 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Shoyinka v. City of Santa Monica7/26/2004
Plaintiff was arrested on 12 occasions and was convicted at least nine times of various crimes.
On March 20, 1996, plaintiff was convicted of reckless driving, resisting an officer, drunk driving, and battery.
On February 2, 2001, plaintiff was arrested by a private citizen and taken into custody by the Santa Monica police officer defendants in the present case for challenging another to a public fight and sexual battery. The charges of battery and challenging another to a fight in a public place were dismissed due to plea negotiation on April 13, 2001. Plaintiff pled no contest to an unidentified amended charge.
On or about March 27, 2001, plaintiff was placed under citizen's arrest by a private person, and was taken into custody by a Santa Monica police officer for indecent exposure and solicitation or engagement in a lewd act in public view. He entered a no contest plea to an amended charge of public nudity on April 13, 2001.
On October 24, 2001, plaintiff was convicted of sexual battery, false imprisonment, and annoying or molesting a child. He unsuccessfully appealed. He also filed seven unsuccessful petitions for writ of habeas corpus.
2. The Present Action
Plaintiff asserted 46 claims in his original complaint where he alleged that the City of Santa Monica (sometimes referred to as City) and other defendants (not parties to the appeal) defamed his character when they published a police department report within which plaintiff was falsely accused of numerous criminal acts.
The trial court sustained city's demurrer for uncertainty with leave to amend.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging the Santa Monica City Attorney defamed plaintiff's character when he published a police report stating that plaintiff was falsely accused of various crimes.
The trial court sustained city's demurrer to the first amended complaint with leave to amend.
In the operative second amended complaint, plaintiff made numerous allegations against different employees of the City of Los Angeles and City of Santa Monica. We focus on the allegations pertinent to defendant City of Santa Monica, the only defendant on appeal here.
*2 In his first cause of action plaintiff alleged that Santa Monica police officers seized his person against his will and without a warrant on February 2, 2001, and March 27, 2001, and certain Santa Monica and Los Angeles Deputy City Attorneys conspired to have plaintiff falsely arrested in 2001 for violating Penal Code sections 243.4, subdivision (d), 236, and 647.6.
In the second and third causes of action, plaintiff did not attempt to set forth a claim against Santa Monica or its employees.
Plaintiff alleged the violation of various Penal Code sections and the ineffective assistance of counsel in his fourth cause of action.
In his fifth cause of action, plaintiff attacked the evidence in support of three prior criminal prosecutions, two of which occurred in Santa Monica.
Plaintiff alleged that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial in his sixth cause of action.
Finally, plaintiff alleged in a seventh cause of action that the Santa Monica City Attorney published arrest documents falsely naming plaintiff as a suspect, and the Santa Monica City Attorney moved to introduce evidence "authored and distributed" by city under Evidence Code section 1108, subdivision (a) without good cause. Plaintiff further alleged that the court dismissed an unidentified prior case on April 13, 2001, for "lack of evidence"; the court "did not file [his] appeal of the convictions on 10/24/2002 in case 1WL03282"; and the court dismissed case number BC276405 for failure to prosecute.
Arrest documents stating that plaintiff had committed and was convicted of various crimes were attached as exhibits to the second am
Page 1 2 3 4 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|