(First Amendment-Monell claims) (Against all named Defendants and DOES 1-10)
59. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by references each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-63, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
60. In perpetrating the above referenced acts and omissions, the DEFENDANT CITY, was at all relevant times herein, a municipal corporation, and DEFENDANT PARKS, ITO and HERNANDEZ , were at all times herein, its agents/employees. Thus, defendants' above referenced acts and omissions constitute a cognizable state law claim.
61. In perpetrating, the above referenced acts and omissions, the defendants, and each of them, engaged in a pattern and practice, policy, tradition, and/or custom of restraining PLAINTIFF'S free speech on a matter of public concern and retaliating against him because of such speech, in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Consequently, since rights under the United States Constitution are federally protected, defendants also violated PLAINTIFF'S rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
62. At all times relevant herein, there existed a widespread custom, policy, tradition, pattern, and/or practice within the LAPD of harassment and retaliation against police officers for exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech on matters of public concern.
63. The acts set forth herein constitute a policy, practice, or custom of ordering, ignoring, encouraging, causing, tolerating, sanctioning, and/or acquiescing in the violation by DEFENDANT CITY employees, namely employees within the LAPD, of the constitutional rights of employees to free speech on matters of public concern.
64. The acts and failures to act as alleged herein also result from a custom, practice or policy of inadequate training in a deliberate indifference to the rights of employees who speak out on matters of public concern, and the injuries suffered by plaintiff as alleged herein were caused by such inadequate training and supervision.
65. DEFENDANT PARKS, is a policy-maker for DEFENDANT CITY. The acts and failures to act as alleged herein were done pursuant to policies and practices instituted and enforced by DEFENDANT PARKS pursuant to his authority as a policy-maker for DEFENDANT CITY.
66. As a direct and proximate cause of the unlawful conducts and actions alleged herein, PLAINTIFF has suffered and will continue to suffer loss of his employment, loss of promotional opportunities, severe emotional distress, humiliation, anxiety, sleeplessness, lost wages, loss of employment benefits and loss of sick time, the exact amount of which will be determined at trial.
PAGE | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
PREVIOUS - NEXTCopyright © 2000 Leo Terrell Enterprises
