Dennis C. O’Brien v. County of Mendocino, Raley’s, et al
First Cause Of Action: Unlawful Interference With Freedom Of Speech
1. Plaintiff Dennis C. O’Brien is a competent adult and a resident of Mendocino County. At all times mentioned herein he was registered to vote in Mendocino County.
2. Defendant County of Mendocino (“County”) is a governmental entity, a subdivision of the State of California.
3. Defendant Raley’s is a California for-profit corporation doing business in the County of Mendocino.
4. Defendants Doe One through Doe Thirty are sued herein pursuant to CCP Section 474.
5. On April 16, 2012, at approximately 3:30 p.m., Plaintiff parked in the parking lot of a shopping center located near the corner of State Street and Empire Road, just north of the City of Ukiah in Mendocino County, California. As Plaintiff walked toward Raley’s market, he saw a woman on a nearby sidewalk with a clipboard in her hand. She was standing near a large stone pillar, on the opposite side from the south entrance to Raley’s. A second entrance is located about 50 feet to the north. The petitioner was not directly in front of the entrance or in any way interfering with foot traffic. If anyone tried to enter the store using the space she was occupying, they would have run into the stone pillar.
6. As Plaintiff approached, the woman asked him if he would like to sign some ballot petitions. Plaintiff said he would. She had three petitions to get ballot measures on the ballot. Plaintiff reviewed and signed two of them. While he was doing so, the petitioner told him that she had checked-in with the store manager before starting.
7. Before Plaintiff could get to the third petition, a uniformed police officer appeared. He was wearing a shirt with a sheriff’s office logo on the left breast, and a sheriff’s office badge on his belt. He said that the petitioner must leave. The petitioner explained what she was doing and said she was just exercising her free speech rights. The officer stated that she was on private property and that the store manager had contacted him and asked that she be removed.
8. Plaintiff then told the officer that the Supreme Court had held that a shopping center was the equivalent of a town square and that it could be used for gathering signatures for political purposes. The officer replied that he was enforcing California law, and that the owner of a business had the right to ask anyone to leave the place of business.
9. Plaintiff asked the officer if he was on duty, and he said yes. Plaintiff asked him if he was aware of the First Amendment, and he said yes. Plaintiff asked him if he knew that the First Amendment applied to the states. He said that didn’t affect his enforcement of private property laws.
10. When Plaintiff stated that he believed Sheriff Allman would disagree, the officer replied that Sheriff Allman could not tell him how to enforce the law. Plaintiff replied that Sheriff Allman could tell him if he was making a mistake. The officer then stated that if the petitioner and the Plaintiff did not leave, he would have to arrest both for trespassing on private property.
11. The petitioner left immediately. Plaintiff walked into the store. Plaintiff was not able to review or sign the additional ballot petition that the woman had with her.
12. The area where Plaintiff and the petitioner were standing is a common area. It includes a mailbox, trash bins, and tables for eating. It is not immediately in front of either entrance to Raley's. It is as close to the mailbox as to the nearest entrance. Their presence did not interfere with normal business operations.
13. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the store manager was acting in accordance with Raley’s policies and practices, including written policy.
14. Plaintiff submitted a formal complaint to the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Department (Exhibit A). The Department responded with a one-page letter, stating that the allegations were “unfounded.” (Exhibit B).
15. Plaintiff is required to comply with a claims statute. On August 14, 2012, Plaintiff submitted a written claim against Defendant County (Exhibit C). The claim was denied by Defendant County via a letter dated August 29, 2012, which included the notice of a right to sue (Exhibit D). The letter was mailed on August 31, 2012 (Exhibit E). Plaintiff submitted an amended claim on October 11, 2012 (Exhibit F). Defendant County did not respond, neither denying the substance of the claim nor challenging its format.
16. This Court is the proper venue because Defendant County is located within Mendocino County; Defendant Raley’s has a place of business in Mendocino County; and the harm was done in Mendocino County.
17. As a result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered damages.
Second Cause Of Action: Unlawful Interference With The Right Of Assembly
18. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 17 of the first cause of action.
19. Defendants’ wrongful acts deprived Plaintiff of the right to assemble.
20. As a result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered damages.
Third Cause Of Action: Unlawful Interference With The Right To Petition
21. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 17 of the first cause of action.
22. Defendants’ wrongful acts deprived Plaintiff of the right to peacefully petition the government.
23. As a result of the wrongful acts of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered damages.
Wherefore, Plaintiff demands judgment for:
1. $10,000,000 in statutory and general damages against Defendant County of Mendocino; 2. $10,000,000 in general damages, plus punitive damages, against Defendant Raley’s; 3. The cost of this action; and 4. Any other relief the Court finds just and proper.
Date: February 27, 2013
Dennis C. O'Brien, Plaintiff in Propria Persona
Be First to Comment