Doyle said the
27 shooting was "unprovoked" and "shocking." Browder did not take any time to
28 communicate with Fridoon and did not use any other (non-deadly) measures against
259797.1 4 Case No. COMPLATNT FOR VTOT.ATTON OF CTVTT. RTGHTS
Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 1 Filed 06/24/15 Page 5 of 10
c. ,.., ,..,
'" "' "' , cu z" 0" ct.~ .::1 ~~ «< "' ,.., ,.., :i:
1 Fridoon. He did not even get into a police shooting stance. He appeared to shoot
2 Fridoon "on a whim," at a moment when Fridoon's walking cadence noticeably
3 changed from normal to a near-stop.
4 C. The SDPD Cover-Up and the KECO Video
5 29. Fridoon was not armed. Nonetheless, the SDPD tried to "spin" the
6 story against Fridoon, falsely suggesting to his family and the media that he had a
7 knife. The SDPD also falsely claimed that Fridoon was threatening Browder when,
8 in fact, Fridoon was shot at a distance of at least 15 feet and just after Browder
9 arrived at the scene.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
30. Browder was wearing a body camera that night. But it was not
activated at the time of the shooting. After the killing, the SDPD admitted that it
had not properly trained its officers on use of their cameras and changed its policy
and practice to require they be turned on during all law enforcement contacts with
civilians (which would have included the incident preceding Fridoon's shooting).
31. The KECO Video is direct evidence of Fridoon's shooting. The
existence of the KECO Video became known after an employee of KECO saw the
video and contacted the media to rebut the SDPD's story.
18 32. There are two copies of the KECO Video. KECO has one. The SDPD
19 has the other.
20 33. Plaintiffs requested a copy of the KECO Video from the SDPD but
21 their request was rejected. The SDPD told Plaintiffs that they should file a lawsuit
22 if they wanted to see the video.
23 34. Plaintiffs also asked KECO to turn over its copy of the video. KECO
24 also declined. However, KECO's attorney agreed to give Plaintiffs a copy of the
25 video pursuant to a subpoena, during a lawsuit.
26 35. Plaintiffs made a similar request to the City of San Diego. But the City
27 also refused to give Plaintiffs the video. Plaintiffs' only option is to file this action
28 and seek leave of court to serve a subpoena on KECO.
259797.1 5 Case No.
C:OMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF C:IVII. RIGHTS
Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 1 Filed 06/24/15 Page 6 of 10
... ...J ...J
.,; "' "' Cl z g ~ ~
< ~ <Q ~
"" :; "' E: ...J ...J
~ ~ 0 0
" ~ ~ . .
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
36. Plaintiffs are filing this action concurrently with a motion for leave to
serve the KECO subpoena and obtain the video. As more fully set forth in that
motion, there will be no harm or prejudice to the defendants. KECO is a private
business and is willing to produce the video pursuant to a subpoena.
37. There is great harm, prejudice and unfairness to Plaintiffs in not
getting the video. That is the only way they can see what truly happened and
proceed with their claim. There is no good reason to delay the process: the video is
clearly discoverable and could affect the just and speedy resolution of this case.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Deprivation of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment))
(By the Estate Against Browder)
38. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in the preceding
and subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint, as though set forth fully herein.
39. This cause of action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
40. Under section 377.20 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, the
Estate is Fridoon's successor-in-interest and has standing to assert a claim for
Fridoon's pre-death damages.
41. Defendant Browder shot and killed Fridoon. Shooting a weapon is the
use of deadly force. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege,
that deadly force was not warranted: Fridoon did not have a weapon and was not
threatening Browder, or anyone else, with deadly force.
42. In the process, Browder violated Fridoon's right to be free from
excessive force as secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
43. Browder acted under color of law and within the course and scope of
26 his employment with the City of San Diego and the SDPD in deploying excessive
27 force against Fridoon.
28 44. Browder's actions directly and proximately caused injury to Fridoon, as
259797.1 6 Case No. COMPLAINT FOR VTOT.ATTON OF CTVTT. RIGHTS
Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 1 Filed 06/24/15 Page 7 of 10
"' 0
'""' 0
'""' ~
.,; ~ ~ § "' . Q~ " z" ~ 0 '"
"' " < 2 "'~ "'~ "' '""' '""' ~
1 he was mortally wounded and endured horrific pain and suffering in the time before
2 he died.
3 45. As a result of Browder's actions, the Estate is entitled to damages in an
4 amount to be proven at trial.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
46. Browder acted in knowing violation of Fridoon's legal and
constitutional rights and without good faith, so punitive damages are warranted.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Deprivation of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourteenth Amendment))
(By the Nehads Against Browder)
47. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in the preceding
and subsequent paragraphs of this Complaint, as though set forth fully herein.
48. This cause of action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
49. Defendant Browder shot and killed Fridoon. Shooting a weapon is the
use of deadly force. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege,
that deadly force was not warranted: Fridoon did not have a weapon and was not
threatening Browder, or anyone else, with deadly force.
50. In the process, Browder violated the Nehads' liberty interest in the
19 companionship of their eldest child and only son, a right secured by the Fourteenth
20 Amendment.
21 51. Browder acted under color of law and within the course and scope of
22 his employment with the City of San Diego and the SDPD in deploying excessive
23 force against Fridoon.
24 52. Browder's actions directly and proximately caused injury to the
25 Nehads, as the shooting killed Fridoon and deprived the Nehads of the
26 companionship of their eldest child and only son.
27 53. As a result of Browder's actions, the Nehads are entitled to damages in
28 an amount to be proven at trial.
259797.1 7 Case No. C:OMPJ ,AJNT FOR VIOl ,ATJON OF r.JVJJ, RIGHTS
Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 1 Filed 06/24/15 Page 8 of 10
1 54. Browder acted in knowing violation of the Nehads' legal and
2 constitutional rights and without good faith, so punitive damages are warranted.
3 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
4 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:
5 1. For damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including general
6 damages, special damages and punitive damages;
7 2. For attorneys' fees, costs and interest; and for such other and further
8 relief as the Court deems just and proper.
9
10 DATED: June 24, 2015
11
12
13
~:~O;S,U2
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
259797.1
LOUIS R. MILLER Attorneys for Plaintiffs S.R. NEHAD, K.R. NEHAD, and ESTATE OF FRIDOON RA WSHAN NEHAD
8 Case No, C:OMPT ,AINT FOR VIOl ,ATION OF C:IVTT, RIGHTS
Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 1 Filed 06/24/15 Page 9 of 10
1 DEMAND FOR .JURY TRIAL
2 Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule
3 38.1, Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
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
DATED: June 24, 2015
259797.1
MILLER BARONDESS, LLP
LOUIS R. MILLER Attorneys for Plaintiffs S.R. NEHAD, K.R. NEHAD, and ESTATE OF FRIDOON RA WSHAN NEHAD
9 Case No. COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIl. RIGHTS
Case 3:15-cv-01386-WQH-NLS Document 1 Filed 06/24/15 Page 10 of 10
Top Related