EUN JUNG LIM
[ENTER ADDRESS]
Plaintiff in Pro Per
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EUN JUNG LIM,
Plaintiff
and
CITY OF IRVINE; IRVINE POLICE
DEPARTMENT; ORANGE COUNTY;
MICHAEL HAMEL, in his individual
capacity;
MICHAEL MCNALL, in his individual
capacity;
RENE NUTTER in her individual capacity;
SEAN PAUL CRAWFORD in his individual
capacity;
ERIC STEELE in his individual capacity;
MICHELE HINIG in her individual capacity;
JAMES MOORE in his individual capacity;
WILLIAM RUSSELL in his individual
capacity;
JERRY POOLE in his individual capacity;
MISTY DANIELS in her individual capacity;
TODD SPITZER in his individual capacity;
DUSTIN RICE in his individual capacity;
TAYLOR KRONE in her individual
capacity;
ALLISON TAYLOR TARGOFF in her
individual capacity;
and GAGANJOT BATTH, in her individual
capacity.
Defendants
Case No.: _____________
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
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
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW Plaintiff EUN JUNG LIM, with this complaint against the Defendants,
and alleges as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1. This case involves an incidence that took place on January 25, 2020 at the Hoag
Memorial Hospital Presbyterian, where the Plaintiff was assaulted and her phone stolen by
Herbert Conrad, who was a Security Officer at the hospital. After the assault and cellphone
stolen from her possession, the Irvine Police Department charged the Plaintiff based on a Police
report containing false allegations that the Plaintiff was the one who assaulted Herbert Conrad. It
is worth noting that the cell phone being taken from a family member’s possession is not hospital
policy and therefore, the false allegations in the police report appeared to make Conrad on the
right to steal a family member’s possession. The case was later dismissed. Plaintiff now files this
case to seek redress against the Defendants in that regard.
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff, EUN JUNG LIM, is an individual of address [ENTER ADDRESS].
3. Defendant CITY OF IRVINE AND IRVINE POLICE DEPARTMENT of
address 1 Civic Center Plaza Irvine, CA 92606-5207 is city and the local law enforcement
agency of the city of Irvine, California, United States. This Defendant has Monell liability
pursuant to Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).
4. Defendant Orange County of address 333 W. Santa Ana Blvd. Santa Ana, CA
92701 is a County in the State of California, United States. This Defendant has Monell liability
pursuant to Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).
5. Defendant, MICHAEL HAMEL of address [ENTER ADDRESS], is the former
Irvine Police Department Chief. This Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat
superior, for the actions and/or inactions of the Defendant police officers.
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
3
COMPLAINT
6. Defendant, SEAN PAUL CRAWFORD, of address 1 Civic Center Plaza Irvine
CA 92606-5207, was/is a Sergeant Detective at the Irvine Police Department. This Defendant is
liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of Michelle L.
Hinig.
7. Defendant, MICHELE HINIG, of address [ENTER ADDRESS], was a Detective
at the Irvine Police Department.
8. Defendant, RENE NUTTER, of address 1 Civic Center Plaza Irvine CA 92606-
5207, was/is a Police Officer at the Irvine Police Department.
9. Defendant, MICHAEL MCCALL, of address 1 Civic Center Plaza Irvine CA
92606-5207, was/is a Police Officer at the Irvine Police Department.
10. Defendant, ERIC STEELE, of address 1 Civic Center Plaza Irvine CA 92606-
5207, was/is a Police Officer at the Irvine Police Department.
11. Defendant, JAMES MOORE, of address 1 Civic Center Plaza Irvine CA 92606-
5207, was/is a Police Officer at the Irvine Police Department. This Defendant is liable under the
doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of Rene Nutter, Mike McCall,
and Eric Steele.
12. Defendant, WILLIAM RUSSELL, of address 1 Civic Center Plaza Irvine CA
92606-5207, was/is a Sergeant at the Irvine Police Department. This Defendant is liable under
the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of Rene Nutter, Mike
McCall, and Eric Steele.
13. Defendant, JERRY POOLE, of address [ENTER ADDRESS], was/is an Assistant
Investigator at the DA’s office.
14. Defendant, MISTY DANIELS, of address [ENTER ADDRESS], was/is a Lead
Investigator at the DA’s office. This Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat
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
4
COMPLAINT
superior, for the actions and/or inactions of the DA officer(s) responsible for the prosecution of
the Plaintiff.
15. Defendant, TODD SPITZER, of address 300 N. Flower Street Santa Ana,
California 92703, is the District Attorney of Orange County, California. This Defendant is liable
under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of the DA officer(s)
responsible for the prosecution of the Plaintiff.
16. Defendant, DUSTIN RICE, of address 300 N. Flower Street Santa Ana,
California 92703, is the Assistant District Attorney of Orange County, California. This
Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of
the DA officer(s) responsible for the prosecution of the Plaintiff.
17. Defendant, TAYLOR KRONE, of address 300 N. Flower Street Santa Ana,
California 92703, is the Assistant District Attorney of Orange County, California. This
Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of
the DA officer(s) responsible for the prosecution of the Plaintiff.
18. Defendant, ALLISON TAYLOR TARGOFF, of address 300 N. Flower Street
Santa Ana, California 92703, is the Assistant District Attorney of Orange County, California.
This Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or
inactions of the DA officer(s) responsible for the prosecution of the Plaintiff.
19. Defendant, GAGANJOT BATTH, of address 300 N. Flower Street Santa Ana,
California 92703, is the Assistant District Attorney of Orange County, California. This
Defendant is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, for the actions and/or inactions of
the DA officer(s) responsible for the prosecution of the Plaintiff.
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
5
COMPLAINT
JURISDICITON AND VENUE
20. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1331, on the basis of
there being a federal question relating to 42 USC § 1983. This Court further has supplemental
jurisdiction for non-federal causes of action in this Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
21. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 as Plaintiff and the
Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this state. Plaintiff and the Defendants live
within the jurisdiction of this Court. Besides, a substantial part of the acts and omissions forming
the basis of these claims occurred in the Central District of California and arose from the actions
or inactions of the Defendants.
FACTS
22. Plaintiff’s mother had been admitted at the Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian.
23. The incidence that gave rise to this action took place on January 25, 2020, when
the Plaintiff went to visit the mother.
24. As Plaintiff was checking in at the ER at the said hospital, Herbert Conrad stole
Plaintiff’s phone from the ER lobby and pushed the Plaintiff until Plaintiff fell.
25. The police officers arrived. Notably, Defendants Rene Nutter, Michael McCall,
and Eric Steele were the officers present at the scene. Defendant Michael McCall took a police
report of the incidence, and took pictures of Plaintiff’s hands. Interestingly, Herbert Conrad gave
false information that Plaintiff was the one who punched his face. It is worth noting that
Defendant Michael McCall included the false allegations in the police report without
ascertaining their veracity thereof. Later on, Defendant Michele Hinig went to the hospital and
saw the video footage of the scene but lied. The said Defendant proceeded to make a declaration
for warrant of my arrest, charging me with assault and battery. The video footage was therefore
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
6
COMPLAINT
not given due consideration in the prosecution of the case. Accordingly, Plaintiff was charged
and was prosecuted by the Orange County DA, based on the said fabricated report. She made
several attempts to challenge the prosecution. For instance, she wrote letters to Defendant Todd
Spritzer at the DA’s main and Regional Office at the Harbor Justice Center, with a specific
request to view the footage of the hospital surveillance to ascertain that the allegations against
me in the police report was utterly false. However, no consideration was given to the video
footage.
26. During the pendency of the said case, the Plaintiff made formal requests to Irvine
Police Department Records when Mike Hamel was Police Chief to obtain Michelle L. Hinig’s
Declaration in Support of Arrest warrant, in a bid to have evidence of Herbert Conrad’s
fabricated allegations. The Plaintiff was only given a copy of the report after the case was
dismissed. This amounts to a violation of the Plaintiff’s due process rights that are guaranteed
under the Constitution.
27. Interestingly, the said case was dismissed on June 2020.
28. It is also worth noting that during the trial of the said case, the hospital camera
footage that recorded the events of January 25, 2020 was not considered in the Prosecution of the
case against the Plaintiff. Further, the hospital would only release the footage if a subpoena was
issued. Instead, neither the DA nor the police obtained a subpoena for the production of the video
surveillance.
29. Unfortunately, Plaintiff’s mother died during the pendency of the case against
Plaintiff. Further, Plaintiff has been subjected to emotional harm and distress pursuant to the
malicious prosecution and the acts and/or inactions of the Defendants.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
COMPLAINT
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT 1
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S 14 TH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS)
(Against Defendants Michael Hamel, Michael Mcnall, Rene Nutter, Sean Paul Crawford,
Eric Steele, Michele Hinig, James Moore, William Russell, Jerry Poole, Misty Daniels,
Todd Spritzer, Dustin Rice, Taylor Krone, Allison Taylor Targoff , and Gaganjot Batth)
30. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 29 are re-alleged and
incorporated herein by reference.
31. Due process requires that the procedures by which laws are applied must be
evenhanded, so that individuals are not subjected to the arbitrary exercise of government power.
Accordingly, due process requires, at a minimum: (1) notice; (2) an opportunity to be heard; and
(3) an impartial tribunal. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank (1950).
32. It follows; due process also requires an opportunity for confrontation and cross-
examination, and for discovery; that a decision be made based on the record. Fuentes v. Shevin,
407 U.S. 67, 81 (1972).
33. The actions of the Defendant prosecutors are not absolutely immune merely
because they are performed by prosecutors. The Defendant prosecutors are not entitled to
Absolute immunity. Whether an individual is entitled to absolute immunity is determined by the
nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it. See Buckley v.
Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, (1993). Accordingly, in determining whether particular actions of
government officials fit within a common law tradition of absolute immunity, the U.S. Supreme
Court applies a "functional approach." Id. As already stated, the functional approach looks 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
8
COMPLAINT
"the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it." Forrester
v. White, 484 U.S., at 229.
34. The actions of the Defendant police officers are not protected under qualified
immunity if they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S., at 818.
35. In the instant action, at all times relevant herein, Plaintiff has liberty interest
protected by the constitution, which interest was violated by the Defendants. See Guatay
Christian Fellowship v. Cnty. of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 983 (9th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff asserts
that the Defendants violated Plaintiff’s liberty interests in two ways. First, she was unlawfully
detained. She was detained for more than two hours by three Irvine Law Enforcement Officers
outside the hospital entrance doors. Further, she was intimated and coerced in not seeing her
mother, whom she had gone to visit in the hospital. Defendant further avers that the officers
should have instead detained and/or arrested the Herbert Conrad (the guard) for false reports,
defamation, harassment and conversion.
36. Next, Plaintiff avers that the Defendants violated her liberty interests when a
Defendant official deliberately fabricated evidence, which was used to charge Plaintiff. After the
January 25 th incidence, Defendant Michele Hinig went to the hospital and saw the video footage
of the scene but lied. The video footage clearly shows the Plaintiff’s innocence. The said
Defendant proceeded to make a declaration for warrant of Plaintiff’s arrest, charging Plaintiff
with assault and battery. In further violation of Plaintiff’s liberty interest, the fabricated evidence
was used to subject Plaintiff to prosecution. Plaintiff avers that although the criminal case was
dismissed, her liberty interests were violated when Defendant Hinig fabricated the evidence that
was taken up by the prosecution to subject Plaintiff to prosecution.
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
9
COMPLAINT
37. The Defendants’ actions and/or inactions were so arbitrary and capricious that
they completely disregarded the salient constitutional safeguards for fair trial.
38. As a result of Defendants’ actions and/or inactions, Plaintiff was ridiculed by the
officers from the DA’s office. The Plaintiff was also subjected to humiliation when Judge John
Adams remanded the case to the Sheriff’s office with no evidence tying the Plaintiff to the false
allegations in the Police report. Accordingly, Plaintiff suffered emotional harm and distress;
harm on Plaintiff’s reputation; loss of employment; medical expenses in seeking psychiatry help;
misery, pain, and suffering as a result of losing employment; and the death of her mother.
COUNT 2
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S 14 TH AMENDMENT EQUAL
PROTECTION RIGHTS)
(Against Michael Hamel, Michael Mcnall, Rene Nutter, Sean Paul Crawford, Eric Steele,
Michele Hinig, James Moore, William Russell, Jerry Poole, Misty Daniels, Todd Spritzer,
Dustin Rice, Taylor Krone, Allison Taylor Targoff , and Gaganjot Batth)
39. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 38 are re-alleged and
incorporated herein by reference.
40. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in
pertinent part that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
41. In order to establish a violation of equal protection under the Fourteenth
Amendment, the Plaintiffs first must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the
Defendants treated them differently/discriminatorily from other similarly situated individuals, (2)
this different/discriminatory treatment impermissibly infringed on the exercise of Plaintiffs’
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
10
COMPLAINT
fundamental right to freedom of speech, and (3) was not necessary to serve a compelling
governmental interest. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985).
42. The actions of the Defendant prosecutors are not absolutely immune merely
because they are performed by a prosecutor. The Defendant prosecutors are not entitled to
Absolute immunity. Whether an individual is entitled to absolute immunity is determined by the
nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it. See Buckley v.
Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, (1993). Accordingly, in determining whether particular actions of
government officials fit within a common law tradition of absolute immunity, the U.S. Supreme
Court applies a "functional approach." Id. As already stated, the functional approach looks to
"the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it." Forrester
v. White, 484 U.S., at 229.
43. The actions of the Defendant police officers are not protected under qualified
immunity if they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S., at 818.
44. In the instant action, at all times relevant herein, the Plaintiff had a right to equal
protection, pursuant to the 14 th Amendment. The right to equal protection also protects her from
discrimination.
45. The Plaintiff belongs to a racial minority, a protected class. She is of Asian origin.
Just like any other American, Plaintiff expects to enjoy all the constitutionally guaranteed rights.
46. Plaintiff states that the she was discriminatorily treated when the Irvine Law
Enforcement Officers refused to consider evidence from the footage. All commanding officers
that Plaintiff talked to the week after Jan 25, 2022 regarding the incident were white. Plaintiff
tried to get recordings through records request on Aug 2022 to Michael Hamel but he denied
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
11
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff’s request for any recordings. Besides, Plaintiff was belittled and laughed at by the watch
commanders.
47. Plaintiff also left a voicemail Michael Mcnall requesting him to speak to the Hoag
Hospital’s night administrator regarding the records, but he never returned her phone calls.
48. The fact that all the Defendants who declined to have the footage considered for
evidence were white, further lays emphasis on Plaintiff’s averment that she was discriminatorily
treated.
49. As a result of the Defendants denying Plaintiff access to the footage and/or to
have the footage examined, Defendants either directly or indirectly subjected the Plaintiff to
prosecution based on false allegations. It is clear that the Plaintiff was unfairly treated because no
explanation was given as to why the footage could not be relied upon in the dismissed case.
50. As a result of the differential treatment, the Plaintiff was unfairly prosecuted thus
violating her rights that are guaranteed under the Constitution.
51. As a result of Defendants’ actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has been subjected to
injuries consequential and incidental to the actions and/or inactions as alleged herein. These
include emotional harm and distress; harm on Plaintiff’s reputation; loss of employment; medical
expenses in seeking psychiatry help; misery, pain, and suffering as a result of losing
employment; and the death of her mother.
COUNT 3
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
(Against all Defendants)
52. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 51 are re-alleged and
incorporated herein by reference.
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
12
COMPLAINT
53. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, every person in the United States shall have the same right in
every State and Territory to give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings
for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens.
54. The actions of the Defendant prosecutors are not absolutely immune merely
because they are performed by a prosecutor. The Defendant prosecutors are not entitled to
Absolute immunity. Whether an individual is entitled to absolute immunity is determined by the
nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it. See Buckley v.
Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, (1993). Accordingly, in determining whether particular actions of
government officials fit within a common law tradition of absolute immunity, the U.S. Supreme
Court applies a "functional approach." Id. As already stated, the functional approach looks to
"the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it." Forrester
v. White, 484 U.S., at 229.
55. The actions of the Defendant police officers are not protected under qualified
immunity if they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S., at 818.
56. In the instant action, the Plaintiff belongs to a racial minority, a protected class.
She is of Asian origin. Just like any other American, Plaintiff expects to enjoy all the
constitutionally guaranteed rights.
57. All commanding officers that Plaintiff talked to the week after Jan 25, 2022
regarding the incident were white. Plaintiff tried to get recordings through records request on
Aug 2022 to Michael Hamel but he denied Plaintiff’s request for any recordings. Plaintiff left a
voicemail with Sean Paul ‘Crawford, who is Detective Michele Hinig’s supervisor. Both of them
are white. Supervisor Sean Paul Crawford never returned Plaintiff’s phone call. However,
Michele Hinig did call Plaintiff upon which Plaintiff reiterated to her that she’d like to make a
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
13
COMPLAINT
report against the assault and battery and conversion against Hebert Conrad who stole Plaintiff’s
phone pushing Plaintifff and she fell down.
58. When Plaintiff reiterated to the officers that she would like to make a report
against Herbert Conrad for the assault, battery and, conversion against Hebert Conrad who stole
Plaintiff’s phone and pushing Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff was belittled and laughed at by the
watch commanders.
59. Plaintiff also left a voicemail Michael Mcnall requesting him to speak to the Hoag
Hospital’s night administrator regarding the records, but he never returned her phone calls.
60. The fact that all the Defendants who declined to have the footage considered for
evidence were white, further lays emphasis on Plaintiff’s averment that she was discriminatorily
treated.
61. As a result of Defendants’ actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has been subjected to
injuries consequential and incidental to the actions and/or inactions as alleged herein. These
include emotional harm and distress; harm on Plaintiff’s reputation; loss of employment; medical
expenses in seeking psychiatry help; misery, pain, and suffering as a result of losing
employment; and the death of her mother.
COUNT 4
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
(Against Defendants Jerry Poole, Misty Daniels, Todd Spitzer, Dustin Rice, Taylor Krone,
Allison Taylor and Gaganjot Batth)
62. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 61 are re-alleged and
incorporated herein by reference.
63. Plaintiff avers that this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The
federal causes of action in this case, as amended, establish this Court’s jurisdiction. Therefore,
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
14
COMPLAINT
since this claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence alleged in this Complaint, this
Court has jurisdiction over this claim.
64. Malicious prosecution amounts to the filing of a lawsuit for an improper purpose,
and without grounds or probable cause. The common law tort of malicious prosecution generally
requires four elements: (1) the defendant must have initiated a criminal proceeding; (2) the proceeding
must have ended in the plaintiffs favor; (3) the proceeding must have been initiated without probable
cause; and (4) the defendant must have acted maliciously in the initiation of the prosecution.’ See Usher
v. City of LA., 828 F.2d 556, 562 (9th Cir. 1987); see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF
TORTS § 653.
65. The actions of the Defendant prosecutors are not absolutely immune merely
because they are performed by a prosecutor. The Defendant prosecutors are not entitled to
Absolute immunity. Whether an individual is entitled to absolute immunity is determined by the
nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it. See Buckley v.
Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, (1993). Accordingly, in determining whether particular actions of
government officials fit within a common law tradition of absolute immunity, the U.S. Supreme
Court applies a "functional approach." Id. As already stated, the functional approach looks to
"the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it." Forrester
v. White, 484 U.S., at 229.
66. The actions of the Defendant police officers are not protected under qualified
immunity if they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S., at 818.
67. In the instant action, the Defendants initiated a criminal proceeding against the
Plaintiff. The said case was dismissed.
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
15
COMPLAINT
68. The Defendants initiated the prosecution based on false allegations, and without
probable cause. Besides, the Defendants refused to consider the footage from the hospital, which
would have shown that the Plaintiff is innocent.
69. Plaintiff avers that a total disregard of contrary evidence is malicious.
70. As a result of Defendants’ actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has been subjected to
injuries consequential and incidental to the actions and/or inactions as alleged herein. These
include emotional harm and distress; harm on Plaintiff’s reputation; loss of employment; medical
expenses in seeking psychiatry help; misery, pain, and suffering as a result of losing
employment; and the death of her mother.
COUNT 5
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (VIOLATING PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS
AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEIZURE)
(Against Michael Hamel, Michael Mcnall, Rene Nutter, Sean Paul Crawford, Eric Steele,
Michele Hinig, James Moore, William Russell, Jerry Poole, Misty Daniels, Todd Spritzer,
Dustin Rice, Taylor Krone, Allison Taylor Targoff , and Gaganjot Batth)
71. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 70 are re-alleged and
incorporated herein by reference.
72. The Fourth Amendment proscribes unreasonable seizure of any person, including
a brief detention, without reasonable and articulable suspicion. See United States v. Mendenhall,
446 U.S. 544 (1980). The court in Mendenhall stated that a person is seized when, by means of a
show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained and, in the circumstances surrounding
the incident, a reasonable person would believe he was not free to leave. Besides, the
government may not detain an individual even momentarily without reasonable, objective
grounds.
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
16
COMPLAINT
73. The actions of the Defendant prosecutors are not absolutely immune merely
because they are performed by a prosecutor. The Defendant prosecutors are not entitled to
Absolute immunity. Whether an individual is entitled to absolute immunity is determined by the
nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it. See Buckley v.
Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, (1993). Accordingly, in determining whether particular actions of
government officials fit within a common law tradition of absolute immunity, the U.S. Supreme
Court applies a "functional approach." Id. As already stated, the functional approach looks to
"the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it." Forrester
v. White, 484 U.S., at 229.
74. The actions of the Defendant police officers are not protected under qualified
immunity if they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S., at 818.
75. In the instant action, Plaintiff avers that her detention amounted to an unlawful
seizure. First, there was no reasonable ground to detain her. According to the fact pattern of the
events of January 25, 2020, as Plaintiff was checking in at the ER at the hospital, Herbert Conrad
stole Plaintiff’s phone from the ER lobby and pushed the Plaintiff until Plaintiff fell. Thereafter,
the police officers arrived. Notably, Defendants Rene Nutter, Michael McCall, and Eric Steele
were the officers present at the scene. Consequently, Plaintiff was detained for two hours, as
Defendant Michael McCall took a police report of the incidence, and took pictures of Plaintiff’s
hands. Interestingly, the officers did not request to see the video footage of the incident that
evening, to ascertain what really happened. It is therefore not logical why Plaintiff was detained
yet Herbert Conrad was the blameworthy party. Defendant avers that the officers should have
instead detained and/or arrested the Herbert Conrad (the guard) for false reports, defamation,
harassment and conversion.
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
17
COMPLAINT
76. The unlawful seizure was also characterized by a show of authority. Three
officers detained Plaintiff: Defendants Rene Nutter, Michael McCall, and Eric Steele. Plaintiff’s
movement was therefore restrained.
77. Further, she was intimated and coerced in not seeing her mother, whom she had
gone to visit in the hospital.
78. As a result of Defendants’ actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has been subjected to
injuries consequential and incidental to the actions and/or inactions as alleged herein. These
include emotional harm and distress; harm on Plaintiff’s reputation; loss of employment; medical
expenses in seeking psychiatry help; misery, pain, and suffering as a result of losing
employment; and the death of her mother.
COUNT 6
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(Against all Defendants)
79. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 78 are re-alleged and
incorporated herein by reference.
80. Plaintiff avers that this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The
aforementioned federal causes of action, as amended, establish this Court’s jurisdiction.
Therefore, since this claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence alleged in this
Complaint, this Court has jurisdiction over this claim.
81. The actions of the Defendant prosecutors are not absolutely immune merely
because they are performed by a prosecutor. The Defendant prosecutors are not entitled to
Absolute immunity. Whether an individual is entitled to absolute immunity is determined by the
nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it. See Buckley v.
Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, (1993). Accordingly, in determining whether particular actions 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
18
COMPLAINT
government officials fit within a common law tradition of absolute immunity, the U.S. Supreme
Court applies a "functional approach." Id. As already stated, the functional approach looks to
"the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it." Forrester
v. White, 484 U.S., at 229.
82. The actions of the Defendant police officers are not protected under qualified
immunity if they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a
reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S., at 818.
83. The actions and/or inactions of the Defendants, as set forth above, was extreme,
and outrageous.
84. The Defendants ought to have reasonably known that their actions and/or
inactions would cause severe harm on Plaintiff.
85. The Defendants failed to consider the adverse effects of their actions and/or
inactions on Plaintiff. Notably, they failed to acknowledge the fact that such actions and/or
inactions would cause Plaintiff emotional harm and distress.
86. As a result of Defendants’ actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has been subjected to
injuries consequential and incidental to the actions and/or inactions as alleged herein. These
include emotional harm and distress; harm on Plaintiff’s reputation; loss of employment; medical
expenses in seeking psychiatry help; misery, pain, and suffering as a result of losing
employment; and the death of her mother.
COUNT 7
INDEMNIFCATION CLAIM
Cal. Gov. Code. § 825 – 825.6
(Against Defendant City of Irvine; Irvine Police Department; and Orange County)
87. Plaintiff restates and realleges all the statements made in paragraphs of this
Complaint as through fully set forth 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
19
COMPLAINT
88. Plaintiff avers that this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The
federal causes of action in this case, as amended, establish this Court’s jurisdiction. Therefore,
since this claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence alleged in this Complaint, this
Court has jurisdiction over this claim.
89. The California Government Code imposes vicarious liability for public employees
and independent contractors (Gov. Code, § 815.2 and § 815.4.). It also imposes liability on a
public entity for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public
entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section,
have given rise to a cause of action. (Gov. Code, § 815.2).
90. Defendants City of Irvine; Irvine Police Department; and Orange County were, at
all times material to this Complaint, the employer of the individual Defendants.
91. The individual defendants committed the acts alleged above in the scope of their
employment as employees of Defendants named in this cause of action.
92. As a result of Defendants’ actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has been subjected to
injuries consequential and incidental to the actions and/or inactions as alleged herein. These
include emotional harm and distress; harm on Plaintiff’s reputation; loss of employment; medical
expenses in seeking psychiatry help; misery, pain, and suffering as a result of losing
employment; and the death of her mother.
COUNT 8
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Monell Claim)
(Against City of Irvine; Irvine Police Department; and Orange County)
93. Plaintiff restates and realleges all the statements made in paragraphs of this
Complaint as through fully set forth 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
20
COMPLAINT
94. Municipal bodies are liable for constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
when execution of its official policy or custom deprives an individual of its rights protected
under the Constitution. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).
95. In order to establish liability for governmental entities under Monell, a plaintiff
must prove "(1) that [the plaintiff] possessed a constitutional right of which [s]he was deprived;
(2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to deliberate indifference to
the plaintiff’s constitutional right; and, (4) that the policy is the moving force behind the
constitutional violation." Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 900 (9th Cir. 2011).
96. Such municipal liability exists where a city fails to properly train, supervise, and
discipline its employees amounting in a deliberate indifference to one’s constitutional rights. See
City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989); Patzner v. Burkett, 779 F.2d 1363, 1367
(8th Cir. 1985); Wellington v. Daniels, 717 F.2d 932, 936 (4th Cir. 1983).
97. At all times relevant, Defendants City of Irvine; Irvine Police Department; and
Orange County had a duty to properly train, supervise, and discipline their employees and
agents.
98. Defendants breached that duty, in part, by:
a) Improperly training, authorizing, encouraging or directing officers on due process
of law, the rights of the Plaintiff.
b) Failing to investigate Plaintiff’s allegations of violations of her constitutionally
protected rights.
c) Failing to discipline the Defendant officers for violations of policy related to on
due process of law, the rights of the Plaintiff.
99. The policy, pattern of practice, or custom of condoned misconduct is tacitly or
overtly sanctioned, as evidenced by the conduct of Defendants City of Irvine; Irvine Police
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
COMPLAINT
Department; and Orange County failure to train, supervise, investigate, and discipline any of the
officers involved in the violations alleged hereinabove, amounting in a deliberate indifference to
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
100. The unconstitutional behavior of the officers as alleged hereinabove was carried
out pursuant to a policy, pattern of practice, or custom, whether formal or informal, which
violates the constitutional rights of persons situated such as the Plaintiff.
101. The Defendants named in this Cause of Action failed to take sufficient remedial
actions to end this policy, pattern of practice, or custom within the City of Irvine; Irvine Police
Department; and Orange County.
102. The condoning of misconduct and the failure to end this policy, pattern of
practice, or custom was a proximate cause to the injuries suffered by Plaintiff.
103. As a result of Defendants’ actions and/or inaction, Plaintiff has been subjected to
injuries consequential and incidental to the actions and/or inactions as alleged herein. These
include emotional harm and distress; harm on Plaintiff’s reputation; loss of employment; medical
expenses in seeking psychiatry help; misery, pain, and suffering as a result of losing
employment; and the death of her mother.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff requests trial by jury on all issues so triable.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Eun Lim, is entitled to damages from the Defendants, and
he hereby prays that judgment be entered in her favor and against the Defendants as follows:
i. That Defendants be required to pay Plaintiff general damages, including emotional
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
22
COMPLAINT
distress, in a sum to be ascertained at a trial of this matter,
ii. That Defendants be required to pay Plaintiff special damages,
iii. That Defendants, be required to pay Plaintiff ‘s fees time pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988,
or any other applicable provision,
iv. That Defendants required to pay Plaintiff punitive damages in a sum to be ascertained
at a trial of this matter,
v. That Defendants be required to pay Plaintiff costs of the suit herein incurred, and
vi. That Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and
proper.
Respectfully submitted:
Dated: __________
______________________________
EUN JUNG LIM
Pro se
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
23
COMPLAINT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on [ENTER DATE], copies of the foregoing document have been
sent to the Defendants in the following address:
[ENTER DEFENDANTS’ ADDRESSES]
DATED:
______________________________
EUN JUNG LIM
Pro se
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )