Welcome to Streetgangs.com

THE ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHER
G.L. WALLACE, by and through its
Personal Representatives,
FAITH EVANS, and VOLETTA WALLACE; CHRISTOPHER JORDAN WALLACE,
by and through his mother and
Guardian ad Litem, FAITH EVANS; T’YANNA DREAM WALLACE, by and through her mother and Guardian ad Litem, FLORENCE JACKSON, Plaintiffs, vs.CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation; BERNARD PARKS, individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Los Angeles Police Department; BAYAN LEWIS, individually and in his official capacity of Chief of Los Angeles Police Department; WILLIE WILLIAMS, individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Los Angeles Police Department; DAVID MACK, individually and in his official capacity as a police officer for the Los Angeles Police Department; AMIR MUHAMMAD a/k/a HARRY BILLUPS, individually, and acting jointly with THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, and DOES 1 through 25,

    Defendants.

      ) Case No.:
      )
      ) COMPLAINT FOR:
      )
      ) 1. Denial of Due Process Right
      ) of Access to the Court and a
      ) Fair Trial in violation of the 14th
      ) Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §1983;2.
      ) Deliberate Indifference in
      ) violation of the 14th
      ) Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983;3.
      ) Deprivation of Familial
      ) Companionship and Society in
      ) violation of 14th Amendment, 42
      ) U.S.C. §1983; 4. Deprivation of
      ) the life of Christopher Wallace
      ) under Color of State Law in
      ) violation of the 4th Amendment
      ) of the United States
      ) Constitution, 14th Amendment,
      ) 42 U.S.C. §1983;5. Conspiracy
      ) in violation of 42 U.S.C §1983,
      ) 42 U.S.C. §1985;6. Neglect to
      ) Prevent Conspiracy to Violate
      ) Civil Rights in violation of 4th
      ) and 14th Amendments, 42
      ) U.S.C. §1983, §1985;7. Violation
      ) of Substantive Due Process;8.
      ) Violation of California
      ) Constitution, Article I, Sections
      ) 1,7, and 13;9. Violation of
      ) California Civil Code §52.1
      ) (b);10. Wrongful Death;11. Civil
      ) Conspiracy;12. Negligent
      ) Failure to Prevent Wrongful and
      ) Illegal Conduct;13. Tortious
      ) Interference with a Claim





      COME NOW the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, the law firm of Sanders, Crochet & Chism, L.L.P., Tegtmeier, Frank & Jones, L.L.C., and the law offices of
      Dennis W. Chang, A Professional Corporation, and for cause to complain against
      the Defendants, state and allege as follows:

      I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

      1. Plaintiffs allege and complain against the Defendants, and each and every one
      of them as follows:

          A. City of Los Angeles, a municipal corporation;

          B. Bernard Parks, (referred to at material times as Parks) individually and in his official capacity as Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department;

          C. Bayan Lewis (referred to at material times as Lewis), individually and in his official capacity as Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department;

          D. Willie Williams (referred to at material times as Williams), individually and in his official capacity as Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department;

          E. David Mack, (referred to at material times as Mack) individually and in his official capacity as a police officer employed by the Los Angeles Police Department;

          F. Amir Muhammad a/k/a Harry Billups, (referred to at material times as Muhammad) individually and as a joint actor with David Mack and The City of Los Angeles.

          G. Certain unknown persons identified as DOES 1 through 25 whose actions have been consciously concealed by the aforementioned Defendants.
      2. Competent subject matter jurisdiction and venue exist, in whole or in part, pursuant to the following federal statutes:
          A. 42 U.S.C. §1983;

          B. 42 U.S.C. §1985(2)

          C. 42 U.S.C. §1985(3);

          D. Federal Civil Rights Jurisdiction: 28 U.S.C. §§1343(1) - (5);

          E. Federal Question Jurisdiction: 28 U.S.C. §1331;

          F. Federal Supplemental Jurisdiction: 28 U.S.C. §1367(b); and

          G. Federal General Venue: 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).
      3. The Plaintiffs allege that compliance with California Government Code §§ 900, et seq., is preempted by invocation of Federal Question Jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. §1331, and application of Williams v. Horvath, 16 Cal. 3rd 834, 129 Cal. Rpt. 453 (1976), and County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 92 Cal. Rep 2nd 668, 78 Cal. App. 4th 212 (2000). Plaintiffs have alleged claims for relief arising under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.

      4. The Plaintiffs are citizens of the United States.
          A. The Plaintiff, Faith Evans, at all material times mentioned herein, was an individual residing in the city of Matawan, County of Monmouth, State of New Jersey. Plaintiff, Faith Evans, sues as an individual in her own right and pursuant to her status as the surviving spouse of the decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace, as defined by Section 377.60 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, as personal Representative of the Estate of Christopher G. L. Wallace as defined by Section 377.60 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and as a successor in interest, heir and legal representative of the decedent to seek redress for the deprivation of the decedent’s rights;

          B. Plaintiff Voletta Wallace, at all times mentioned herein, was an individual residing in the Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, County of Kings, State of New York. The Plaintiff, Voletta Wallace, is the dependant mother of the decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace as defined by Section 377.60 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff, Voletta Wallace relied, to the extent required for standing under California law, on the decedent Christopher G. L. Wallace, for financial support for the necessities of life. The Plaintiff, Voletta Wallace, sues as an individual in her own right, and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Christopher G. L. Wallace, as defined by Section 377.60 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, as a successor in interest, heir, and personal legal representative of the decedent to seek redress for the deprivation of the decedent’s rights and for those damages that the decedent sustained and incurred before death, that the decedent would have been entitled to recover, had he lived as defined by Section 377.34 of the California Code of Civil Procedure;

          C. The Plaintiff, Christopher Jordan Wallace, at all times mentioned herein, was a minor child residing in the Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, County of Kings, State of New York. The Plaintiff, Christopher Jordan Wallace, is the child of the decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace, as defined by Section 377.60 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff, Christopher Jordan Wallace, sues as an individual in his own right through his mother and Guardian ad Litem, Faith Evans, and as a successor in interest, heir, and legal representative of the decedent to seek redress for the deprivation of the decedent’s rights;

          D. The Plaintiff, T’Yanna Dream Wallace, at all times mentioned herein, was a minor child residing in the Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, County of Kings, State of New York. The Plaintiff, T’Yanna Dream Wallace, is the child of the decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace, as defined by Section 377.60 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff, T’Yanna Dream Wallace, sues as an individual in her own right through her mother and Guardian ad Litem, Florence Jackson, and as a successor in interest, heir, and legal representative to seek redress for the deprivation of the decedent’s rights;
      5. Plaintiffs allege that at all times material hereto, the City of Los Angeles was a municipal corporation organized and existing under the Constitution of the State of California and operating and subject to the laws and statutes as codified within the California Code, maintaining its principle place of business at the Office of the Mayor, City Hall, City of Los Angeles. Plaintiffs further allege that the City of Los Angeles, pursuant to statutes and laws promulgated by the State of California, provides law enforcement to protect and serve persons within the City of Los Angeles.

      6. Plaintiffs allege that at all times material hereto, the Los Angeles Police Department [LAPD] was a governmental agency created and existing under the Constitution of the State of California and operating and subject to the laws and statutes as codified within the California Code annotated, maintaining its principle place of business at the Office of the Chief of Police, City of Los Angeles.

      7. Plaintiffs allege that at times material herein, Bernard Parks was the Chief of Police of the Los Angeles Police Department, and is sued in both his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department. Parks became the Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department on or about August 12, 1997. Defendant Lewis was Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department from May 18, 1997 to August 12, 1997 and is sued in both his individual and official capacity as Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department. Defendant Williams was Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department from June 30, 1992 to May 17, 1997 and is sued in both his individual and official capacity as Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department. Plaintiffs further allege that Parks occupies, and Lewis and Williams occupied, a position of managerial and directorial command at the LAPD and is or was responsible for the administration, design, implementation, and execution of policies, orders, directives, commands, and instructions relative to police investigations of criminal activities, the behavior and employment of officers, the off-duty conduct of officers, acquisition, accumulation, and preservation of evidence obtained in conjunction with conducting criminal investigations. Plaintiffs further allege that Parks, Lewis and Williams directly and/or through their agents are or were responsible for the lawful and proper conduct and activities of detectives engaged in criminal investigations and to prevent abuse and excesses committed by police officers.

      8. Plaintiffs allege that at all times material hereto, David Mack was a Los Angeles Police Department officer and engaged in the conduct alleged herein under color of State Law, and through the auspices of the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Police Department. Plaintiffs further allege that Mack acted at all times herein under the auspices, direction, command, instruction, and/or control of the Los Angeles Police Department and Defendants Parks, Lewis and/or Williams.

      9. Amir Muhammad a/k/a Harry Billups, is a person residing within the City and County of Los Angeles. By information and belief at all times pertinent hereto, he acted jointly and in concert with Mack, in his official capacity as an officer of the City of Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles Police Department.

      10. Plaintiffs allege that DOES 1 through 25 were or may have been involved in the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, and/or the Los Angeles Police Department’s internal failure to investigate the death of Christopher G. L. Wallace. Plaintiffs further allege that the identities and actions of these DOES 1 through 25 have been consciously concealed by the aforementioned Defendants.

      11. Plaintiffs allege that venue is proper within this jurisdictional district pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) in as much as all Defendants transact business and can be found within this district and that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.

      II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

      12. Each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs is incorporated herein by this reference with the same effect as if realleged herein.

      13. Christopher G. L. Wallace was killed at approximately 12:49 a.m. on March 9, 1997 within the City and County of Los Angeles. On the evening of the homicide, Christopher G. L. Wallace and numerous witnesses to his murder were attending a party at the Peterson Automotive Museum. At approximately 12:04 a.m. the Los Angeles City Fire Department called the Los Angeles Police Department requesting assistance with a large crowd that had gathered in the parking structure near the Museum. Numerous Los Angeles Police Department officers responded to assist with the crowd. At approximately 12:36 a.m. there was a report of shots fired in the vicinity of the Peterson Automotive Museum. Again, police responded. Sometime before 12:42 a caravan of three vehicles carrying Christopher G. L. Wallace and his group left the Peterson Automotive Museum. Numerous uniformed and undercover Los Angeles Police Department officers were present in the area of the Peterson Automotive Museum. The Los Angeles Police Department and its officers, including Defendant Parks, had specific knowledge Christopher G.L. Wallace would be, and was, present at the party at the Peterson Automotive Museum.

      14. As the vehicle in which Christopher G. L. Wallace was riding stopped at a traffic control signal, a black Chevy Impala SS pulled along side. The driver of the black Impala SS fired several shots from a firearm, hitting and killing Christopher G. L. Wallace. This shooting occurred just moments after shots were reported fired on the other side of the Peterson Automotive Museum. Despite the significant police presence, on duty police officers asserted they did not observe the shooter and he was not apprehended.

      15. Prior to the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, the Los Angeles Police Department knew or reasonably should have known: (a) there was an atmosphere of violence and alleged criminality surrounding an organization called Death Row Records and certain street gangs associated with Death Row Records and its agents, employees and/or representatives; (b) officers of the Los Angeles Police Department were also working along side of suspected and convicted criminals for Death Row records and/or were socializing with or affiliated with a certain street gang; (c) certain persons intimately associated with Death Row Records and an affiliated street gang had consistently exhibited significant animosity toward Christopher G. L. Wallace and his record label and blamed Christopher G. L. Wallace and his record label for the death of Tupac Shakur, a popular Death Row Recording Artist killed in September 1996, in Las Vegas, Nevada; and (d) that given the atmosphere of violence and criminality there was a foreseeable risk to Christopher G. L. Wallace posed by persons aligned with Death Row Records and a certain street gang, including members of the Los Angeles Police Department.

      16. Among the facts known to the Los Angeles Police Department at the time of the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace included without limitation the following :

          A. In September of 1993, Calvin Broadus, a/k/a Snoop Dog, a Death Row Records recording artist was charged, along with two others associated with Death Row Records, in the Murder of a gang member in Los Angeles. Forensic and ballistic evidence crucial to the case in the possession of the Los Angeles Police Department became missing from the Los Angeles Police Department Pacific Division. At the time the evidence became missing, Kevin Gaines, a Los Angeles Police Department officer, was living with Sharitha Knight of Death Row Records. At the time the evidence disappeared, Sharitha Knight was the producer for Calvin Broadus. Calvin Broadus was acquitted.

          B. On October 1, 1993, Tupac Shakur was arrested for allegedly shooting an off-duty Atlanta Police Officer. The charges were subsequently dropped.

          C. On November 1, 1993, Tupac Shakur was charged with sexually abusing a fan at a hotel in Midtown, New York. He was convicted.

          D. On August 1, 1994, Andre Young “Dr. Dre” a Death Row Records recording artist was sentenced for violating his probation on a 1993 battery conviction when he pled no contest to a drunk driving charge.

          E. On November 1, 1994, Tupac Shakur was shot five times during a robbery in the lobby of Quad Recording Studios, in the area of Times Square New York City. Christopher G. L. Wallace, and persons associated with Christopher G. L. Wallace, were inside the studio during the incident. Without evidence, Tupac Shakur and persons close to Death Row Records believed Christopher G. L. Wallace had knowledge or involvement in the shooting.

          F. On March 13, 1995 a gang member was murdered at a Death Row Records event at the El Rey Theatre. The police report states “Many of the security people at the party were off duty police officers, from Long Beach P.D., Compton P.D., Inglewood P.D., Hawthorne P.D., Los Angeles Police Department, all working for Wrightway Security. The victim was beaten by numerous Blood gang members while the off duty police officers watched. When the police arrived the off duty officers left the scene without giving a statement.”

          G. At the 1995 Source Awards Show, Marian Suge Knight of Death Row Records, made certain antagonistic remarks towards Sean Combs and Bad Boy Records, the label for which Christopher G. L. Wallace performed.

          H. On November 1, 1995, one month after the Source Award Show, it was reported that Suge Knight, of Death Row Records, accused Sean Combs, of being responsible for the Atlanta murder of Jai Robles.

          I. On November 1, 1995, Christopher G. L. Wallace was named rap artist of the year by Billboard Magazine. During this time, Tupac Shakur was recovering from the 1994 shooting and was charged with rape.

          J. On November 5, 1995, Officer R. McCaully of the Los Angeles Police Department was investigated by the Los Angeles Police Department for working for Death Row Records.

          K. Recording Artist Randy Stretch Walker, believed to be of Death Row Records, was murdered in a drive-by shooting in Queens, New York.

          L. During the winter of 1995, shots were fired at a trailer being used to record a video by Calvin Brodus, a/k/a Snoop Dog, a Death Row Records recording artist .

          M. Bad Boy Records released a recording performed by Christopher G. L. Wallace titled, “Who Shot Ya”. Death Row Records personnel believe the song was a reference to the November, 1994 shooting of Tupac Shakur of Death Row Records at Quad Studio.

          N. On December 18, 1995, following the MTV Awards, an individual named Mark Anthony Bell was reported to have been assaulted by members of Death Row Records seeking information on the whereabouts of Sean Combs. Mr. Bell reported on the tension and violence between Death Row Records and Bad Boy Records. Mr. Bell reports hearing radio communication, and was subsequently released. Upon his release, Los Angeles County Police Officers were present on the scene. Two off-duty officers were present at the Death Row Party during the reported assault of Mr. Bell.

          O. On December 18, 1995, following the Mark Bell assault, it was reported by the Los Angeles Police Department that Sean Combs requested certain well known individuals to arrange a meeting with Suge Knight of Death Row Records. Reportedly Suge Knight refused to meet. Sean Combs added additional bodyguards to his entourage.

          P. In May 1996, Death Row Records was investigated for zoning violations associated with numerous crimes of violence. Investigating officers report “There are armed security guards at this location in plain clothes and in security uniforms. These security officers are off-duty police officers and retired officers which are [Sic] employed by “Death Row Records.””

          Q. On March 7, 1996 a fight broke out between Death Row records personnel and Bad Boy Records personnel in the VIP area at the 1996 Soul Train Awards. Guns were reportedly brandished.

          R. Officers responding to Death Row Records note: “Snoop-Doggie-Dog was present at the location with 15-20 additional gang members. t[sic]here was also armed security guards present at the location in security uniforms. Also present were off duty black police officers from Hawthorne P.D. and other unk[sic] agencies. I was informed by the manager of the studio and other security officers that were present at the location that a [sic] O[sic]fficer from Metro/ Los Angeles Police Department was also employed at this location. They further stated that they work directly for Snoop-Doggie-Dog as his body guard service.”

          S. On June 1, 1996, the Los Angeles Police Department was informed that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was conducting a federal investigation of Death Row Records concerning firearms violations and that the IRS was conducting a simultaneous investigation for tax evasion.

          T. On June 2, 1996, a meeting was held between the Los Angeles Police Department and Death Row Records to discuss dissatisfaction with armed security personnel and the possibility of armed confrontations with Police and security personnel or gang members who frequent the location.” Issues of off-duty Police Officers working at the location were also discussed.

          U. In August of 1996, police respond to a call at the home of Sharitha Knight. Los Angeles Police officer Kevin Gaines was present and had a confrontation with the responding police officers.

          V. On August 18, 1996, four identified gang members were arrested as they left Death Row Records. A semi-automatic handgun and two ski masks are recovered at the time of the arrest.

          W. On September 7, 1996, Orlando Anderson, a/k/a Baby Lane, purportedly a recording artist with Bad Boy Records, was assaulted in the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas on the night of the Tyson v. Holifield fight. Marian “Suge” Knight, Tupac Shakur, and other Death Row Records personnel allegedly committed the assault in response to the continuing tensions between the two record companies.

          X. On September 7, 1996, Los Angeles Police Department officers David Mack and Kevin Gains, were present in Las Vegas for the Tyson v. Holifield fight.

          Y. On September 7, 1996, Tupac Shakur of Death Row Records was shot in Las Vegas in the car driven by Marian Suge Knight after he left the MGM Grand Hotel. Shakur died 6 days later.

          Z. On September 9, 1996 the Los Angeles Police Department reported: “[S]ources close to Death Row Records indicated there was an East coast rivalry and recording power struggle between “Bad Boy Entertainment: from New York headed by Sean “Puffy” Combs, affiliated with Los Angeles Crips connection Mike Conception; against Suge Knight, Tupac Shakur and Death Row Records.”

          AA. On September 9, 1996, according to a Compton Police Department Search Warrant Affidavit of a gang associated with Death Row Records, gang members met at Leuders Park to discuss retaliation against south side Cripps Gang members for the Tupac Shakur shooting.

          BB. The Los Angeles Police Department learned that Leslie Gaulden, an Inglewood School Police Officer was working for Death Row Records.

          CC. Purported Death Row Records recording artists T-Cox, Malcolm R. Greenidge, and Asinia Adigun Tyehimba were arrested for attempted robbery of a liquor store. The suspects were armed with a Llama .45 caliber handgun.

          DD. On October 22, 1996, Marian “Suge” Knight was incarcerated in the LA County Jail for probation violation stemming from a 1992 assault conviction.

          EE. On October 23, 1996, while the Los Angeles Police Department was interviewing Death Row Records employees, the interview was disrupted by Alwyn Gittens, a San Bernaino County Sheriffs reserve officer working security for Death Row Records.

          FF. On November 4, 1996, the FBI received a call from an Los Angeles Police Department officer identifying himself as Officer R. McCauley inquiring as to whether the FBI had an ongoing investigation on Death Row Records, and pleaded with the FBI to contact him on a pager number. McCaully was investigated for ties to Death Row Records in November 1995.

          GG. The Los Angeles Times reported that after joining Death Row Records in 1995, Tupac Shakur escalated verbal attacks against Bad Boy Records and Christopher G. L. Wallace.

          HH. On March 9, 1997, Christopher G. L. Wallace was murdered.

          II. On March 15, 1997, Terran Ferguson, an employee of Death Row Records, called the Los Angeles Police Department and said he heard Knight brag about killing Christopher G. L. Wallace.

          JJ. Shortly after the murder of Christopher Wallace, an anonymous person placed a telephone call to the Plaintiff Voletta Wallace and stated that a person identified as “D. Mack” was involved in the murder of Christopher Wallace. The Plaintiff Voletta Wallace spoke with the Los Angeles Police Department, gave them the information she had received from the anonymous caller, and requested they investigate. The Plaintiff Voletta Wallace was told by the Los Angeles Police Department that there were over 500 “D. Mack’s” in the phone directory. No other follow up on this clue was made by the Los Angeles Police Department. The Plaintiff Voletta Wallace did not learn that there was a Los Angeles Police officer named “D. Mack” until reading the June 7, 2001, article in Rolling Stone Magazine.
      17. Despite possessing the knowledge stated herein, the Los Angeles Police Department failed to take objectively reasonable steps to investigate, discipline, or prosecute those officers involved with Death Row Records or an affiliated street gang.

      18. Despite knowing that Christopher G. L. Wallace would be present at the party at the Peterson Automotive Museum, and that persons affiliated with Death Row Records and an affiliated street gang including, and in particular, Officer David Mack and other police officers, posed a risk of danger to persons affiliated with Bad Boy Records and Christopher G. L. Wallace in particular, the Los Angeles Police Department took no extra precautions to secure the party venue, no steps to investigate, discipline, or prosecute those officers involved with Death Row Records or an affiliated street gang.

      19. Based on information and knowledge in the possession of the Los Angeles Police Department, David Mack and Amir Muhammad and certain unknown persons conspired to murder Christopher G. L. Wallace. The Los Angeles Police Department’s intentional failure to investigate the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace has deprived the Plaintiffs of additional information relating to culpability or nonculpability of the Defendants David Mack and Amir Muhammad as well as the involvement and culpability of unknown persons who may be culpable in the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace.

      20. Based on information and knowledge in the possession of the Los Angeles Police Department, Defendants Amir Muhammad and David Mack and certain unknown persons murdered Christopher G. L. Wallace.

      21. The facts of this murder relating to Amir Muhammad include, without limitation, the following:
          A. Witnesses observed a light skinned African American male with a receding hair line and an angular face dressed in a suit with a bow tie (the type of dress Los Angeles Police Department officers describe as favored by members of a certain religious organization) standing in the parking lot watching them prior to leaving the museum.

          B. Witnesses saw this same man walk toward the area where the shooting would occur.

          C. Prior to the shooting witnesses observed a Black Chevy Impalla SS parked across the street from the Peterson Automotive Museum and in the direction the man dressed in the suit and bow tie was walking.

          D. The shooter was driving a black Chevy Impalla SS.

          E. The shooter was wearing a bow tie.

          F. Immediately after the shooting the Los Angeles Police Department employed a professional sketch artist to render a sketch of the person the witnesses described as having shot Christopher G. L. Wallace. Witnesses stated that the Los Angeles Police Department composite matches the man observed prior to the shooting who was dressed in the suit and bow tie.

          G. A confidential informant told police the shooter’s name was “Amir or Ashmir” or "Abraham" and that he was a member of a certain religious organization that the Los Angeles Police Department describes as favoring suits with bow ties.

          H. A witness positively identified Amir Muhammad as the person with the suit and bow tie present on the night of the murder and indicated he was the person sketched by the police artist.

          I. Surveillance video from the night of the murder showed a man in a bow tie present on the property who is the same height and of the same build as Amir Muhammad.

          J. The Los Angeles Police Department Composite sketch bears a positive resemblance to Amir Muhammad.

          K. Despite having knowledge of the above stated evidence, the Los Angeles Police Department does not investigate Amir Muhammad for the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace.
      22. The facts of this murder relating to David Mack include, without limitation, the following:
          A. At all times pertinent hereto, David Mack was a member of the Los Angeles Police Department.

          B. David Mack was recruited onto the Los Angeles Police Department directly by Police Chief Parks.

          C. At all times pertinent hereto, David Mack was a member of a violent street gang associated with Death Row Records. The Los Angeles Police Department and Chief Parks in particular knew or should have known Mack was involved with this gang. Membership in this gang was in conflict with his duties as a police officer.

          D. At all times pertinent hereto, David Mack, was associating socially with and was working as a covert agent for Death Row Records. Said company was being investigated for multiple crimes of violence. The owner of this company is a convicted felon who is a member of a certain street gang. The Los Angeles Police Department and Chief Parks in particular knew or should have known Mack was involved with this company. Association with and employment with this company was in conflict with Mack’s duties as a police officer.

          E. Mack was a member of the same religious organization as Amir Muhammad and which the Los Angeles Police Department described as favoring suits with bow ties.

          F. Mack was accused of and ultimately convicted of bank robbery. During a search of his home the police discovered evidence linking him to the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace.

          G. Mack was the registered owner of a Black 95 Impala SS, the exact type of vehicle used in the murder.

          H. Mack had life-sized posters of Tupac Shakur in his garage. Los Angeles Police Department reports call it a “shrine.”

          I. The first person to visit Mack in Jail after the bank robbery was Amir Muhammad.

          J. A witness identified Mack as having been present at the Peterson Automotive Museum party on the night of the murder.

          K. The manner in which the bank robbery was committed demonstrates a pattern of conduct or modus apperandi used by Mack to commit crimes, to wit:
              i) Mack took “FI” (family illness) days off immediately before and after the shooting of Christopher G. L. Wallace.

              ii) Mack took “FI” days off immediately before and after bank robbery.

              iii) Mack used a Black '95 Impala SS as a third get away car on bank heist.

              iv) A black '95 Impala SS was used in the shooting of Christopher G. L. Wallace.

              v) Witnesses recalled hearing police radio traffic coming from suspects in the bank getaway. The Los Angeles Police Department thought this evidence was sufficiently indicative of police officer involvement that it was used in obtaining a search warrant for Mack’s home in the robbery investigation.

              vi) Mack told an accomplice he had police radios and knew how everything would work out.

              vii) Mack had access to police communications on the night of Christopher G. L. Wallace’s murder. Police communication equipment was found in the search of his home.

              viii) A day after the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, Los Angeles Police Department officers interviewed a confidential informant who implicated Officer Mack.
          L. Christopher G. L. Wallace was killed in a very efficient, organized and professional manner suggesting that a high degree of coordination and planning preceded his murder. There were numerous police officers and witnesses in the vicinity of the murder. Police had just been called to the front of the building due to shots having been fired in the air. No on duty LA police officers were in the vicinity of the Murder. The murderers had access to equipment (police radio) and knowledge of police tactics, which would allow them to strike at precisely the right time. This follows the pattern demonstrated by Mack during the bank robbery.

          M. It was well known to the Los Angeles Police Department that Defendant Mack is closely associated with Officers Perez and Gaines. The Los Angeles Police Department knew that Gaines, Perez and Mack were conducting coordinated efforts involving serious criminal conduct. Mack had access to numerous items of Police property, including police scanners, taken illegally by Officer Perez. Approximately $700,000.00 is still missing from Mack’s bank robbery.

          N. Shortly after the murder of Christopher Wallace, an anonymous person placed a telephone call to the Plaintiff Voletta Wallace and stated that a person identified as “D. Mack” was involved in the murder of Christopher Wallace. The Plaintiff Voletta Wallace spoke with the Los Angeles Police Department, gave them the information she had received from the anonymous caller, and requested they investigate. The Plaintiff Voletta Wallace was told by the Los Angeles Police Department that there were over 500 “D. Mack’s” in the phone directory. No other follow up on this clue was made by the Los Angeles Police Department. The Plaintiff Voletta Wallace did not learn that there was a Los Angeles Police officer named “D. Mack” until reading the June 7, 2001, article in Rolling Stone Magazine.

          O. Despite having knowledge of the above stated evidence the Los Angeles Police Department did not investigate David Mack for the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace.
      23. The actions of the Defendants Muhammad and Mack and certain unknown persons were committed under color of California State Law and subjected the Plaintiffs named herein to deprivation of their rights under the United States Constitution and the Constitution and Laws of the State of California. The actions of the Defendants, as described herein, have damaged the Plaintiffs as hereinafter stated and they should be allowed to recover their damages as provided in 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 1985.

      24. The majority of the facts demonstrating the actions of the Defendants were under color of state law are in the possession of the Defendants stated herein and have been intentionally and fraudulently concealed from the Plaintiffs in an attempt to frustrate or prevent the Plaintiffs from fully discovering their causes of actions. The information discovered by the Plaintiffs to date is as follows:
          A. Los Angeles Police Department policy provides that LA police officers are always clothed with official authority to prevent crimes occurring in their presence. Specifically, off-duty officers have peace officer authority as to any public offense committed in his presence to which there is an immediate danger to person or property. Off duty officers are to give first consideration in ensuring the appropriate action be taken by the responsible law enforcement agency. Such officers should then act only after consideration of “their possible liability and that of the city of LA. " At all times pertinent to the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, David Mack was clothed with “peace officer authority” and had a duty to prevent or report crimes occurring in his presence.

          B. Los Angeles Police Department policy provides that an employee engaged in outside employment shall conduct himself in the same manner as if on duty with particular emphasis on attention to duty and prevention of violations by his employer. David Mack had a duty to prevent or report crimes occurring in his presence.

          C. Los Angeles Police Department Policy provides that an officer, while engaged in outside employment, shall take proper action on any offense that would normally require police attention. Crimes relating to the Murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace are the type of crimes that would normally require police attention.

          D. A concealed firearm carried by an off-duty officer shall be limited to those approved by the department.

          E. As stated previously herein, the Los Angeles Police Department knew or reasonably should have known its officers provided security for street gangs and other criminal organizations during various criminal activities. The officers accompanied the members during drug deals and acted as lookouts and advisors. The officers monitored police frequencies, assisted in choosing locations for drug transactions, and gave information on police tactics.

          F. Defendant Mack’s modus operendi for committing crimes required access to and knowledge of police communications equipment and police tactics. During the bank robbery committed by Mack, witnesses recalled hearing police radio traffic coming from suspects in the bank getaway. Mack told his accomplice in the bank robbery he had police radios and would know the position and timing of police response. Mack’s position with the Los Angeles Police Department allowed him to know the position of law enforcement personnel on March 9, 1997, the night of the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace;

          G. The murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace involved precision timing and occurred in front of numerous police officers and other witnesses. The manner in which the crime was committed suggests a high degree of sophistication, access to police communications and knowledge of police tactics, all of which Defendant Mack possessed as the result of his position as a Los Angeles police officer;

          H. Former police officers were used by Death Row Records to avoid the need to obtain gun permits.

          I. The Los Angeles Police Department policy and procedures manual demonstrates a clear intent to govern the off duty conduct by police officers.
      25. The actions of the Defendants as above described far exceeded the authority given them by law. The Defendants’ training was inadequate and lacking as evidenced by their actions and as will be shown at the time of trial.

      26. The Defendants acted in consort and conspired to deprive the public and the Plaintiffs of protected rights.

      27. The acts of the officers were done knowingly and were reckless and conscious violations of the rights of the Plaintiffs named herein.

      28. The Defendants intentionally, willfully, and recklessly prevented a full and thorough investigation regarding the murder of the Decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace. Defendant Parks intentionally, willfully and recklessly delayed and stopped the investigation of the murder of the Decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace, as soon as it became apparent officers employed by the Los Angeles Police Department were involved in the murder. This delay and preemption of the investigation into the murder of the Decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace, was intended to protect the Los Angeles Police Department, the City of Los Angeles, and the individual Defendants named herein.

      29. Facts associated with the Los Angeles Police Department’s failure to investigate the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace include, but are not limited to the following:


          A. In 1996, Detective Russell Poole of the Los Angeles Police Department was assigned to the robbery/homicide division of the Los Angeles Police Department. He was loaned to the robbery/homicide task force and was assigned to investigate Los Angeles Police Department officers including, but not limited to, Los Angeles Police Department Officers Brian Hewett, David Mack, Kevin Gains, and Raphael Perez of the Rampart Division. He was likewise assigned to investigate Rampart Los Angeles Police Department Officers Daniel Lujon, and Ethan Kohan.

          B. During the course and scope of Detective Poole’s investigation he learned that the above-referenced officers, including officer David Mack, were involved in conduct and activities that constituted the commission of criminal offenses and individual federal civil rights violations. His investigation likewise revealed that these officers, including Officer David Mack, established and maintained relationships with known felons and that certain of these officers, including Officer Mack, had been closely associated with Death Row Records.

          C. Shortly after the murder of Christopher Wallace, an anonymous person placed a telephone call to the Plaintiff Voletta Wallace and stated that a person identified as “D. Mack” was involved in the murder of Christopher Wallace. The Plaintiff Voletta Wallace spoke with the Los Angeles Police Department, gave them the information she had received from the anonymous caller, and requested they investigate. The Plaintiff Voletta Wallace was told by the Los Angeles Police Department that there were over 500 “D. Mack’s” in the phone directory. No other follow up on this clue was made by the Los Angeles Police Department. The Plaintiff Voletta Wallace did not learn that there was a Los Angeles Police officer named “D. Mack” until reading the June 7, 2001, article in Rolling Stone Magazine.

          D. In February of 1998, Detective Poole interviewed a confidential informant regarding the murder of Christopher Wallace. Detective Poole showed the confidential informant numerous photographs of Los Angeles Police Department officers. The confidential informant identified David Mack as being present at numerous Death Row Records events.

          E. In May 1998, Detective Pool again met with the confidential informant and showed him a video tape of the party at the Peterson Automotive Museum that was taken just before the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace. The confidential informant identified a number of persons present on the videotape. At this time, the confidential informant told Detective Poole that he had knowledge regarding the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace and requested to speak with the Assistant District Attorney of Los Angeles County.

          F. In September of 1998, Detective Poole forwarded the reports of his various investigations to his superiors, including Defendant Parks. Detective Poole requested permission to write a detailed report, conduct further investigations, and expand his investigation to include the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace. In response to Detective Poole’s request, Defendant Parks explicitly, and unequivocally prohibited Detective Poole from conducting further investigation of Detective Mack’s involvement in the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace.

          G. Detective Poole stated that in his opinion it was apparent to him that in September or October of 1998, Defendant Parks did not want him to pursue a more expansive investigation that would in all likelihood expose or implicate the Los Angeles Police Department, certain Los Angels Police Department officers and detectives, and the City of Los Angeles, for not properly investigating or disciplining officer involvement in criminal activity including, without limitation, the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace.
      30. The Defendants as stated herein intentionally concealed their failure to investigate as set forth herein, and willfully and intentionally, prevented the public, and the Plaintiffs in particular from discovering the culpability or non-culpability of Defendants Mack and Muhammed, the culpability, or non-culpability of certain unknown Defendants, and the role of the Los Angeles Police Department in failing to properly investigate the role of the Los Angeles Police Department in the murder of the decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace.

      31. Defendants Parks, Lewis and Williams, individually and as current or former Chiefs of the Los Angeles Police Department, were charged with the responsibility of supervising the operations of their personnel and were obligated to ensure that their personnel were adequately trained so that they may carry out their duties without violating the Constitutional Rights of United States Citizens. The manner in which the Defendants violated the Plaintiffs rights, as stated herein, constitute proof that the level of training or supervision received by the Los Angeles Police Department was so poor as to constitute a deliberate indifference to the rights of the Persons within Los Angeles, California. The manner in which Defendants Parks, Lewis, and Williams trained and supervised the officers under their command was so grossly negligent, reckless and willfully wanton so as to demonstrate a deliberate indifference to persons within Los Angeles, California.

      32. On or about March 1, 2000, in a public report regarding the Board of Inquiry into the Rampart Area corruption incident, the Los Angeles Police Department acknowledged itself as an organization that provided Los Angeles police officers opportunities to violate the civil rights of citizens of the United States. The Los Angeles Police Department particularly acknowledged a failure to carefully review reports, a failure to examine events closely to identify patterns, and a failure to provide effective oversight and auditing, all of which created an opportunity for members of the Los Angeles Police Department to violate the civil rights of United States citizens. These aforementioned admitted failures were a cause of the injuries, damages, and losses suffered by the Plaintiffs.

      33. There have been numerous cases filed against the City of Los Angeles relating to corruption and civil rights violations. These cases are generically referred to as “The Rampart” cases. These cases show a pattern or practice of civil rights violations so ingrained as to constitute a policy of the Los Angeles Police Department. These cases demonstrate a policy, custom, and practice in respect to the failure on the part of the Los Angeles Police Department to adequately train and supervise. Failure to train, as demonstrated by the Rampart cases, suggests a level of a deliberate indifference of the rights of persons. As a result of repeated civil rights abuses, the Los Angeles Police Department is now operating under a federal consent decree in respect to their law enforcement activities and is under federal supervision.

      34. At all times pertinent hereto, all Defendants have conspired to, and have actively taken steps to conceal the facts and circumstances giving rise to the death of Christopher G. L. Wallace. These steps of active concealment have included, but are not limited to, ordering police investigators to not investigate the role of David Mack and Amir Muhammed in the death of Christopher G. L. Wallace, failing to disclose to the public that investigators had been ordered not to investigate the role of David Mack or Amir Muhammed in the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, failing to disclose to the public, and the Plaintiffs in particular, the state of the investigation into the death of the decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace, failing to disclose to the public and the Plaintiffs in particular, information implicating David Mack, Amir Muhammed and certain unknown persons in the death of the decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace, and in all ways concealing from the public and the Plaintiffs in particular, those facts which were required to allow the Plaintiffs, in the exercise of reasonable care, to have that base of knowledge upon which to determine that a civil action was appropriate, and the persons against whom such action should be brought. The steps of active concealment undertaken by all Defendants herein have substantially deprived the Plaintiffs of an opportunity to discover the facts and circumstances surrounding the death of Christopher G. L. Wallace, and to discover potential and specific causes of action against each Defendant. The Defendants continue to take active steps to conceal the facts and circumstances giving rise to the death of Christopher G. L. Wallace. The Plaintiffs only became aware of the facts and circumstances set forth herein in this Complaint when investigative articles were published on or about June, 2001.

      III. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
      DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE COURT
      AND A FAIR TRIAL14TH AMENDMENT, 42 U.S.C. §1983



      35. Each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs is incorporated herein by this reference with the same effect as if realleged herein.

      36. At all times pertinent hereto, the Defendants, City and County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Police Department, and Parks, Williams and Lewis, had a duty to investigate the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, and in the alternative, had a duty not to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ investigation of the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace.

      37. The Defendants referenced herein, and Chief Parks in particular, intentionally, and willfully, failed to investigate the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, intentionally, and fraudulently, concealed information regarding the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, and tortiously interfered with the Plaintiffs’ ability to discover persons involved with the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, and to prove same.

      38. The Defendants intentionally, willfully and recklessly refused a full and thorough investigation regarding the murder of the Decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace. Defendant Parks intentionally, willfully and recklessly delayed and stopped the investigation of the murder of the Decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace, as soon as it became apparent officers employed by the Los Angeles Police Department were associated or involved in the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace. This delay and preemption of the investigation into the murder of the Decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace, was intended to protect the Los Angeles Police Department, the City of Los Angeles, and the individual Defendants named herein.

      39. Facts associated with the Los Angeles Police Department’s failure to investigate include, but are not limited to the following:

          A. In 1996, Detective Russell Poole of the Los Angeles Police Department was assigned to the robbery/homicide division of the LAPD. He was loaned to the robbery/homicide task force and was assigned to investigate Los Angles Police Department officers including, but not limited to, Los Angeles Police Department Officers Brian Hewett, David Mack, Kevin Gains, and Raphael Perez of the Rampart Division. He was likewise assigned to investigate Rampart Los Angeles Police Department Officers Daniel Lujon and Ethan Kohan.

          B. During the course and scope of Detective Poole’s investigation he learned that the above-referenced officers, including officer David Mack, were involved in conduct and activities that constituted criminal offenses and individual federal civil rights violations. His investigation likewise revealed that these officers, including Officer David Mack, established and maintained relationships with known felons and that certain of these officers, including Officer Mack, had been intimately associated with Death Row Records.

          C. Shortly after the murder of Christopher Wallace, an anonymous person placed a telephone call to the Plaintiff Voletta Wallace and stated that a person identified as “D. Mack” was involved in the murder of Christopher Wallace. The Plaintiff Voletta Wallace spoke with the Los Angeles Police Department, gave them the information she had received from the anonymous caller, and requested they investigate. The Plaintiff Voletta Wallace was told by the Los Angeles Police Department that there were over 500 “D. Mack’s” in the phone directory. No other follow up on this clue was made by the Los Angeles Police Department. The Plaintiff Voletta Wallace did not learn that there was a Los Angeles Police officer named “D. Mack” until reading the June 7, 2001, article in Rolling Stone Magazine.

          D. In February of 1998, Detective Poole interviewed a confidential informant regarding the murder of Christopher Wallace. Detective Poole showed the confidential informant numerous photographs of Los Angeles Police Department officers. The confidential informant identified David Mack as being present at numerous Death Row Records events.

          E. In May 1998, Detective Pool again met with the confidential informant and showed him a video tape of the party at the Peterson Automotive Museum that was taken just before the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace. The confidential informant identified a number of persons present on the videotape. At this time, the confidential informant told Detective Poole that he had knowledge regarding the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, and requested to speak with the Assistant District Attorney of Los Angeles County.

          F. In September of 1998, Detective Poole reported the reports of his various investigations to his superiors, including Defendant Parks. Detective Poole requested permission to write a detailed report, conduct further investigations, and conduct his investigation to include the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace. In response to Detective Poole’s request, Defendant Parks explicitly, and unequivocally prohibited Detective Poole from conducting further investigation of Detective Mack’s involvement in the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace.

          G. Detective Poole stated that in his opinion that it was apparent to him that in September or October of 1998, Defendant Parks did not want him to pursue a more expansive investigation that would in all likelihood expose or implicate the Los Angeles Police Department, certain LAPD officers and detective, and the City of Los Angeles, for not properly investigating or disciplining officer involvement in criminal activity including the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace.

          H. The Los Angeles Police Department failed to interview material witnesses relating to the death of Christopher G. L. Wallace, including, but not limited to, persons present on the scene and potential suspects themselves.

          I. The Los Angeles Police Department failed to investigate or interview David Mack in relation to the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace.

          J. The Los Angeles Police Department failed to interview Amir Muhammad in relation to the death of Christopher G. L. Wallace.

          K. The Los Angeles Police Department failed to conduct forensics examinations on the black Impalla automobile owned by David Mack.

          L. The Los Angeles Police Department failed to determine whether the ammunition found during the search warrant of David Mack’s home matched the ammunition used in the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace.

          M. The Los Angeles Police Department failed to conduct a full and complete financial background check on David Mack.

          N. The Los Angeles Police Department failed to conduct a full investigation regarding David Mack’s contacts with Amir Muhammad.

          O. The Los Angeles Police Department failed to conduct a full investigation regarding David Mack’s involvement with street gangs, or his involvement with Amir Muhammad.

          P. The Los Angeles Police Department failed to conduct a background investigation regarding Amir Muhammad’s relationship with a street gang affiliated with Death Row Records.

          Q. Chief Parks specifically instructed detectives assigned to investigate the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace to not investigate David Mack.

          R. The Los Angeles Police Department was informed the day after the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace as to the possible involvement of Defendant Mack. The Los Angeles Police Department failed to follow up on this information.

          S. The Los Angeles Police Department was informed by a confidential informant that he could “deliver the murderer of Christopher G. L. Wallace” to the police. Los Angeles Police Department failed to take steps to follow up on this potential lead regarding the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace.

          T. Defendants as stated herein, acting in their official capacity, were reckless and grossly negligent, and breached their duty to the Decedent, and the Plaintiffs in this action, to properly investigate circumstances of the Decedent’s death, failing to investigate circumstances which would be obviously suspicious to any well-trained law enforcement officer, and to intentionally conceal information implicating officers with the Los Angeles County Police Department in the death of Christopher G. L. Wallace.
      40. The Defendants have actively concealed their failure to investigate the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, and have further actively concealed those steps they have taken to frustrate the Plaintiffs’ attempts to prove who murdered Christopher G. L. Wallace.

      41. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspired to deprive the Plaintiffs of their due process right to access to the court and a fair trial under the 14th Amendment. Such conspiratorial agreement and concerted conduct committed thereunder constitutes actionable federal civil rights conspiracy in contravention of 42 U.S.C. §1985(3) and 42 U.S.C. §1983.

      42. The aforementioned Defendants in this claim for relief are conspiratorially liable as co-conspirators based upon the following: (a) Defendants are members of a conspiracy intended to violate the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights; (b) Defendants engaged in activities in furtherance of advancing or promoting their conspiracy designed and intended to violate the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights; (c) Defendants were and are members of a conspiracy during the time frame that fraudulent activities were committed that constitute a violation of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights; and (d) the offense fell within the scope of the unlawful agreement and could reasonably have been foreseen to be a necessarily or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement.

      43. In committing the above-described acts, the Defendants, and each of them, have deprived the Plaintiffs of an opportunity to prove the facts and circumstances relating to the death of Christopher G. L. Wallace and Defendants Mack's and Muhammad’s and certain unknown persons’ involvement therein. In committing the above-described acts, the Defendants conspired for the purpose of impeding or injuring the Plaintiff’s rights of equal protection under the laws, thereby giving rise to a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1985(2). See Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F.2d 1205, 1261 (7th Cir. 1984).

      44. These violations of the Plaintiffs’ 14th Amendment Rights by the Defendants, have caused the Plaintiffs injuries, damages and losses as stated herein.

      IV. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF THE CONDUCT OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT DEMONSTRATES A LACK OF TRAINING AND SUPERVISION RISING TO THE LEVEL OF DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS IN LOS ANGELES IN VIOLATION OF THE 14th AMENDMENT, 42 U.S.C. §1983



      45. Each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs is incorporated herein by this reference with the same effect as if realleged herein.

      46. On March 9, 1997, there existed a clearly established federal right protecting citizens of the United States from failures of training or supervision of police officers which rise to the level of a deliberate indifference to rights of Citizens in violation of the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.

      47. Parks, Lewis, and Williams, current or former Chiefs of the Los Angeles Police Department, are charged with the responsibility of supervising the operations of their personnel and are obligated to assure that their personnel are adequately trained and supervised so that they may carry out their duties without violating the Constitutional Rights of United States Citizens.

      48. Parks, Lewis, and Williams knew to a moral certainty, that their employees would confront situations wherein police officers may be compromised by organizations involved in criminal conduct. Such circumstances require close and proper training and supervision by police officials.

      49. Parks, Lewis, and Williams, knew to a moral certainty, that their employees would confront situations wherein police officers might be involved in criminal conduct. Such circumstances require close and proper training and supervision by police officials.

      50. In matters regarding an off-duty police officer engaging in criminal conduct or associating with organizations actively involved in criminal activity, lack of proper supervision and investigation of the officer and his/her activities will frequently cause a deprivation of a citizen’s constitutional rights and at all times pertinent hereto, it was foreseeable that said deliberate indifference would cause harm to the decedent Christopher G. L. Wallace.

      51. The Los Angeles Police Department’s failure to intervene in its officers known association with organizations involved in criminal activity including Death Row Records and an affiliated street gang demonstrated a deliberate indifference to the rights of citizens of the United States and gave rise to a reasonably foreseeable violation of the rights of Christopher G. L. Wallace.

      52. The Los Angeles Police Department’s failure to intervene in its officers known association with organizations involved in criminal activity including Death Row Records and an affiliated street gang was so entrenched or ingrained in the Los Angeles Police Department so as to constitute a policy of the Los Angeles Police Department and the City of Los Angeles.

      53. Prior to the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, the Los Angeles Police Department knew: 1) there was an atmosphere of violence and criminality surrounding an organization called Death Row Records and certain street gangs which associated with Death Row Records and its agents, employees or representatives; 2) officers of the Los Angeles Police Department were working for Death Row records and/or were socializing with or affiliated with the street gang; 3) certain persons close to Death Row Records and the affiliated street gang had significant animosity toward Christopher G. L. Wallace and his record label and blamed Christopher G. L. Wallace and his record label for the death of Tupac Shakur, a popular Death Row Artist; and 4) that given the atmosphere of violence and criminality there was a foreseeable risk to Christopher G. L. Wallace posed by persons aligned with Death Row Records and an affiliated street gang, including members of the Los Angeles Police Department.

      54. Among the facts known to the Los Angeles Police Department at the time of the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace include, without limitation, the following:

          A. In September of 1993, Calvin Broadus, a/k/a Snoop Dog, a Death Row Records was recording artist charged, along with two others associated with Death Row Records, in the Murder of a gang member in Los Angeles. Forensic and ballistic evidence crucial to the case in the possession of the Los Angeles Police Department became missing from the Los Angeles Police Department Pacific Division. At the time the evidence became missing, Kevin Gaines, a Los Angeles Police Department officer, was living with Sharitha Knight of Death Row Records. At the time the evidence became missing Sharitha Knight was the producer for Calvin Broadus. Calvin Broadus was acquitted.

          B. On October 1, 1993, Tupac Shakur was arrested for allegedly shooting an off-duty Atlanta Police Officer. The charges were subsequently dropped.

          C. On November 1, 1993, Tupac Shakur was charged with sexually abusing a fan at a hotel in Midtown, New York. He was convicted.

          D. On August 1, 1994, Andre Young a/k/a “Dr. Dre.” a Death Row Records recording artist was sentenced for violating his probation on a 1993 battery conviction when he pled no contest to a drunk driving charge.

          E. On November 1, 1994, Tupac Shakur was shot five times during a robbery in the lobby of Quad Recording Studios, Times Square, New York. Christopher G. L. Wallace, and persons associated with Christopher G. L. Wallace, were inside the studio during the incident. Without evidence, Tupac Shakur and persons close to Death Row Records believed Christopher G. L. Wallace had knowledge or involvement in the shooting.

          F. On March 13, 1995 a gang member was murdered at a Death Row Records event at the El Rey Theatre. The police report states “Many of the security people at the party were off duty police officers, from Long Beach P.D., Compton P.D., Inglewood P.D., Hawthorne P.D., Los Angeles Police Department, all working for Wrightway Security. The victim was beaten by numerous Blood gang members while the off duty police officers watched and failed to make arrests. When the police arrived the off duty officers left the scene without giving a statement.”

          G. At the 1995 Source Awards Show in New York City, Suge Knight, of Death Row Records, made certain antagonistic remarks towards Sean Combs, CEO and owner of Bad Boy Records, the label for which Christopher G. L. Wallace performed.

          H. On November 1, 1995, one month after the Source Award Show, it was reported that Suge Knight, of Death Row Records, accused Sean Combs, of Christopher G. L. Wallace’s label of being responsible for the Atlanta murder of Jai Robles.

          I. On November 1, 1995, Christopher G. L. Wallace was named rap artist of the year by Billboard Magazine. During this time, Tupac Shakur was recovering from the 1994 shooting and was charged with rape.

          J. On November 5, 1995, Officer R. McCaully of the Los Angeles Police Department was investigated for working for Death Row Records.

          K. Recording Artist Randy Stretch Walker, believed to be of Death Row Records, was murdered in a drive-by shooting in Queens, New York.

          L. During the winter of 1995, shots were fired at a trailer being used to record a video by Calvin Brodus, a/k/a Snoop Dog, a Death Row Records recording artist.

          M. Bad Boy Records released a recording performed by Christopher G. L. Wallace titled, “Who Shot Ya”. Death Row Records personnel believe the song was a reference to Tupac Shakur of Death Row Records being shot at Wallace’s recording studio in November 1994.

          N. On December 18, 1995, following the MTV Awards in New York City, an individual named Mark Anthony Bell was assaulted by members of Death Row Records seeking information on the whereabouts of Sean Combs. Mr. Bell reported on the tension and violence between Death Row Records and Bad Boy Records. Mr. Bell reports hearing radio communication, and was subsequently released. Upon his release, Los Angeles County Police Officers were present on the scene. Two off-duty officers were present at the Death Row Party during the reported assault of Mr. Bell.

          O. On December 18, 1995, following the Mark Bell assault, it was reported by the Los Angeles Police Department Sean Combs requested certain well known individuals to arrange a meeting with Suge Knight of Death Row Records. Reportedly Suge Knight refused to meet. Sean Combs added additional bodyguards to his entourage.

          P. In May 1996, Death Row Records was investigated for zoning violations associated with numerous crimes of violence. Investigating officers report “There are armed security guards at this location in plain clothes and in security uniforms. These security officers are off-duty police officers and retired officers which [sic] are employed by “Death Row Records.””

          Q. On March 7, 1996, a fight broke out between Death Row Records personnel and Bad Boy Records personnel recording artists in the VIP area at the 1996 Soul Train Awards. Guns were reportedly brandished.

          R. Officers responding to Death Row Records note: “Snoop-Doggie-Dog was present at the location with 15-20 additional gang members. t[sic]here was also armed security guards present at the location in security uniforms. Also present were off duty black police officers from Hawthorne P.D. and other unk[sic] agencies. I was informed by the manager of the studio and other security officers that were present at the location that a [sic] O[sic]fficer from Metro/ Los Angeles Police Department was also employed at this location. They further stated that they work directly for Snoop-Doggie-Dog as his body guard service.”

          S. On June 1, 1996, the Los Angeles Police Department was informed that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was conducting a federal investigation of Death Row Records concerning firearms violations along with the IRS for tax evasion.

          T. On June 2, 1996, a meeting was held between the Los Angeles Police Department and Death Row Records to discuss “dissatisfaction with armed security personnel and the possibility of armed confrontations with Police and security personnel or gang members who frequent the location.” Issues of off-duty Police Officers working at the location were also discussed.

          U. In August of 1996, police respond to a call at the home of Sharitha Knight. Los Angeles Police officer Kevin Gaines was present and had a confrontation with the responding police officers.

          V. On August 18, 1996, four identified gang members were arrested as they left Death Row Records. A semi-automatic handgun and two ski masks are recovered at the time of the arrest.

          W. On September 7, 1996, Orlando Anderson, a/k/a Baby Lane, purportedly a recording artist with Bad Boy Records, was assaulted in the MGM Grand Hotel on the night of the Tyson v. Holyfield fight. Marian “Suge” Knight, Tupac Shakur, and other Death Row Records personnel in response to the continuing tensions between the two record companies.

          X. On September 7, 1996, Los Angles Police Department officers David Mack and Kevin Gains, were present in Las Vegas for the Tyson v. Holyfield fight.

          Y. Tupac Shakur of Death Row Records was shot in Las Vegas in the car driven by Marian "Suge" Knight after he left the MGM Grand Hotel. Shakur died 6 days later.

          Z. On September 9, 1996 Los Angeles Police Department reported: “[S]ources close to Death Row Records indicated there was an East coast rivalry and recording power struggle between Bad Boy Entertainment: from New York headed by Sean “Puffy” Combs, affiliated with Los Angeles Crips connection Mike Conception; against Suge Knight, Tupac Shakur and Death Row Records. “

          AA. On September 9, 1996, according to a Compton Police Department Search Warrant Affidavit of a gang associated with Death Row Records, gang members met at Leuders Park to discuss retaliation against south side Cripps Gang members for the Tupac Shakur shooting.

          BB. The Los Angeles Police Department learned that Leslie Gaulden, an Inglewood School Police Officer was working for Death Row Records.

          CC. Purported Death Row Records recording artists T-Cox, Malcolm R. Greenidge, and Asinia Adigun Tyehimba were arrested for attempted robbery of a liquor store. The suspects were armed with a Llama .45 caliber handgun.

          DD. On October 22, 1996, Marian “Suge” Knight was incarcerated in the LA County Jail for probation violation stemming from a 1992 assault conviction.

          EE. On October 23, 1996, while police were interviewing Death Row Records employees, the interview was disrupted by Alwyn Gittens, a San Bernaino County Sheriffs reserve officer working security for Death Row Records.

          FF. On November 4, 1996, the FBI received a call from an Los Angeles Police Department officer identifying himself as Officer R. McCauley and inquiring as to whether the FBI had an ongoing investigation on Death Row Records, and to please contact him on a pager number. McCaully was investigated for ties to Death Row Records in November 1995.

          GG. The Los Angeles Times reported that after joining Death Row Records in 1995, Tupac Shakur escalated verbal attacks against Bad Boy Records and Christopher G. L. Wallace.

          HH. On March 9, 1997, Christopher G. L. Wallace was murdered.

          II. On March 15, 1997, Terran Ferguson, an employee of Death Row Records, called the police and said he heard Knight brag about killing Wallace.
      55. Despite possessing the knowledge stated herein, the Los Angeles Police Department took no steps to investigate, discipline, or prosecute those officers involved with Death Row Records or its affiliated street gang.

      56. Despite knowing that Christopher G. L. Wallace would be present at the party at the Peterson Automotive Museum and that persons affiliated with Death Row Records and an affiliated street gang, including, and in particular, police officers, posed a risk of danger to persons affiliated with Bad Boy Entertainment and Christopher G. L. Wallace in particular, the Los Angeles Police Department took no steps to increase security or secure the safety of the venue, or to investigate, discipline, or prosecute those officers involved with Death Row Records or an affiliated street gang

      57. The Los Angeles Police Department’s failure to fully and fairly investigate the criminal activity of its officers constituted a deliberate indifference to the rights of citizens of the United States and gave rise to a reasonably foreseeable violation of the rights of Christopher G. L. Wallace, including, but not limited to a violation of his rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983.

      58. The Los Angeles Police Department’s failure to investigate the criminal activity of its officers was so entrenched or ingrained in Los Angeles Police Department so as to constitute a policy of the Los Angeles Police Department.

      59. The Los Angeles Police Department and Defendants Parks, Lewis, and Williams purposefully, and intentionally, cultivated an atmosphere whereby officers would not report their own wrongful conduct, would not report other officers’ wrongful conduct, and wherein officers would be severely disciplined and retaliated against for reporting the wrongful conduct of other officers. This atmosphere was so entrenched, or ingrained in Los Angeles Department so as to constitute a policy of the Los Angeles Police Department. Said policy was a violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment.

      60. The Los Angeles Police Department purposefully and intentionally retaliated against officers reporting wrongful conduct of other officers in order to stop, or prevent reports of wrongful conduct from being made to Department Personnel. It was reasonably foreseeable to the Defendants that such a policy would lead to an atmosphere wherein numerous officers, including Defendant Mack herein, could engage in wrongful conduct and whereby otherwise good and law abiding officers would not report wrongful conduct of other officers due to fear and retaliation. Under such a circumstance it was reasonably foreseeable that officers, and Defendant Mack in particular would commit crimes, including murder, and in particular, the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace. Said policy was a violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment.

      61. By information and belief, the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace by David Mack, and Amir Muhammad, was proximately caused by the policy of the Los Angeles Police Department which fostered illegal activity of its officers and retaliating against officers who made reports, or complaints of wrongful conduct.

      62. The Los Angeles Police Department has failed to conduct thorough investigations, failed to release vital information to prosecutors and tipped off fellow officers.

      63. At all times pertinent hereto, the policies and procedures of the Los Angeles County Police Department were not sufficient to prevent substantial and continuing civil rights abuses by its officers.

      64. The Defendants violated the Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights as previously stated herein in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

      65. Each of the aforementioned deprivations of its citizens’ constitutional rights demonstrates an objectively unreasonable failure to train or supervise on the part of the Defendants, Parks, Lewis and Williams, which constitutes a deliberate indifference to the rights of the citizens of the State of California, and the Plaintiffs in particular.

      66. This violation of the Plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights by Defendants caused the Plaintiffs injuries, damages, and losses, including, but not limited to, a deprivation of constitutionally protected rights, and such other and further damages as are listed herein.

      V. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF DEPRIVATION OF FAMILIAL COMPANIONSHIP AND SOCIETY 14th AMENDMENT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983



      67. Each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs is incorporated herein by this reference with the same effect as if realleged herein.

      68. As of March 9, 1997, there existed a clearly recognized Federal right pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from unwarranted state interference in familial companionship and society.

      69. The Plaintiff, Faith Evans is, and at all times mentioned herein, the spouse of the decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace. The Plaintiff, Faith Evans had a clearly recognized constitutional interest in familial companionship and society with her husband, the decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace.

      70. The Plaintiff, Voletta Wallace, is, and at all times mentioned herein, was, the dependent mother of the decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace and the mother of Christopher Jordan Wallace, as defined by § 377.60 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff, Voletta Wallace had a clearly recognized constitutional interest in familial companionship and society with the decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace.

      71. The Plaintiff, Christopher Jordan Wallace is, and at all times mentioned herein was, the minor child of the decedent Christopher G. L. Wallace. The Plaintiff, Christopher Jordan Wallace, had a clearly recognized constitutional interest in familial companionship and society with the decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace.

      72. The Plaintiff, T’Yanna Dream Wallace is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a minor child of the decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace. The Plaintiff, T'Yanna Dream Wallace, had a clearly recognized constitutional interest in familial companionship and society with the decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace.

      73. By committing the acts alleged herein, the Defendants violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights to familial association in causing the death of the decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace.

      74. The Plaintiffs have suffered injuries, damages and losses as a result of this deprivation of constitutionally protected rights.

      VI. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF DEPRIVATION OF THE LIFE OF CHRISTOPHER WALLACE UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW: 4th AMENDMENT, 14th AMENDMENT, 42 U.S.C. §1983



      75. Each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs is incorporated herein by this reference with the same effect as if realleged herein.

      76. As of March 9, 1997, there existed a clearly recognized federal right pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution to be free from the objectively unreasonable deprivation of life without due process of law.

      77. As of March 9, 1997, federal law clearly recognized that unconstitutional or illegal acts of off-duty police officers occur under color of state law when, given the totality of the circumstances, the conduct of the officers constitutes a misuse of power possessed by virtue of state law and made possible or prompted because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.

      78. As of March 9, 1997, federal law clearly recognized that a non-state actor is acting under color of state law when he acts as a willful participant in joint action with a state actor acting under color of state law.

      79. By information and belief on or about March 9, 1997, Defendants Mack and Muhammad, acting willfully and jointly, intentionally caused the death of Christopher G. L. Wallace as previously stated herein. Under the totality of the circumstances, the acts of Mack and Muhammad constituted the deprivation of a constitutionally protected right to life under color of California State law.

      80. The acts of Mack and Muhammad were made possible by and were prompted by Mack’s position as a Los Angeles police officer and constituted an abuse of the authority and privilege given to him by the state of California:

          A. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Mack was an officer clothed with the authority and privilege of the Los Angeles Police Department.

          B. Defendant Mack’s modus operendi for committing crimes required access to police communications equipment and police tactics. During the bank robbery committed by Mack, witnesses recalled hearing police radio traffic coming from suspects in the bank getaway. Mack told his accomplice in the bank robbery that he had police radios and would know the position and timing of police response. Mack’s position as a LA police officer allowed him to know the position of law enforcement personnel on the night of March 9, 1997;

          C. The murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace involved precision timing and was in front of numerous police and other witnesses. The precise manner in which the crime was committed suggests a high degree of sophistication, access to police communications and knowledge of police tactics, all of which Defendant Mack had as the result of his position as a Los Angeles police officer;

          D. By information and belief, Defendant Mack used Los Angeles Police Department paid family illness days to conspire with Muhammad and to plan and prepare for the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace.

          E. But for Mack’s training, position and privilege as a Los Angeles police Officer, he and Muhammad would not have had the ability to murder Christopher G. L. Wallace on the night of March 9, 1997.
              i. The precisely orchestrated manner and timing of the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, particularly when considering the number of witnesses and police present demonstrates a knowledge of police tactics and deployment patterns. Defendant Mack is trained in Los Angeles Police Department tactics and deployment patterns. The murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace was made possible by David Mack’s training as Los Angeles Police Officer.

              ii. The precisely orchestrated manner and timing of the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, particularly when considering the number of witnesses and police present demonstrates knowledge of the proper method to shoot while in a moving vehicle. Defendant David Mack was trained in manners and techniques in shooting a weapon while in a moving vehicle. The murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace was made possible by David Mack’s training as a Los Angeles Police Officer.

              iii. The precisely orchestrated manner and timing of the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, particularly when considering the number of witnesses and police present demonstrates the possibility of the involvement of other police officers, and/or police agencies. Defendant David Mack, as a Los Angeles Police Officer, had access to persons who had the knowledge and/or ability to assist in the murder.

              iv. The precisely orchestrated manner and timing of the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, particularly when considering the number of witnesses and police present demonstrates an access to police communications, coding, and positions. The Defendant, David Mack, as a Los Angeles Police Officer had access to Los Angeles Police Department communications equipment, knowledge of coding used by the Los Angeles Police Department, and knowledge of the positioning of officers on the night of the murder. The murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace was made possible by David Mack’s position as a Los Angeles police officer.

              v. The precisely orchestrated manner and timing of the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, particularly when considering the number of witnesses and police present demonstrates a knowledge of proper surveillance techniques required to coordinate a strike. Defendant David Mack, as a Los Angeles Police Officer, was trained in proper surveillance techniques and in strike timing. The murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace was made possible by David Mack’s training as a Los Angeles Police Officer.

              vi. The precisely orchestrated manner and timing of the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, particularly when considering the number of witnesses and police present demonstrates a knowledge regarding security procedures used by celebrities at large events. Defendant David Mack, as a Los Angeles Police Officer was trained in the security procedures used by celebrities at large events. The murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace was made possible by David Mack’s training as a Los Angeles Police Officer.

              vii. The precisely orchestrated manner and timing of the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, particularly when considering the number of witnesses, the police present, and Christopher G. L. Wallace’s private security contingent, demonstrates knowledge of the size and composition of Christopher G. L. Wallace’s private security force. Defendant David Mack, as a Los Angeles Police Officer would have information and knowledge regarding prior surveillance on Christopher G. L. Wallace, and in particular, would have specific information regarding the size and composition of his private security force. The murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace was made possible by the information David Mack gained based upon his position as a Los Angeles Police Officer.
      81. The Los Angeles Police Department, by regulating the off duty activities of its police officers, clothes those off-duty activities with color of state law:
          A. Los Angeles Police Department policy provides that Los Angeles police officers are always clothed with official authority to prevent crimes occurring in their presence. Specifically, off-duty officers have peace officer authority as to any public offense committed in their presence to which there is an immediate danger to person or property. Off-duty officers are to give first consideration to causing the appropriate action be taken by the responsible law enforcement agency. Such officers should then act only after consideration of “ their possible liability and that of the City of Los Angeles. At all times pertinent to the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, David Mack was clothed with peace officer authority” and had a duty to prevent or report crimes occurring in his presence.

          B. Los Angeles Police Department policy provides that an employee engaged in outside employment shall conduct himself in the same manner as if on duty with particular emphasis on attention to duty and prevention of violations by his employer.

          C. An officer, while engaged in outside employment, shall take proper action on any offense that would normally require police attention.

          D. Los Angeles Police Department policy allows an off duty police officer to carry an approved police department weapon in order to carry out his peace officer authority while off-duty.

          E. California Penal Code section 830.1 provides: “Any” policeman of a city” is a peace officer.” The authority of any such police officer extends to any place in the state: (c) As to any public offense committed or which there is probable cause to believe has been committed in his presence, and to which there is immediate danger to a person”.”

          F. At the time Defendants Muhamad and Mack murdered Christopher G. L. Wallace, Defendant Mack was clothed with “peace officer authority” and had a duty to report or intervene in criminal activity occurring in his presence.
      82. The Los Angeles Police Department, through its willful failure to investigate and intervene in its officer’s off-duty involvement with Death Row Records and street gang activities acquiesced to those activities and clothed them with governmental authority:
          A. Los Angeles Police Department policy and state law requires the Los Angeles Police Department to investigate an officer’s off-duty employment and other activities and take the appropriate actions when those activities or employment are inconsistent with an officers role as a peace officer.

          B. Since the early 1990s the Los Angeles Police Department has known that Death Row Records and its agents, representatives and employees were subject to multiple investigations for a wide variety of criminal activities including violent crimes and drug related offenses.

          C. Since the early 1990s the Los Angeles Police Department has known that the street gang affiliated with Death Row Records and its individual members were subject to multiple investigations, arrests and convictions for a wide variety of criminal activities including violent crimes and drug related offenses.

          D. Since the early 1990s Los Angeles Police Department has known that there was a close connection between Death Row Records and an affiliated street gang.

          E. Since the early 1990s the Los Angeles Police Department has known that association or employment with Death Row Records or certain affiliated street gangs were incompatible with being a peace officer in the state of California.

          F. Since the early 1990s the Los Angeles Police Department has known that numerous Los Angeles police officers were associating with or working for Death Row Records. Despite this knowledge the Los Angeles Police Department did not conduct a widespread or detailed investigation of officer involvement with Death Row Records.

          G. It is the custom of the Los Angeles Police Department not to investigate the criminal activities of its officers or to investigate their affiliation with street gangs and other organizations actively involved in the commission of crimes. This custom is so ingrained and well established as to be a policy of the Los Angeles Police Department.

          H. The Los Angeles Police Department and Parks, Lewis and Williams intentionally and willfully fostered an atmosphere within the Los Angeles Police Department such that officers who made complaints against other officers for acts of misconduct were subject to ostracism and severe retaliation. Said atmosphere was so ingrained and well-established within the Los Angeles Police Department as to be a policy of the Los Angeles Police Department. It was the policy of the LAPD to punish and retaliate against officers who made complaints against other officers. This policy was intended to prevent the reporting of wrongful conduct on the part of police officers. It was reasonably foreseeable that this policy would lead to acts of violence by police officers against persons within the City of Los Angeles, including the Decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace.

          I. Due to his position as a police officer, Defendant Mack was never investigated for, or prosecuted in relation to his street gang activity. Defendant Mack’s position as a Los Angeles police officer gave him the ability to act with impunity as a street gang member;

          J. It was well known to the Los Angeles Police Department that its officers provided security for gangs and other criminal enterprises during various criminal activities. The officers accompanied the members during drug deals and acted as lookouts and advisors. The officers monitored police frequencies, assisted in choosing locations for drug transactions, and gave information on police tactics. Street gangs used LA police officers, including Mack, specifically because of the authority and privilege given them as members of the Los Angeles Police Department.

          K. The knowing failure of the Los Angeles Police Department to investigate Mack for his involvement in criminal activity was made possible due to his authority and privilege as a police officers constitutes willful acquiescence to that activity and clothes it with the color of state law.
      83. The totality of circumstances is such that the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace by Amir Muhammad and David Mack occurred under color of state law.

      84. This violation of the Plaintiffs’ 4th and 14th Amendment Rights caused the Plaintiffs injuries, damages and losses, including, but not limited to, a deprivation of life under color of state law and such other and further damages as are listed herein.

      VII. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF CONSPIRACY BY MACK AND MUHAMAD TO DEPRIVE THE PLAINTIFFS OF THEIR 4th AND 14th AMENDMENT RIGHTS; 4th AMENDMENT, 14th AMENDMENT 42 U.S.C. §1983, 42 U.S.C. §1985



      85. Each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs is incorporated herein by this reference with the same effect as if realleged herein.

      86. As of March 9, 1997, it was a clearly recognized federal law, that a citizen of the United States had a right to be free from conspiracies to deprive a citizen of his or her federal civil rights, including rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

      87. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspired to deprive the Plaintiffs of their federal civil rights. Such conspiratorial agreement and concerted conduct committed thereunder constitutes actionable federal civil rights conspiracy in contravention of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

      88. The aforementioned Defendants in this claim for relief are conspiratorially liable as co-conspirators based on the following:

          A. Defendants are members of a conspiracy intended to violate the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights;

          B. Defendants engaged in activities in furtherance of advancing or promoting the conspiracy designed and intended to violate the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights;

          C. Defendants were members of a conspiracy during the timeframe that fraudulent activities were committed that constitute a violation of the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights; and

          D. The offense fell within the scope of the unlawful agreement and could reasonably have been foreseen to be a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement.
      89. The conduct of the Defendants, each and every one of them, constituted willful, wanton, and reckless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiffs as secured by Title 42 U.S.C. 1985 and 42 U.S.C. §1983.

      90. This violation of the Plaintiffs’ 4th and 14th Amendment Rights caused the Plaintiffs injuries, damages and losses.

      VIII. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF NEGLECT TO PREVENT CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE CIVIL RIGHTS 4TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS, 42 U.S.C. §1983, §1985



      91. Each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs is incorporated herein by this reference with the same effect as if realleged herein.

      92. As of March 9, 1997, there existed a clearly recognized civil right to be free from wrongful and/or illegal acts which would violate the rights guaranteed to the Plaintiffs under the constitution and laws of the United States and California.

      93. By information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants as stated herein, and in particular, Defendants Parks, Lewis, Williams, Mack, and Muhammad, had knowledge that some or all of the wrongs conspired to be done, which are described in detail above, were about to be committed.

      94. By information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, and in particular Defendants Parks, Lewis, Williams, Mack, and Muhammad, had the power to prevent, or aid in the prevention of the commission of said wrongful acts.

      95. By information and belief, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, including Defendants Parks, Lewis, Williams, Mack, and Muhammad, and each of them by reasonable diligence could have prevented the aforementioned wrongs conspired to be done.

      96. By information and belief, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, including Defendants Parks, Lewis, Williams, Mack, and Muhammad, and each of them, neglected and/or refused to prevent, or aid in the prevention of said wrongs conspired to be done. As a direct and proximate cause of said failures, the Plaintiffs have suffered injuries, damages, and losses as set forth herein.

      IX. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF THE CONDUCT OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS SO RECKLESS AND CONSCIENCE SHOCKING AS TO CREATE A SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS VIOLATION PURSUANT TO THE 14th AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 14th AMENDMENT, 42 U.S.C. §1983



      97. Each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs is incorporated herein by this reference with the same effect as if realleged herein.

      98. As of March 9, 1997, there was a clearly recognized federal right stating that official conduct which rises to the level of reckless and conscience shocking behavior creates a substantive due process violation pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment.

      99. The conduct of the Defendants, as stated herein, rises to the level of recklessness, and conscience shocking behavior so as to create a substantive due process violation pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Plaintiffs have suffered injuries, damages and losses, as stated herein as a result of the substantive due process violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights.

      X. EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF STATE LAW CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 1, 7, AND 13



      100. Each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs is incorporated herein by this reference with the same effect as if realleged herein.

      101. The Plaintiffs’ eighth claim for relief is so related for Plaintiffs’ claims for relief arising under federal law that all claims form part of the same controversy under Article 3 of the United States Constitution as stated with more particularity hereinafter.

      102. The jurisdiction of this Court is based upon 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).

      103. The conduct of the Defendants as stated herein, in assaulting, shooting, and killing the decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace, and in doing or failing to do the other wrongful acts alleged herein, was done for the purpose of interfering and attempting to interfere with Plaintiffs’ rights to due process, and to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure, under Article I, Sections 1, 7, and 13 of the California Constitution.

      104. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of all Defendants, as stated herein, in violating Article I, Sections 1, 7, and 13 of the California Constitution, the Plaintiffs have sustained injuries, damages, and losses.

      XI. NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF STATE LAW CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §52.1(b)



      105. Each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs is incorporated herein by this reference with the same effect as if realleged herein.

      106. The Plaintiffs’ ninth claim for relief is so related for the Plaintiffs’ claims for relief arising under federal law that all claims form part of the same controversy under Article 3 of the United States Constitution, as stated with more particularity hereinafter.

      107. The jurisdiction of this court is based upon 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).

      108. The conduct of the Defendants in assaulting, shooting and killing the decedent, Christopher G. L. Wallace, and in doing or failing to do the other wrongful acts alleged herein, was done for the purpose of interfering with and attempting to interfere with Plaintiffs’ rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments and the Plaintiffs’ rights to be accorded due process under Article I, Sections 1, 7, and 13 of the California Constitution and for that reason violated Plaintiffs’ rights under California Civil Code §52.1(b). By information and belief, the Defendants’ wrongful acts were done maliciously and criminally and for the purpose of inflicting injuries upon the Plaintiffs.

      109. As a direct and proximate result of the violations of the Defendants stated herein, the Plaintiffs have sustained injuries, damages, and losses.

      XII. TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF STATE LAW CAUSE OF ACTION: WRONGFUL DEATH OF CHRISTOPHER WALLACE



      110. Each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs is incorporated herein by this reference with the same effect as if realleged herein.

      111. The Plaintiffs’ Tenth Claim for Relief is so related to the Plaintiffs’ claims for Relief arising under federal law that all Claims form part of the same controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution, as stated with more particularity hereinafter.

      112. The Jurisdiction of this Court is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

      113. As stated previously herein, the defendants Mack and Muhammad, purposefully and willfully acted in concert to cause the death of Christopher G. L. Wallace by murder on or about March 9, 1997. By their actions as more fully alleged above, Defendants Mack and Muhammad wrongfully caused the death of Christopher G. L. Wallace.

      114. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of all Defendants, Plaintiffs have sustained injuries, damages and losses.

      XIII. ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF STATE LAW CAUSE OF ACTION CIVIL CONSPIRACY



      115. Each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs is incorporated herein by this reference with the same effect as if realleged herein.

      116. The Plaintiffs’ Eleventh Claim for Relief is so related to the Plaintiffs’ claims for relief arising under federal law that all Claims form part of the same controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution, as stated with more particularity hereinafter.

      117. The Jurisdiction of this Court is based on 28 U.S.C. 1367(a).

      118. All Defendants named herein, by words, or by conduct, agreed to the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace.

      119. All Defendants named herein, as set forth herein, committed one or more unlawful acts, as set forth above, in order to accomplish the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace.

      120. As a result of the conspiracy of the Defendants, as set forth herein, the Plaintiffs have suffered injuries, damages and losses, as set forth herein. The Plaintiffs' injuries, damages and losses, were caused by the conspiracy of the Defendants to murder Christopher G. L. Wallace.

      XIV. TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF STATE LAW CLAIM NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO PREVENT WRONGFUL AND ILLEGAL CONDUCT



      121. Each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs is incorporated herein by this reference with the same effect as if realleged herein.

      122. The Plaintiffs Twelfth Claim for Relief is so related to Plaintiffs’ claims for relief arising under federal law that all claims form part of the same controversy under Article 3 of the United States Constitution, as stated with more particularity hereinafter.

      123. The jurisdiction of this court is based on 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).

      124. At all times pertinent hereto, the Defendants had a duty to refrain from wrongful and/or illegal acts which would violate the rights guaranteed under the Constitution and laws of the United States and California.

      125. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions herein above alleged, and set forth in detail, LAPD employees, named herein as Defendants, including Defendants Parks, Lewis, Williams, and Mack breached their duty to refrain from wrongful and/or illegal acts which would violate the rights guaranteed under the Constitution and Laws of the United States and California to those persons the Defendants would come in contact with, specifically the Plaintiffs and the decedent identified herein.

      126. At all times pertinent hereto, the Defendants were acting within the course and scope of their employment and the wrongful acts herein alleged flow from the very exercise of authority vested in each of them by virtue of said employment.

      127. As a direct and proximate result of the above-mentioned conduct and breach of duty by Los Angeles Police Department employees, the named herein Defendants, the Plaintiffs suffered injuries, damages, and losses as stated herein.

      128. Defendants City of Los Angeles, Parks, Lewis, and Williams, inclusive, and each of them, had a duty to adequately police, hire, fire, train, discipline, supervise and otherwise direct police officers concerning the rights of citizens.

      129. Defendants City of Los Angeles, Parks, Lewis, and Williams, and each of them, as a pattern of policy, pattern, and practice negligently, carelessly, recklessly, or in some other actionable manner herewith deliberate indifference, failed to adequately police, hire, fire, train, discipline, supervise, and otherwise direct police officer concerning the rights of citizens.

      130. The Defendants City of Los Angeles, Parks, Lewis, and Williams, and each of them, breached their duty to adequately police, hire, fire, train, discipline, supervise, and otherwise direct police officer concerning the rights of citizens.

      131. As a direct and proximate result of the above-mentioned conduct and breach of duty by Defendants, the Plaintiffs have suffered injuries, damages, and losses as stated herein.

      XV. THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF STATE LAW CLAIM TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH A CLAIM



      132. Each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs is incorporated herein by this reference with the same effect as if realleged herein.

      133. The Plaintiffs’ Thirteenth Claim for Relief is so related to the Plaintiffs’ claims for relief arising under federal law that all Claims form part of the same controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution, as stated with more particularity hereinafter.

      134. The Jurisdiction of this Court is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

      135. At all times pertinent hereto, the Defendants, City and County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Police Department, and Parks, Williams and Lewis, had a duty to investigate the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, and in the alternative, had a duty not to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ investigation of the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace.

      136. The Defendants referenced herein, and Chief Parks in particular, intentionally, and willfully, failed to investigate the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, intentionally, and fraudulently, concealed information regarding the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, and tortiously interfered with the Plaintiffs’ ability to prove who murdered Christopher G. L. Wallace.

      137. The Defendants have actively concealed their failure to investigate the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace, and have further actively concealed those steps they have taken to frustrate the Plaintiffs’ attempts to prove who murdered Christopher G. L. Wallace. In support of the foregoing claim and upon information and belief, the Plaintiffs allege as follows:

          A. The Los Angeles Police Department failed to interview material witnesses relating to the death of Christopher G. L. Wallace, including, but not limited to, persons present on the scene and potential suspects themselves;

          B. The Los Angeles Police Department failed to investigate or interview David Mack in relation to the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace;

          C. The Los Angeles Police Department has failed to interview Amir Muhamad in relation to the death of Christopher G. L. Wallace;

          D. The Los Angeles Police Department failed to conduct forensics examinations on the black Impalla automobile owned by David Mack;

          E. The Los Angeles Police Department failed to determine whether the ammunition found during the search warrant of his home matched the ammunition used in the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace;

          F. The Los Angeles Police Department failed to conduct a full and complete financial background check on David Mack;

          G. The Los Angeles Police Department failed to conduct a full investigation regarding David Mack’s contacts with Amir Muhammad;

          H. The Los Angeles Police Department failed to conduct a full investigation regarding David Mack’s involvement with street gangs, or his involvement with Amir Muhammad through religious organizations;

          I. The Los Angeles Police Department failed to conduct a background investigation regarding Amir Muhammad’s relationship with a street gang affiliated with Death Row Records;

          J. Chief Parks specifically instructed detectives assigned to investigate the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace to not investigate David Mack;

          K. LAPD was informed the day after the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace as to the possible involvement of Defendant Mack. The Los Angeles Police Department failed to follow up on this information.

          L. The Los Angeles Police Department was informed by a confidential informant that he could “deliver the murderer of Christopher G. L. Wallace” to the police. Los Angeles Police Department failed to take steps to follow up on this potential lead regarding the murder of Christopher G. L. Wallace.

          K. Defendants as stated herein, acting in their official capacity, were negligent, and breached their duty to the Decedent, and the Plaintiffs in this action, to properly investigate circumstances of the Decedent’s death, failing to investigate circumstances which would be obviously suspicious to any well-trained law enforcement officer, and to specifically conceal information implicating officers with the Los Angeles County Police Department in the death of Christopher G. L. Wallace.
      138. The conduct of the Defendants, as stated herein, caused the Plaintiffs damage, which accrued after the death of the Decedent in that the delay, and failure to investigate, allowed the dissipation of evidence which would have led to the proper identification, and conviction, of the murderers of Christopher G. L. Wallace, sufficient to warrant, among other causes of action, a wrongful death and survival action against David Mack and Amir Muhammad.

      XIV. DAMAGES WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment against Defendants individually and collectively as follows:



      1. For general damages according to proof;

      2. For compensatory damages for all Plaintiffs according to proof;

      3. For exemplary damages, as against each police officer, supervisor, and policy maker Defendants in an amount sufficient to deter and make an example of those Defendants;

      4. For consequential damages according to proof;

      5. For those damages to which the Decedent had been entitled had he survived;

      6. For incidental damages according to proof;

      7. For prejudgment interest according to proof;

      8. For costs of suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation as provided by federal and state laws, including, but not limited to, 42 U.S.C. §1983;

      9. For such further relief as This Honorable Court deems just and proper.

      Respectfully submitted this ___________ day of _____________ 2002.



            ____________________________

            Robert J. Frank, #19765

            Tegtmeier, Frank & Jones, L.L.C.

            3 South Tejon, Suite 300

            Colo. Springs, CO 80903

            719/473-5757



            ______________________________

            Perry Sanders, #01577

            Sanders, Crochet & Chism, L.L.P.

            400 Broad Street

            Lake Charles, LA 70601

            337/436-0031



            ______________________________

            Dennis W. Chang, #135613

            1055 West 7th Street, Suite 2800

            Los Angeles, CA 90017

            213/553-1122

      © Copyright 2002 All rights reserved.