Folsom City Council
May 10, 2022

1 Agenda
City Council Special Meeting
City Council Chambers | 50 Natoma Street, Folsom CA 95630 May 10, 2022
6:00 PM
Welcome to Your City Council Meeting
We welcome your interest and involvement in the city’s legislative process. This agenda includes information about topics coming before the City Council and the action recommended by city staff. You can read about each topic in the staff reports, which are available on the city website and in the Office of the City Clerk. The City Clerk is also available to answer any questions you have about City Council meeting procedures.

Participation
If you would like to provide comments to the City Council, please:
 Fill out a blue speaker request form, located at the back table.  Submit the form to the City Clerk before the item begins.  When it’s your turn, the City Clerk will call your name and invite you to the podium.  Speakers have three minutes, unless the presiding officer (usually the mayor) changes that time.

Reasonable Accommodations
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a person with a disability and you need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (916) 461-6035, (916) 355-7328 (fax) or [email protected]. Requests must be made as early as possible and at least two full business days before the start of the meeting.

More information about City Council meetings is available at the end of this agenda

2 City Council Special Meeting

Folsom City Council Chambers
50 Natoma Street, Folsom, CA

www.folsom.ca.us
Tuesday, May 10, 2022 6:00 PM

Kerri Howell, Mayor

Rosario Rodriguez, Vice Mayor Sarah Aquino, Councilmember YK Chalamcherla, Councilmember Mike Kozlowski, Councilmember

SPECIAL AGENDA
Members of the public wishing to participate in this meeting via teleconference may participate either online or by telephone via WebEx.

Meeting Number: 2551 760 4737
Meeting Password: 05 10 2022

Join the meeting by WebEx online:
https://cityoffolsom.my.webex.com/cityoffolsom.my/j.php?MTID=ma7e1ea7e99d334b9f1822a93fadf2101

To make a public comment using the WebEx online platform, please use the “raise hand” feature at the bottom center of the screen. Please make sure to enable audio controls once access has been given by the City Clerk to speak. Please wait to be called upon by the City Clerk.

Join the meeting by WebEx telephone: Dial 1-415-655-0001 To make a public comment by phone, please press *3 to raise your hand. Please make sure to enable audio controls by pressing *6 once access has been given by the City Clerk to speak. Please wait to be called upon by the City Clerk.

Verbal comments via virtual meeting must adhere to the principles of the three-minute speaking time permitted for public comment at City Council meetings.

CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL:

Councilmembers: Aquino, Chalamcherla, Kozlowski, Rodriguez, Howell

3 ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES:

1. Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation. Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(e)(3): Application for Leave to File a Late Claim by George Lane

RECONVENE
Announcement of Final Action, If Any

ADJOURNMENT

4 This page is intentionally left blank.

CLAIM AGAINST TIIE CITY OF'FOLSOM
trl-ll lnll rrTTlJ ral trili./IEI rit-'-rui'iuIl i !LL,ti" J i1*FR 't3 PHi2:lfi
Received
Claims relating to death or injury to person or to personal property or crops shall be presented to the City of Folsom not later than six months after which the incident ot event occurred. Claims relating to any other matter for which a claim is required shall be presented not later than one year after the date of the incident or event giving rise to the claim. (See Califomia Govemment Code Section9ll.2). You are encouraged to consult legal counsel ofyour choosing for advice on submitting a timely claim. The City of Folsom cannot provide you legal advice.

INSTRUCTIONS
The original claim, together with one copy of all attachments, is to be filed with the Office of the City Clerk. Retain one copy for your records. Please send to this address:

City Clerk
City of Folsom
50 Natoma Street
Folsom, CA 95630
NOTICE: The City Clerk's Office is the ONIY ofFrce to which claims may be submitted. Claims are NOT to be sent to the City Attorney, or any other City Deparfinent.

Please fill out claim form completely. Missing information may delay the processing ofyour claim.

Please print.

PERSONAL INFORMATION
Name of Claimant George LANE
middle initial last
Address of Claimant Folsom, CA 95630
street city state ztp
Home Phone Business Phone Email see above
DOB Driver's 1i."nt"4 N/A
Name, telephone number and address to which claimant desires notices to be sent if other than above:

Gavrilov & Brooks, 2315 CapitolAve., Sacramento, CA 95816 (916) 504-0529

CLAIM INFORMATION
Occurence or event from which the claim arises:
pu1" October 17,2021 Time See attached complaint
Place (exact and specific location) We believe that this claim is timely submitted, however if City of Folsom believes the claim(s) are untimely, see attached application for leave to present late claim How and under what circumstances did damage or injury occur? Describe the particular oscurrence, event, act, or omission you claim caused the damage or injury. (use additional paper if necessary) See attached complaint
first

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

If there were no injuries, state "no injuries"
Name and addresses of all witnesses
See attached draft complaint
Identiff the name(s) of the public employee(s) causing the iqiury or damages, if known.

Melanie Catanio, Donald Rowberry & David Canepa
Describe the indebtedness, obligation, i4iury, damage or loss, which you claim you have suffered at the time this claim is submitted.

Total amount claimed. Greater than $10,000les Less than $10,000--' (If the amount claimed is less than $10,000 on the date of presentation, provide the calculation for the amount claimed.) (Please attach a copy ofany receipts you have resulting from this occurrence.) Any additional information that might be helpful in considering this claim- See aftached draft complaint. To the extent City of Folsom asserts this claim to be untimely, see attached aPPlication for leave to Present a late claim. Plaintiff George Lane was and continues to be a minor child

AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT
If this claim relates to an automobile accident please answer the following, AI\D ATTACH PROOF OF INSURANCE:

Policy # Insurance
Address Phone
@enal code $$72, 550; Insurance code $1871.4)
I have read the matters and statements made in the above claim and I know the same to be true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters stated upon information or belief and as to such -"tt"r. I believe the same to be true. I certify under penalty of periury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is TRUE and CORRECT.

Signed this 11 day 22 4 Sacramento, CA
Updated March202l
ol April 20
@**<
City / State

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

APPLICATION T.O FILE A LATE CLAIId WITI{ THE CITY OF FOLSOM Claim of George Lane
Against
City of Folsom and its emPloYees
Melanie Catanio, Donald Rowberry and
David Canepa
Dated: April 11,2022
By:@"^-f
Ognian Gavrilov, Counsel for Claimant George Lane
Application for Leave to Present Late
Claim (Government Code $ 911.4)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
?o the City Council (or other governing body) of the City of Folsom:

We believe that the claim(s) by George Lane enclosed herewith are timely submitted within six months of the accrual of the cause(s) of action. To the extent that the City of Folsom asserts the claim(s) by George Lane against City of Folsom and/or its employees Melanie Catanio, Donald Rowberry andDavid Canepa are untimely, please consider the following:

1. Minor George Lane hereby applies to the City of Folsom for leave to present a claim(s) against the City of Folsom aod its employees Melanie Catanio, Donald Rowberry and D-avid Canepa pursuant to Section 911.4 of the California Government Code.

Z. The causes of action of George Lane set forth in his proposed claim and complaint attached to this application accrued on October 17,2021, a period within one year from the filing of this aPPlication'

3. George Lane's reason for the delay in presenting his claim(s) against the City of Folsom and if, employees are as follows: George Lane was and continues to be a minor child who was wrongfuliy seized and separated from and his parents by the Defendants and did not have u guarliun or conservator of his person during the times relevant to this claim.

The no-contact protective order which prevented George from having any communication with his mother terminated on October 18,2021. George's mother was found "not guilty" of sexually abusing George on August 19,2021, which is also within one year Aom filing of this application.

4. AU notices and communications concerning this claim should be sent to Gavrilov & Brooks, 2315 Capitol Ave., Sacramento, CA 95816'
WHERXFORE, claimant asks that you grant this application, deem the attached claim to have been presented on your receipt ofthis application, and act on the claim as required by Government Code $ 911.6.

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
* HH
11 Eii 12
{9o'
E.FE 13FV H
6'4 Iund 14
15 t6
t7
18 19
20 2L
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 J. EDWARD BROOKS, CA SBN: 247767
OGNIAN GAVRILOV, CA SBN: 258583
runrrUEW RICIIARD, CA SBN: 340084

GAVRILOV & BROOKS
G.L., through his guardian ad litem Robert L',
Plaintiff,
v.
2315 Capitol Avenue
cA 95816
504-0529Phone: (9
Facsimile 727-6877
Email:
.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff G.L.

T]NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF

CTVIL RIGHTS

JTIRY TRIAL DEIVIANDEI)
MELANIE CATANIO, an individual;
NANCY COCHRAI'{E, an individual;
DONALD ROWBERRY, an individual;
ANNE MARIE SCHUBERT, individuallY
as Sacramento County District Attomey;
DAVID CAIIEPA, an individual; and CITY
OF FOLSOM, a Public entitY'
Defendants.
plaintiff G.L. ("plaintiff'or "G.L."), by his attomeys and guardian ad litem Robert L', hereby aileges the following (the true names of minors are replaced with their initials to protect their privacy):

NATURE Otr'THE CASE

1. This is the hagic true story of a little boy harassed, silenced, and used as a pawn by overzealous police and prosecutors willing to engage in misconduct to cobble together a case by any means necessary. It is an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. $$ 1983, 1985 and 1986, and the I
OF

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
1l
2 l3
T4
15 09
ig3€9 o'
,F BE
,5H$
l6
t7
18 t9
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constihrtion. Plaintiff also brings state claims for false imprisonment and judicial deception'

PARTTES

2. plaintiffG.L. is a twelve-year-old citrzenof California and of the United States who resides in the City of Folsom, County of Sacramento with his father Robert L. ('Robb') and younger sister I.L. Beginning in December of 2018 when he was 9 years old through July of Z0ZZ, G.L.has been continuously victimized by the malfeasance of the parties identified below, who engaged in numerous Constitutionally violative tactics throughout the course of their dealings with G.L. At or near the time of filing of this complaint, Robb has or will file a request for appointment as Guardian Ad Litem for his miiror son G'L'

3. Defendant MELANIE CATANIO ("CATANIO" or "Defendant') is a citizen of California and the United States who was at all times relevant a resident of the County of Sacramento and an officer, agent and/or employee of CITY OF FOLSOM. On information and belief, CATANIO now resides in the County of Shasta, California. At all times relevant to the allegations of this complaint CATANIIO was acting, albeit unlawfully, under color of law within the meaning of 42 u.s.c. $ 19s3 and within the scope of her employment as a Detective for the Folsom Police Deparfinent. CATANIO is sued here in her individual capacity and as an employee of the CITY oF FOLSOM.

4. DefendantNANCY COCHRANE ("COCHRANE" or "Defendant") is a citizen of California and the United States who resides in the County of Sacramento. At all times relevant to the allegations of this complaint COCHRANE was acting, albeit unlawfully, under color of law within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. $ 1983 and within the scope of her employment as a Deputy District Attomey for the Sacramento County District Attorney's Offrce. COCHRANE is sued here in her individual capacity.

5. Defendant DONALD ROWBERRY ("ROWBERRY" ot "Defendant") is a citizen of California and the United States who resides in the County of Sacramento. At all times relevant to the allegations in this complaint ROWBERRY was acting, albeit unlawfully, under color of law within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. $ 1983 and within the scope of his 2 COMPLAINT oF crul,

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
o9
fi3
"29o.
€BE
.!HT 14
15 16
t7
18 19
20 2T
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 employment as a computer forensic examiner for the Folsom Police Deparfinent. ROWBERRY is sued here individually and as an employee of the CITY OF FOLSOM.

6. Defendant ANNE MANE SCHUBERT (*SCHUBERT" or "Defendant'') is a citizen of California and the United States who resides in the County of Sacramento. At all times relevant to the allegations in this complaint SCHUBERT was acting, albeit unlawfully, under color of law within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. $ 1983 and within the scope of her employment. SCHUBERT is sued here individually and in her offrcial capacity as the District Attorney of Sacramento County as to which County she was the final authoritative decisionmaker and policymaker with respect to the office of the District Attorney in all respects relevant to the allegations of this complaint.

7. Defendant DAVID CAI{EPA ("CANEPA' or "Defendant') is a citizen of California and the United States who resides in the County of Sacramento. At ali times relevant to the allegations in this complaint CAI.{EPA was acting, albeit uniawfully, under color of law within the meaning of 42 U;S.C. $ 1983 and within the scope of his employment as custodian of records for the Folsom Police Department. CANEPA is sued here individually and as an employee of the CITY OF FOLSOM'

8. Defendant CITY OF FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA ("CITY OF FOLSOM" oT ,,Defendant") is a city that is a political subdivision of the State of California, and was the employer of Defendants MELAME CATANIO, DONALD ROWBERRY, and DAVID CANEpA, and is and was at all times relevant to this Complaint responsible for the policies, practices, and customs of the Folsom Police Department and its Detectives, Officers and employees. The CITY OF FOLSOM and all of the Defendants working for Defendant CITY OF FOLSOM acted under color of state law and consistent with the customs, patterns, and practices establishedby the CITY OF FOLSOM.
g. Defendants CATANIO, COCHRANE, ROWBERRY, SCHUBERT, CANEPA, and CITY OF FOLSOM are herein referred to collectively as "Defendants." a
5 COMPLAINTFOR OF CIVILRIGHTS

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.
2 3
4 5
6 7
I
9 10
1 12
l3
os
I EH
Ed*uE;
.A'FE
ke E
un# T4
15 l6
t7
18 r9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 JURISDICTION AND VENT]E

10. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U,S.C. $ 1983, to redress the deprivation under color of law of plaintiffs rights as secured by the United States Constitution. ll. This Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $$ 1331 and t343.

IZ. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1367(a).

13. Venue is proper within the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. $ 13910)becausethisistheDistrictinwhichtheclaimsarose.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONq
First Home Interview - G.L. Denies Abuse
14, On or about July 18, 2018, a female employee from Child Protective Services (*CPS") named Nahren Shahbzian arrived at the home of G.L.'s parents Robb & Mrs' L uninvited for the purpose of interrriewing their two youngest children' There was no open CPS case against Robb at that time. Nor is there an open CPS case regarding G'L' or his parents at this time.t NIr. & Mrs. L allowed the CPS employee into their home and made arrangements for her to interview each child in a private room while Mr. & Mrs. L remained in the living room'

15. G.L., who was 8 years old at the time, and his little sister I.L. who was then 7 years old, spoke to the CPS worker separately. This CPS home visit lasted more than two hours, and both children independently denied that they were se:ually abused. CPS employee Ms' Shahbzian told G.L.'s parents before leaving their home that she would be closing out the case pertaining to G.L. and I.L., and that her participation was over. On infonnation and belief, a report summarizing the July 18, 2018 visit to the home of Mr' & Mrs' L was thereafter prepared and provided to Folsom Police Detective CATANIO, who later shared such report with Deputy Disrict Attomey ("DDA") COCHRANE.

16. On or about September L6,2018, G.L. wrote a newspaper article for school that described his family, hobbies, preferred nickname and their recent family cruise from Long I l r There is no lawsuit pending nor threatened against CPS and its employees by Plaintifr including Ms' Shahbzian' 4 COMPLAINTFORVIOLA OF CIUL

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
l1
2 o9
3ensE-Y
E:s.,E!.v ts
69 eu n,H
13 L4
15 16
T7
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Beach to Mexico. G.L.'s school newspaper project indicated he was a well-adjusted founh grader who enjoyed spending time withboth parents and riding dirtbikes in 2018. Less than a year later, his childhood was destroyed by Defendants'

17. On or about December 4,zlIl,Folsom Police Detective CATANIO removed G.L. from his 3d grade classroom and I.L. from her 2od grade classroom atNatoma Station Elementary School to question them in a private room without the knowledge or consent of their parents (the "school Interviews'). Using her department-issued cell phone, CATANIO audio recorded separate School Interviews with G.L. and his sister I.L. at Natoma Station Elementary' Both children again denied that they were sexually abused at home. 1g. During the School Interview, CATANIO informed G.L. that his older brother(s) reported that their mother had sexually abused them, that G.L.'s brother had witnessed their mother do .,something inappropriate to G.L.'s body,o' andstated her belief that G.L- was sexually assaulted by their mother. G:L. responded that his brothers were liars who enjoyed causing drama, and reiterated that his mother had not senrally abused him. CATANIO provided G.L. with her business card and instructed him to call her if there was any information he wanted to share,
Lg. On information and belief, CATANIO left the school and thereafter failed to log the audio recording(s) of the School lnterviews with G.L. and his sister I.L. at Natoma Station Elementary into evidence. However, CATANIO did upload the School Interviews from her departrrent issued cell phone to her deparfinent issued laptop computer' CATANIO and COCHRANE later denied an outside investigator from accessing CATAMO's department issued laptop computer and cell phone where the School Interviews had been saved, which prevented an independent determination about whether the School Interview recordings could be recovered from either device. No data recovery was undertaken by any Defendant to determine whether the School Interview recordings could be retrieved from CATANIO's department-issued cell phone or laptop, nor whether the audio recordings had been electronically archived elsewhere.
)

FOR OF RIGHTS

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
4 il
12 13
1 15
o9
gin
EBE
rH$
10 16
T7
18 19
20 2T
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 20. CATAITIO later disclosed the substance of the School Interview denials and the existence of the audio recording(s) of the School Interviews to DDA COCHRANE. At the behest of DDA COCHRANE, CATANIO destroyed the exculpatory audio recording(s) of the School Interview and had ROWBERRY "wipe clean" CATAMO's computer hard drive to conceal the evidence of CATANIO's wihess tainting. CATANIO and ROWBERRY also disposed of the department-issued cell phone CATANIO used to record the School Interviews.

The destruction of the School Interview tapes was significant because the audio recording proves that CATANIO intentionally tied to taint G.L.'s testimony - whom she knew would be a witness in the case - by telling G.L. *rat she and his brothers knew that he had been "sexually assaulted" by his mother.

Zl. When CATAI.{IO was tasked with investigating the allegations against G.L.'s mother, she was afour-month rookie to the investigations department with only a few months of specialized haining and a few years as a patrol officer. DDA COCHRAI{E was a seasoned prosecutor with decades of experience. CATAI.{IO was encoruaged to taint witness testimony and destroy evidence by COCHRANE, who demanded throughout the investigation that CATANIO covertly place her thumb on the scale ofjustice to tip the balance in the prosecution's favor.

Criminal Investisation Aeainst G.L-'s Mother Intensifies

22. CATAI{IO continued to harass G.L.'s family despite G.L. and his sister I.L. repeatedly denyrng sexual abuse. Mrs. L became aware that a wanant had been issued for her arrest, and on or about June 15, 2019, Mrs. L self-surrendered to law enforcement at the Sacramento County Jail. Mrs. L was a married mother of five children with no criminal history at the time of her arrest. The felony complaint filed on June 13, 2019 charged Mrs. L with eleven counts of violating Penal Code Section 288(a), lewd and lascivious acts with minors, between 2002 and2008 related to allegations made by G.L.'s older brothers. Mrs. L's bail was set at $750,000.
il/
//l

COMPLAINTFOR
6 RIGHTS

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 l0
I
1l
2 13
4 l5
6gl
*$E
.3H$ I
16 1,7
18 19
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 G.L.rs Aunt in Law Enforcement Denies G.L.rs Abuse to cocIIRANE

23. In or about mid-June of 20L9, G.L.'s maternal aunt Mary Anne spoke to DDA COCHRANE by telephone. She identified herself as a Deputy District Attomey in a neighboring jurisdiction and expressed grave concerns about the credibility of the allegations made by G.L.,s older brothers. COCHRANE was informed that G.L.'s eldest brother was angry because he believed their mother was responsible for the January 14 2018 police search of his Wyoming home that resulted in his drug conviction on June 6, 2018. G.L.'s aunt explained to COCHRANE that she had reported her eldest nephew to police for drug trafficking inlate 2017 , and that he had retaliated by accusing his mother of sexually abusing him to CATA]'{IO just a few days after his drug sentencing in June of 2018. COCHRANE was able to independently corroborate this information through the records in her possession at that time-

24. COCHRANE further learned from G.L.'s aunt that G.L.'s older brothers had extensive histories of lying and drug abuse, and that G.L.'s middle brother had a motive to exaggerate because he was seeking to become emancipated against the wishes of their parents' Upon learning these inconvenient truths, COCHRAI{E realized her case was weakened by the credibility issues identified by G.L.'s aunt, so she abruptly terminated the telephone call.

ZS. On information and belief, COCHRANE thereafter communicated with CATANIO to fabricate probable cause against G.L.'s mother so that she couldbe charged with additional crimes that were more recent. In other words, cocHRANE and CATANIO conspired to manufacture a new victim - G.L. - after they realized their weak case involved accusations from dubious witnesses that were over a decade old would need corroboration from a wibress with an unblemished reputation.
. 26. In or about mid-June of.20l9 while Mrs. L was in custody, the same female CPS employee Ms. Nahren Shabzian again returned to G.L.'s home to speak with him, his younger sister, and their father Robb. G.L. and his sister again denied that their mother had sexually abused them. This was memorializedin a report later provided to CATANIO and COCHRANE.

At the demand of CATANIO and COCHRANE (which was communicated by CPS), Robb 7 COMPLAINTFOR OF CIVL

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 J
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 2
4 ll
1 13
15 I
,? EH
*i*
-a'sE.FU
E
69 g
u R.f;
16 l7
18 19
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 reluctantly agreed to bring G.L. and LL. to the Sacramento county special Assault Forensic Evaluation Center C,CPS SAFE Center") to speak with a licensed counselor a few days later. At no time did G.L. consent to meeting with cPS norFolsom Police.

CpS SAIIE Center Interview - IlleFal Selzure: G.L. Dcnies Abuse for a Fourth Time

27. On or about June 28, 2019, while Mrs. L remained in custody at the Sacramento Co'nty Jail, Robb brought G.L. and LL. to the CPS interview at the SAFE Center on Power Inn Road pursuant to CpS's demand (the "SAFE Center Interviews"). Robb toured the room where the children would be questioned, which included a one-way mirror and video monitoring that made him and the children feel unable to leave. When Robb realized that his youngest children were going to be subjected to a custodial interrogation instead of receive counseling services, he demanded to leave with them. At no time was G.L.'s father Robb charged with any crime or accused of abusing his children. And at no point on June 28,2019 (or any other day) was Robb presented with a warrant or other Emergency Protective order to authorize the removal of G.L. (or I.L.) from:his custodY.

Zg. Nevertheless, CATANIO informed Robb that G.L. (and I.L.) would be taken into protective custody if he did not aglee to the CPS SAFE Center interview' This tlueatening exchange was audio recorded and logged into evidence by CATANIO, and provided to COCHRANE, but was not produced or disclosed to Plaintiffs parents nor Mrs. L's criminal defense attorney during the criminal discovery process. COCHRANE was in communication with CATANIO tlrroughout the CPS SAFE Center interview and directed CATANIO to threaten Robb with the forcible removal of his children without a warrant. CATANIO and COCHRANE both knew that Mrs. L was in custody at the Sacramento County Jail and thus there was no danger posed to the children, and both knew that no other exigent circumstances existed. CATANIO and COCHRAI.IE sought to conceal the existence of the audio tape of CATANIO threatening Robb at the CPS SAFE Center because they knew that their conduct violated G.L.'s clearly-estabtished Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights' Zg. CATANIO forced Robb into the hallway to separate him from his two young children while she and the same female cPS worker Ms. Shahbzian who had rwice interviewed FOR
E
OF

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1l
t2
t3
I4
o9
€ Ea
3e?
6H$
15 l6
t7
18 19
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 G.L. at his home watched interviewer Darla Garcia conduct separate interviews with G.L and I.L. from behind a one-way minor. Both G.L. and I.L. again denied being sexually abused by their mother. While G.L. was interviewed fot over an hour at the CPS SAFE Center, CATANIO and the female CPS employee observed bebind a one-way mirror while COCHRANE watched a live video feed of the interview remotely. COCHRAI.IE, CATANIO and the interviewer communicated with each other throughout the CPS SAFE Center Interview, including during at least three "breaks" away from G.L. lasting approximately seven or more minutes each'

30. DDA COCHRANE acted in an investigative capacity with Detective CATANIO during the CPS SAFE Center Interviews and throughout the investigation.

31. At the outset of his CPS SAFE Center Interview, G.L. explained that CATANIO had previously attempted to improperly influence his statements during the School Interview:
,.The detective, um, we met them at our school once - we met her at our school once because we had to go - we had to go see her and, um, she said that I was assaulted when I was 5 and I'm - and I said no I wasn't."
iZ. Later in the CPS SAFE Center lnterview, when G.L. is asked about CATANIO interviewing him at school, he again states that "she [Catanio] said that I was not assaulted, but sexually assaulted. Um, when I was 5, and I was like, 'I didn't have - I don't have any recall of that., And she said...'n At this critical moment of the CPS SAFE Center Intewiew, G.L. was intemrpted and cut offby the interviewer to prevent him from diwlging how CATANIO tried to taint Plaintiff s memory and testimony during the School Interview.

33. Dgring the CPS SAFE Center Interview and School Interview, G.L. and his sister reported normal caretaking behaviors by both parents which did not amount to sexual abuse.

When asked whether "anything ever happened to your front private?-, G.L. replied 'ono." 'When asked whether anyone told G.L. what to say during the CPS SAFE Center Interview, he said ..no, not at all." When asked whether anyone told G.L. not to tell the interviewer anything, G.L. again replies, "no." When asked about how he felt about his mom going to jail, G.L. replied, "I imean) sad obviously." I
ilt
FOR
9 TIONOF CIUL

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1
11 2
13 t4
15 o99 EU
3li{9 a
.E FF
ke E
un#
16 I7
18 19
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 34. When asked if there was anything G.L. didn't like about his mother going to jail, he replied that "the thing that I don't like about it, Is that we have to go through all this' Go through this is - this isn't therapy, but this is like an interview"'In other words, the 9-year-old G.L. articulated that he did not consent to being questioned during the CPS SAFE Center Interview; G.L.',s objection to his seizure and interrogation was heard by both GATANIO and COCHRANE in real time.

35. The interviewer eventually tells G.L. to go into another room across the hall and says "I'm gonna see what other questions we have' !f we do have more questiOns' we can come back in here." That should have been the end of the cPS SAFE Center Interview' i,6. lnstead, CATANIO, COCHRAI.IE andthe interviewer communicatedwith each other in G.L.'s absence during the first'obreak." COCHRANE and CATA}IIO conspiredto intimidate G.L. to manipulate and taint the 9-year-old witness's statements- The interviewer retrieved G.L. and resumed the cPS SAFE Center Interview armed with interrogation questions prepared by COCHRANE and CATA}UO during the "break"'
37 . G.L. was then asked a series of 4l more questions about the family's interactions, sleeping arrangements, cuddling, bathing and showering' G'L.'s responses indicated there was no sexual abuse going on. For example, when asked if there was "ever a time that it was just you and your mom that would cuddle?", G'L' replied, "No' It would always be at least three of us. Me, my sister and my mom. Or me and my sister and my dad"'When asked about their showering and grooming, the interviewer said, "So she would wash your hair and you said that she also helped you brush your teeth." G.L. replied, "Yeah." when asked if his mother ever did anything else to his body, G.L. replied, "Nope' Not at all"' The interviewer again indicated that G.L. had answered dozens of questions sufficiently to end the interview, so she asked if there was anything "we had talked about that you wanted to let me know anything more about.,, G.L. responded, "no." At this point, the interviewer removed G'L. from the room for a second time to communicate with CATANIO and cocHRANE. 3g. COCHRANE and CATAI.{IO,again conspired during the second "break" to further intimidate and manipulate the 9-year-old witness by subjecting G.L. to prolonged and FOR
l0

OF RIGHTS

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 2
11 I
13 I4
15 sI5s-gd
E:a'6FV E
,5H$
l6
t7
18 19
20 2I
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 exhausting interrogation over the objections of G.L. and his father. Defendants sent the interviewer back to speak with G.L. a third time because none of the statements previously obtained from G.L. during the first hour of his interrogation constituted abuse.

39. On information and belief, COCHRANE and CATANIO instructed the interviewer to continue harassing and questioning G.L. until his mother could be charged with additional crimes. Throughout the CPS SAFE Center Interview, CATANIO prevented Robb from being with G.L. and/or leaving with his children despite numerous requests from G.L. and Robb to leave.

40. After the second 'obreak," the interyiewer returned and asked G.L.forty morc questions prepared by CATANIO and COCHRANE. G.L. explained that the oldest age at which he took a shower with his mom was 5 years old. The interviewer asked invasive and repetitive questions of G.L. about his mother washing his private areas with soap at 5 years old, then asked "How did that make you feel when that happened?' G.L. replied, 'Not really uncomfortable but now that I think about it, it makes you feel uncomfortable." This statement by G.L. - that his mother's conduct appeared to make the interviewer "uncomfortable" many years later - was the supposed "gotcha" moment that CATANIO and COCHRANE later claimed was the basis for saying that G.L. had "disclosed abuse"! The interviewer asked whether there were any questions she forgot to ask or that G.L. wants to talk about, and G.L. replied.ono." Once again, the interviewer appeared to be under the impression that the CPS SAFE Center Interview should conclude, G.L. was removed from the roomfor a third time while the interviewer communicated with CATANIO and COCHRANE. 4L. On information and belief, on the third "break" from G.L.'s CPS SAFE Center Interview, COCHRANE and CATANIO again instructed the interuiewer to continue harassing and questioning G.L. until his mother could be charged with additional crimes. Dissatisfied that G.L. could not be tainted, COCHRANE and CATANIO sent the interviewer back again to badger G.L. into conftrming that he was molested - to no avail.

42.: The interviewer returned for a fourth time and asked G.L. a dozen more l questions, including whether "at any time did anything ever go inside of the hole when your 1l

FORVIOLA OF CIVILRIGHTS

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 #Ea
EeE
THfi t4
15 t6
t7
18 19
20 2I
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 mom would wash your back private?" G.L. responded, "no'" G.L. complained in his sweet 9- year-old way about the length and intrusiveness of the CPS SAFE Center Interview by asking at the end, "Is this one of the longer ones you've had?"

43. The June 2g,20lg video CPS SAFE Center lnterviews of G.L. and his sister I.L. were logged into evidence.2

44. Throughout the School Interviews and CPS SAFE Center Interuiews, G'L. and his sister were separated from each other but provided similar information to law enforcement.

Both children denied being sexually abused by their mother but admitted to normal parental caretaking behavior and taking showers with their mother when they were younger' There was no substantive difference between the statements made by G.L. compared to those made by his sister I.L. during their conversations with CPS, the School Interviews, nor at the CPS SAFE center Interviews. However, at the direction of CATANIO and COCHRANE, G'L''s CPS SAFE Center Interview was of a much longer duration than his sister's CPS SAFE Center Interview.
cocEU$fE & SCIIUBERT Amend comDlaint to Aucse G.L. Wa$ Sc4tlrIl' Abused

45. Mr. & Mrs. L used their life savings, together with family contributions, to post Mrs. L's $750,000 bail on or about June29,20l9'

46. Four days later, on or about the morning of July 3,20L9, Mrs. L attended a pre- trial hearing wherein she was re-arested and remanded back into custody' The First Amended Complaint (FAC) filed on even date added three new counts of violating Section 288(a) of the penal Code and was signed by DDA COCHRANE on July 2,2019 at the direction of District Attorney (DA) ANNE MARIE SCHUBERT. The FAC contains a number of factual allegations about G.L. which Defendants knew were not true. Each of the three new counts added to the FAC pertained to G.L, however none were supported by probable cause.

47. COCHRANE amended the FAC despite the fact that all evidence examined during the investigation of this matter indicated G.L. had not been victimized by any crime' 2 euotations from the CpS SAFE Center interview in this Complaint were taken from the video evidence of said interview that was used at trial in Peoole v..Patricia Lane, Sacramento Superior Court Case No' 19FE010439' FOR
12 RIGHTS

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1l
12 13
$i*
d, E -o'
!'F,E.FU
E
6e g
,R# t4
15 16
I7
18 t9
20 2T
))
23 24
25 26
27 28
Each of the eleven cognts contained in the original complaint related to G.L.'s older brothers between 2002 through 2008 carried a maximum sentence of 15 years to life. The three new counts in the FAC spanned from 2015 through 2018 and pertained to G.L.'s mother taking showers with G.L. Because the law had changed, the possible sentence was 25 years to life for each of the tbree new counts pertaining to G.L.
4g. The FAC filedby COCHRANE at the direction of SCHUBERT also added a multiple victim sentence enhancement, which furttrer increased the bail amount and possible sentence. Mrs. L's bail was increased to $2 million dollars, which was more than she could afford to pay.3 Mrs. L was remanded back into custody as a consequence of CATANIO's lies about G.L.

49. cocHRANE, SCHUBERT and GATANIO conspired to addthree new charges to the FAC pertaining to G.L. knowing that those charges were not supported by probable cause for the improper purposes of increasing bail and forcing Mrs. L to fight her charges in custody.

This conspiracy was intended to and did weaken Mrs. L's defense.

50. Neither COCHRANE, SCHUBERT, nor CATANIO disclosed the existence of the School Interview recordings to Robb, nor did they ever produce the audio recording(s) of the Schooi Interviews upon multiple pre-trial requests from Mrs. L's criminal defense attorney' G.L.rs Aunt in Law Enforcement Denies G.L.'sAbuse t0 CAT'Ar'UO

51. On or aboutthe afternoon of July 3,2019,G.L.'s maternal aunt Mary Anne who had previously spoken to COCHRANE visited the Folsom Police station to speak with CATANIO and another Folsom Police Detective Triplet regarding the criminal case against G.L.ns mother. CATANIO audio recorded the interview wherein G.L.'s aunt again expressed grave concerns about the credibility of the allegations made by G.L.'s older brothers. 3 For context as to how exorbitant Mrs. L's bail amount was' it was four times the amount set for a suspect in the largest mass-shooting in Sacramento history Daviyonne Dawson; Dawson was released on a $500,000 bond by the same Superior Court on APril 6,2022 after six people were killed and twelve i4jured in exteme violence' Mrs, L's bail was increased from $750,000 to $2 millionbecause COCHRAI'{E and CATANIO falselY insisted that showering with G.L. when he was 5 years old constituted sexual abuse and because CATANIO fabricated allegations G.L. being anallY Penetrated.

FOR
l3

OF CIVIL

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 aJ
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 I
t2
13 o9
{ 6H
{is€! a
.A FE.FU
E
69 g
uil# L4
15 t6
17 18
t9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 52. Like DDA COCHRANE, CATAIIIo was similarly informedby G'L.'s aunt Mary Anne that G.L.'s older brothers had credibility issues, drug addictions, and motives to lie.

53. CATANIO proceeded to inform G.L.'s aunt that notwithstanding the drug and credibility issues with them, that wouldnot explain why G.L. had "made a disclosure" during his cps SAFE center Interview. CATANIO intentionally misrepresented to G.L.'s aunt that G.L. had accused his mother of sexually abusing him in an effort to taint the testimony of yet another witness. For example, CATANIO falsely stated during the audio-recorded interview with G.L.'s aunt that:
"the description that tC.L.l gave during his interview- was not 'mom was helping me with one thing or anothet.' okay, it was an hour long, nearly, interview, very descriptive, Um, and we don't- ah, we're parents' I'm a parent. I get the difference between wiping your kid 9r ygur kid telling you their crotch hurts or penis hurts or you having to look at their private area and sometimes help them wipe areas where you. normally wouldn't. I get it. I'm a parent. um, but when a child is describing something more ih*thut,yoi bq,ond that,umany adult would know is inappropriate contact. That's where these chuges stem from, and that where we're at with [G.L.]. I mean, to be honest with you, I didn't expect_anything at all in talking with him. I really didn't, um so what was described was not 'mom was helPing me out."

54. G.L.'s auntresponded to GATANIO that, "G[.L.] and I[.L.] are staying at my house right now and the last thing they said to me before I drove down here was 'give my mom a big hug. We're so glad she's out ofjail.'...G[.L.] was very concemed about [his mother] Patti, wanting her to get out." CATANIIO retorted, *What motivation would G[.L.] have in making a discl0sure?" After Detective CATANIO ftst lied to G.L.'s aunt that G.L. had reported sexual abuse, but she did not believe that lie, CATANIO doubled down by indirectly accusing the 9- year-old G.L. of lying!

55. Throughout the July 3,2}lg exchange with G.L.'s aunt, CATANIO repeatedly attempted to mislead her into believing that G.L. reported during the CPS SAFE Center Interview that his mother was continuing to touch him in an inappropriate sexual manner' In truth, G,L. had merely stated that he had taken showers with his mother on occasion. CATANIO nevertheless insisted and can be heard on the audio recording saying:

COMPLAINT
t4

OF CIVI

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
1l
!EndE;
>'i!I rh.EU I
.!H$
1)
J
t4
15 T6
t7
18 19
20 2L
aaLL
23 24
25 26
27 28
,|
The entirety of this statement by GATAIT{IO was fabricated. Moreover, CATANIO inadvertently admitted that she needed G.L. to bolster her weak case because his brothers had major credibility issues - including drug use, mental health problems and lying' CATANIO and COCHRANE did not know those credibility issues with G.L.'s brothers would later be excluded from evidence at Mrs. L's criminal trial, so they tried to manufacture the perfect victim by falsely insisting that G'L. had also reported sexual abuse'

56. G.L.'s aunt Mary Anne provided CATANIO with the names and contact information of at least four witnesses who could attest to the veracity of her statements. Despite another member of law enforcement encouraging her to contact material witnesses, CATANIo did not make a single telephone call nor attempt to speak with any of the witnesses identified by G.L.,s aunt. At COCHRANE's direction, CATANIO intentionally failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into the facts because they did not want to find anything that could undennine their case against G.L.'s mother.

57. Neither COCHRANE nor CATANIO seriously entertained the alternate theory posed by G.L.'s aunt- who was a member of law enforcement with a close relationship to almost every person involved in the case. At COCHRANE's behest, CATAMO was too busy disparaging G.L. and putting words into his mouth to consider the possibility that no crime had been committed.
cAl'AIyJo & cp.cHILNyEJalnt witnesses bv LvinEThFts.L. Disclosed sexual Abuse 5g. When witnesses and people familiar with the farnily did not believe that Mrs' L was a child molester, CATANIO and cocHRANE executed their defamatory scheme to FOR
l5

OF CIVIL

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 I
I
l3
I
r5
2 4
os
EEHsE;
ESEEe E
uR#
T6
t7
l8
19 20
2l
22 23
24 25
26 arf
28 convince them that G.L. had independent$ corroborated the sexual abuse allegations his older brothers made against their mother'

59. CATA}{IO intentionally made false statements about G.L. to family members and third parties in order to make them believe G.L. had beeu victimized so they would turn against Mrs. L.

60. CATANIO made a habit of tainting witness testimony in child abuse investigations because she herself was a victim of child abuse - which the CITY OF FOLSOM and SCHUBERT knew, authorized and encouraged'

61. CATANIO and COCHRANE conspired to and did intentionally mischaracterize G.L.'s CpS SAFE Center Interview statements to convince multiple skeptics that G.L. had reported that his mother had sexually abused him. For example, on or about July 5,2019, CATANIO falsely told Robb's mother and stepfather that G.L. had "inade a disclosure" regarding his mother during his CPS SAFE Centerlnterview. CATANIO made this false statement to G.L.'s grandparents hoping that it would tum Robb's parents against Mrs' L - which it did.

62. CATANIO also falsely informed G.L.'s maternal uncle that G.L. had alleged sexual abuse against his mother despite CATAMO's knowledge that G.L.'s uncle had an extensive drug and mental health history. CATANIO and COCHRANE were previously advised that G.L.'s uncle had been battling severe drug and mental health issues since the Folsom Police Department arrested him in 2016 while under the influence of LSD'

63. In funherance of their defamatory campaign, DDA COCHRANE conspired with and encouraged CATANIO to mischaracterize G.L.'s CPS SAFE Center Interview and School Interview statements to G.L.'s uncle with knowledge that G.L.'s uncle was of unsound mind- CATANIO made statements to G.L.'s uncle that he needed to protect G.L. from being further abused by his mother, and stated her opinion that Mrs. L had also "groomed",G.L.'s uncle at a young age. CATANIO sought to convince a mentally illyoung man that his nephew G'L. was being sexually abused when he was not, then further insisted to that same young man that he was in denial because he himself had probably also been "groomed" by G'L.'s mother' 16 FORVIOLA OF CIVIL

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.
2 J
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 llo9
{ Fngdfr
sEI.
-E'E"E.FU
E
69 g
,r*#
I2
3 4I
15 16
17 18
T9
20 2L
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 64. CATANIO similarly falsely informed G'L.'s brother(s) that G'L' had alleged sexual abuse against their mother in an effort to elicit allegations of similar abuse from G'L''s brother(s). These misstatements formed the basis for G.L''s brothers, uncle, and paternal grandparents thereafter launching a protective crusade related to G'L' which was unnecessary' unwanted, invasive and unffue. CATAI'IIO's misstatements about G'L' also served as the impetgs that turned family members against Mrs. L - including G'L''s uncle and Robb's parents.

65. On information and belief, CATANIO's witness tainting strategy to "divide and conquer,, the nuclear family unit in this case was the exact same pattern she exhibited when she tainted witness testimony dwing her investigation into the o'Neel family in Folsom. Namely, CATAI{IO lied to members of the accused's family in an effort to turn them against the family member CATAMO was falsely aCcusing of abuse - just as she did to G'L.

66. The cITy oF FOLSOM knew of CATANIO's habitual wihess tainting because the o,Neel family had previously filed a government tort claim with the CITY OF FOLSOM' The ensuing civil complaint filed by the o'Neel family in u.s. District court indicated CATAI..UO told the children who were the subject of her criminal investigations that CATA}{IO had herself been a victim of child abuse, and that cATANIO',s sibling had also been abused as a child.a The cITy oF FoLSOM had a duty to inquire whether CATANIO's self-proclaimed personal trauma poisoned her ability to faithfully execute her duty to the Constitution' Instead' the CITy OF FOLSOM adopted a policy and practice of keeping police personnel files free of any damaging information that could be used to impeach their police offtcer's credibility and/or bias as a witness.

67. As a direct consequence of that policy of concealment, cATAMO continued to intentionally make false accusations about families that she was supposed to be investigating' The procedure of seizing children without a warrant or evidence was instituted by the CITY OF FOLSOM at the advice and with the consent of DA ANNE MARIE SCHUBERT' a see o'Neel et al v city of Folsom et al, 2:21-cv-02403-WBS-DB, EcF No' 1 at cITy oF FoLSOM received a government tort claim from the o'Neel family on p. 9 filed December 24, 2021.
or about June 16, 2021. Id' at P.
1l
l"l

OF CIVL

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
!g*
d E:.

EEER'r E
u n,H
2 J
I
I
L4
l5
16 l7
l8
19 20
2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Defendants Obtdn protectlve Or{qr Prohlbltins All Contect Botwcen G.L. rnd Hi$ Mom 6g. At the direction of DA SCH{.JBERT, DDA COCHRAI{E requested and obtained a..no contact" protective order from the Sacramento Superior Court prohibiting G.L. from having any telephone or other contact with his mother on or about July 2, 2019. This no-contact order was based on CATANIO's mischaracterization of G.L.'s CPS SAFE Center Interview, which SCHUBERT and cocHRANE both knew did not constitute probable cause to believe G.L. had been sexually abused. The testimony CATANIO fabricated about G.L.'s anal penetration fonned the basis for the July 2,2019 protective order, however both SCHUBERT and COCHRANE knew at that time that the counts pertaining to G.L. had also been fabricated by CATANIO.

69. SCHUBERT, COCHRANE and GATANIO conspired to obtain the no'contact order in contravention of G.L.'s Constitutional rights to firther their improper purpose of persuading G.L. that his own mother had abused him. SCHUBERT, COCHRAI'{E and CATANIO used G.L. in their campaign to make his mother "public enemy number one" so that SCHUBERT could declare herself the protector and gain name recognition. More than two years passed before G.L. could see or speak with his mother from July 2,20L9 tbrough October lg,ZOZL.No such protective order was requested by COCHRANE to prevent G.L.'s little sister from having contact with their mother.
preliminrrv llsarins- CATANIo, cocHRANqErbricate Probeblc cause. Silence G.L.

70. G.L. asked to speak at his mother's preliminary hearing on or aboutNovember 12, ZOlg so that he could answer questions from the judge directly to clarify that he was not sexually abused by her. Defense counsel argued that:

Gt.L.] would testify we would expect consistent with the statements that ne fras made that tfe contact that's at issue in this case has to do with the shower or showers, I should say that, Ms. [L] would take showers with Gt.L.l and wash his body, including his groin area.both front and back, that she didn't linger on those, that there was nothing sexual about that, that he didn't havi - that he felt that he was just being showered, and that ended approximately when he was 7 when he was able to shower and take care of himself in that regard. We think that's afFtrmative evidence that , negates the sexual intent component that's required for 288. It also in part imleaches [G.L.'s eldest brother] Christian. And it would also illuminate t8
OFCIUL

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
t0
11 T2
13 I4
iiH.uEi
-a h.E
ie E
eii.H
15 16
T7
18 19
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 71. At the behest and direction of DA SCHUBERT, DDA COCHRANE objected vigorously and prevented G.L. from testiffing at the preliminary hearing on November 12,2019 to bury their conspiracy. G.L. sat in the hallway waiting for his chance to speak tuttr to power.

The Court had inquired whether G.L.'s version of events had changed at all, noting that "It's my understanding its been consistent from his statements to law enforcement to the defense investigation." Defense counsel replied:
the fact that he says that he never observed any sort of sexual condlct between Ms. [L] and any of the other boys in this case. So we do think that he provides aifirmative evidence for the purposes of the prelim's Gt.L.l has been interviewed at least twice and possibly three times by law enforcement and then twice by the defense. So his ge,lreral story has not changed when he was originally interviewed. No charges lvere filed. And then he was interviewed again. And nothing really changed substantively about his testimony about what he said vis-d-vis having showers with his mom. But I think it's the tenufe. And G[.L.], who's 9 at this point is an - l0 now - intelligent young man, very articulate, and I think the court's ability to assess what he says versus whatos going to be relayed through a r."ottd-h*d police officer by way of I15. I think it illuminates this very critical component because the conduct that we would see in a sexual conduct ofintercourse or penetration or oral copulation or any ofthose things that one would say that conduct is clearly a sexual conduct. But *ur[iog and bathing a young child is not overtly sexual. It requires an inference. And I think G[.L.]'s testimony regarding what actually occurred and his ability to articulate to the court I think is important for that determination.6

72. Because COCHRANE would not allow G.L. to speak, CATANIO instead falsely testified at the preliminary hearing that G.L.'s older brother Christian had reported seeing their mother insert her finger into G.L.'s rectum while they were living at the "house on Brophy Drive." Unbeknownst to Judge Savage, there was absolutely NO record in any of the investigative reports of G.L.'s brother Christian ever making such an allegatioq nor could CATANIO identify when or how she was supposedly informed of this incident. The Court 5 Clerk's Transcript on Appeal, pg. 00144-0014S,IgdgJ*PahiSlgl.agg, Court of Appeal No' C094996' 6 Clerk's Transtript on Apfeal, pg. 00146, People v. Patioia L, Court of Appeal No. C094996.

FOR
l9

OF CIVL

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 Hil ',)
UET
-E FE 13.IU E
ie E
u n.H 14
l5
16 17
18 19
20 2T
,,.|
23 24
25 26
27 28
nevertheless denied Mrs. L's motion to reduce bail and allowed cocHRANE and SCHUBERT to proceed with the three new charges in the FAc pertaining to G.L.

73. Ten-year old G.L. was never appointed ao attorney, guardian ad litem or other representative throughout any of the proceedings, nor was that option ever given to G'L' or Robb during what was clearly a criminal investigation. DA SCUBERT, DDA COCHMNE and cAT,{tuo knew that G.L. and his father Robb were not represented by counsel during the school lnterview, cPS SAFE Center lnterview, preliminary hearing or trial. Defendants intentionally exploited that lack of counsel when they violated G-L.'s Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

74. The entirety of the purponed evidence amassed by Defendants to support the charges in the FAC that G.L. had been sexually abused by his mother was nil' Defendants nevertheless conspired to coerce, silence, defame and harass the young G'L' into falsely testifying that he had been victimized by a crime at the hands of his own mother all the way through Mrs. L's criminal ftial in July of 2021. This was a violation of G'L"s clearly established Constitutional rights.

75. DA SCUBERT AND DDA COCHRANE used G.L. as a pawn to advance SCHUBERT,S ,.tough on crime" image for the upcoming California Attorney General campaign despite G.L. repeatedly insisting that he had not been molested. DDA COCHRA}IE had knowledge that her direct supervisor -. Sacramento District Attorney ANNE MARIE SCHUBERT - would be seeking higher office with a'otough on crime" platform. SCHUBERT developed a systemic practice and policy of encouraging Constitutional deprivations within the District Attorney's Office to showcase her prosecutorial prowess to the public' This "win at all costs,, mentality motivated SCHI'BERT, COCHRANE and CATANIO when they uueasonably seized, detained, questioned, harassed, defamed and silenced G'L. over the objections of G'L' and his father Robb.

76. COCHRANE and CATANIO knew of SCHUBERT's ulterior political motivations for seeking multiple felony charges against a female defendant when they agreed to fabricate probable cause that G.L. had been molested. SCHUBERT developed a systemic 20 FORVIOLATIONOF RIGHTS

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
I
9 10
2 ll
I
13 Q9
fEn
EBE
,5fi$ I4
t5
16 17
18 L9
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 practice and policy within the Sacramento District Attorney's Office of fabricating probable cause and tainting witress testimony to favor the prosecution'

77. CATANIO, COCHRANE and SCHUBERT conspired to and did improperly harass G.L., unreasonably question and detain G.L. over the objections of G.L. and his father, desfroy the tape of G.L.'s School Interview, conceal the audio recording of Robb being threatened with seizure of his children at the CPS SAFE Center, intimidate and prevent G'L' from testiffing at his mother's preliminary hearing, make unfiue defamatory statements to third parties that Mrs. L had sexually abused G.L., and force G.L. to testiff as a prosecution witress against his own mother - all with knowledge that they were violating Plaintiffs' clearly established Constitutional rights.

Defendrnts Elnder Efforts to Retrieve Exculnatory Evidencg of Schosl htervleFAudlo Zg. CATANIO claimed that the audio recording(s) of the School Interviews with G.L. and his sister I.L. were deleted from her computer by another unnamed member of the Folsom police Department. The foremost "expert" within the Folsom Police Department responsible for infomration technology ("ff"), Defendant ROWBERRY, was supposedly consulted by CATANIO to determine whether the School Interview recordings which had been deleted could be retrieved.

79. On information and belief, COCHRANE, CATANIO, and ROWBERRY instead conspired to permanently destroy any and all recording(s) and back-up copies of the exculpatory School Interviews wherein Plaintiff and his sister repeatedly told CATANIO that their mother had not sexually abused them. RowBERRY, COCHRANE and CATANIO thereafter intentionally evaded investigators and member of Mrs. L's defense team who made multiple attempts to retrieve the data from them, all for the purpose of destroying evidence to frustrate justice.

80. The destruction of the School Interview recordings by Defendants was intended to and did strengthen the prosecution's case against G.L.'s mother. The destruction of this evidence was particularly harmful because the School Interviews were the first contact CATANIO had with G.L. and his sister I.L., and demonstrate what G.L. explained in his CPS 2t

COMPLAINT VIOLATION RIGHTS

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
I
11 2
13 15
41 o9
fi95.c9d
€BEie E
uR#
16 I7
18 19
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 SAFE Center lnterview: that it was CATAMO who first told G.L. that she beliarcd G.L. had been ..sexually assaulted" by his mother - not G.L. who disclosed abuse to CATANIO. In other words, the audio that proves CATANIO tainted wibress testimony went mysteriously missing from both of the devices issued to GATANIO by the CITY OF FOLSOM before they could be togged into evidence - CATANIO's cellphone and laptop
8l . In lieu of the school Interview recordings, cocHRANE instead produced an inadequate and undated one-page surnmary of the School Interviews draftedby CATANIO perfunctorily stating the children had denied abuse. DDA COCHRANE participated in the destruction of audio evidence at the behest and direction of DA SCHUBERT to secure convictions against G.L.'s mother in frrtherance of scHUBERT',s political aspfuations of becoming the next .,tough on crime" Attomey General of California. Defendants destroyed the School Interview audio recording at the expense of G.L.'s Constitutional rights so that they could commit fraud upon the Court without leaving a trace' gZ. ROWBERRY, as CATANIO's senior officer who wag responsible for IT within the cITy oF FOLSOM police Department, refused to cooperate withMrs. L's defense team during the investigation because he knew that GATANIO and CoCHRANE destroyed audio evidence and used fabricated information to substantiate their claims that G-L. had been sexually abused. RoWBERRY knew or should have known that deprivations of G.L''s Constitutional rights were occturing when he was asked to retrieve audio recordings that CATANIO had deleted without adequate explanation from her department-issued cell phone and laptop computer. ROWBERRY had the experience aud training to retrieve the audio of the School Interviews, however he would not return telephone calls from defense investigators or take any steps to recover the data because CATANIO and COCHRANE informed him of their conspiracy to withhold the audio files at all costs'
g3. SCHUBERT, COCHRA].IE and GATAI.IIO knew they lacked the necessary probable cause to charge l{rs. L for the crimes pertaining to G.L. alleged in the FAC' However, cocHRANE and sCHUBERT were emboldened by the knowledge that their decisions to 22 OF CIVL

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
t1
T2
13 o9
,9 Es
EiiqEi.
isE
,3Hfi t4
l5
16 I7
18 19
20 2L
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 withhold evidence and overcharge Mrs. L would have no consequence in the Sacramento Superior Court.
g4. COCHRAIIE, SCHUBERT CATANIO, and ROWBERRY conspired to and did intentionally destroy the School Interview recordings, which were the most critical evidence collected by the prosecution during the entirety of their investigation against G.L.'s mother. The unblemished truth from the mouths of babes that was recorded closest in time to the acts alleged was wrongfully withheld and deleted by Defendants. COCHRANE and SCHLIBERT then capitalizedon their destruction of exculpatory evidence by filing additional charges against G.L.'s mother for sexually abusing G.L. which they knew were not supported by probable cause.

Defendnnt$ Conaeal Audio Recordlns of CATAI\IO Threatins to Selze G.I{. tr'rom'hls Dad g5. The audio recording of CATANIO tfueatening to take Robb's children away just prior to the June 28,20lg CPS SAI'E Center Interviews was saved and logged as evidence, however COCHRANE did not provide it to the defense until Mrs. L's defense counsel identified and specifically requested it. NIrs. L's counsel noticed for the first time an entry within the same screenshot CATANIO provided to prove that her computer had been wiped clean' In other words, the audio recording of CATANIO threatening to take G.L. away from his father Robb at the CpS SAFE Center would not have been discovered but-for CATANIO's denial that the School Interview audio recordings existed.
g6. COCHRANE, CATAI.IIO and SCHUBERT conspired to conceal this material evidence at COCHRANE's direction because CATAI.IIO had threatened on tape to seize G.L. if his father did not consent to him being interrogated. Defendants did so to conceal CATANIO and COCHRANE's Constitutional violations and preserve SCHUBERT's image with voters in the upcoming California Attorney General election'
g7. COCHRANE and CATANIO conspired to and did wrongtully withhold the audio recording from the CPS SAFE Center of CATANIO threatening to take G.L. and his sister away from their father if they did not consent to the CPS SAFE Center Interviews.

COCHRANE failed to produce the audio recording of CATAMO threatening Robb to take his FOR
23 OF CIVL

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 2
4 11
1 13
15 1
o9
{ Fag<fr
€E;
-a'sH.FU
E
,iH"H
t6
T7
18 r9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 children away during the discovery process of Mrs' L's criminal case' However' CATANIO inadvertently informed Mrs. L',s criminal defense team that an audio recording of Robb at the CpS SAFE Center existed when she sent a screenshot demonstrating that the School Interview recordings were inaccessible.
gg. It was only upon noticing reference to a previously undisclosed file name that Mrs. L's defense attomey specifically requested and obtained from COCHRANE the audio recording of GATANIO threatening to take Robb's children away. cocHRANE and CATANIO had conspired to conceal the audio recording of CATANIO threatening Robb at the CpS SAFE Center in the same manner that the School Interview audio recording was destroyed, however they were precluded from destroying the audio of Robb at the CPS SAFE Center by Mrs. L's defense attorney making a written discovery demand for the audio file'7 gg. CATANIO, COCHRAITE and ScHUBERT knew that the systemic bias within Sacramento Superior Court would preclude lvfrs. L's defense attorney from having an independent IT expert examine cATAI'IIO',s department-issued cell phone and laptop; Defendants relied on this favoritism when establishing such practices' pit.hur. Motion - CATAITIIO's Hlstorv of \lgitness Taintins concesled bv Defendilts

90. Mrs. L's criminal defense attomey filed a Pitchess motion regarding CATANIO on or about June 24, 2021 related to CATANIO's destruction of the School Interview audio evidence and tainting witness testimony about G.L. The motion sought infonnation regarding CATAl.lIO,s training, evidence handling, and any prior allegations of witness tainting.

91. On or about July 7, 2021, anin-camera hearing was held in Sacramento Superior court regarding the Pitchessmotion frled by Mrs. L's defense attorney as to GATANIO' DAVID CAIIEPA, as custodian of records for the city of Folsom Police Department, participated in person atthe Pitchess hearing wherein he intentionally withheldmaterial information pertaining to GATANIO from sacramento superior court Judge Ernest sawtelle' ? It is unknown whether ROWBERRY's diScovery ofthis audio recording of CATANIO threatening to seize the children served as the tipping point which laler prompted ROWBERRYTo attempt to withdraw from the consPiracY to violate G.L.'s civil rights' The inquiry is irrelevant since ROWBERRY' s later attemPt to withdraw from the acttaken bY ROWBERRY to defeat the purpose ofthe conspiracyconspiracy did not include any affirmative FOR
24 CIVIL

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.
1 2
J
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 1l
t2
13 o9
rin
EBE69 S
,R# t4
15 16
l7
18 19
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 92. CITY OF FOLSOM and the County of Sacramento had previously received notice on or about June 16, 2021thatCATANIO had a history of tainting witness testimony with false statements and conducting illegal searches and seizures in child abuse cases. Several weeks before Mrs. L's Pitchess motion, a govemment tort claim alleging that same conduct had been filed against CATAMO, TIIE CITY OF FOLSOM and the County of Sacramento by claimants Faun O'Neel and her minor children involving facts that were shockingly similar to G.L.' experience with CATANIO.
gg. COCHRANE and SCHUBERT were on written, actual and constructive notice of CATANIO's history of tainting witness testimony because the same goveflment tort claim had been frtedby the O'Neel family with COCHRANE and SCH{.JBERT's employer County of Sacramento on June 16,202"1.. Despite their knowledge of this ugly truth, CAI{EPA' CATANIO, COCHRANE and SCHUBERT denied and intentionally concealed any history of wrongdoing by CATANIO from the Court during the July 7,2021 Pitchess motion. This concealment and fraud upon the Court was part of the policies and practices established by the CITY OF FOLSOM and SCHUBERT.8

94. At the direction of Sacramento Superior Court Judge Ernest Sawtelle, shortly after the Pitchess hearing on or about July !2,2021, Mrs. L's criminal defense attorney emailed CATANIO to "retrieve these [School lnterview] t"gqldings from your phone, computer, iTunes or iCloud account." CATANIO was specifically advised in that email that time was of the essence, and she was asked to identify the IT expert within the CITY OF FOLSOM with the expertise to retrieve the recording of G.L.'s School lnterview. Both CATANIO and COCHRANE knew that Mrs. L's criminal trial was just days away, however at the direction of COCHRANE andthe CITY OF FOLSOM, CATAI{IO intentionallyrefused to cooperate with Mrs. L's defense attomey. CATAMO would not respond to multiple emails and telephone calls seeking to retrieve the audio recordings of G.L.'s School Interview from her department-issued .8,As previously stated the govemment tort claim filed by the O'Neel family was denied by the CITY OF FOLSOM and later resulted in the filing of
Eastem District of Califomia on
No. 2:21-cv-02403-WBS-DB.
a complaint against CATANIO and CITY OF FOLSOM in the U.S. District Court or about December 24,202l, identified as O'Neel et al v. tity of Folsom a al, 25 FORVIOLA OF CIVL

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
L2
13 0i9
Eg:dE;
EBE
EHfr t4
15 r6
17 18
I9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 cell phone and laptop, and further refused to identiff ROWBERRY as the IT expert within the CITy OF FOLSOM who had the experience to retrieve the data. CATANIO was emboldened by the CITy OF FOLSOM's policy and practice of concealing Brady violations to protect its police officers. CANEPA's concealment of CATANIO's prior wrongdoing from the Court at Mrs. L,s pitchess motion underscored the lack of professionalism and candor exhibited by CITy OF FOLSOM employees who were entrusted with seruing the public good. This deputized CATAMO with the authority to continue her spree of Constitutional violations.

Criminal Trlal Testlmonv - G.L. Deiries Abuse For the Fifth and Final Time

95. After spending two years in jail, ldrs. L's criminal trial began in late July of 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. G.L. was 11 years old at the time. The jury watched the video of G.L's CpS SAFE Center Interview at fiial and heard Plaintiffand his father testiff.

96. The jury did not have the benefit of hearing the audio recording of G.L.'s School Interview because CATANIO claimed the audio file could not be recovered by ROWBERRY from CATANIO's computer hard drive or cell phone after being supposedly erased by a member of Folsom Police Department. Out of at least ten interviews recorded by CATANIO in Mrs. L's case, the exculpatory School lnterviews were the only two recordings that conveniently vanished from evidence.e

97. on information and belief, CATANIO, COCHRANE, SCHUBERT and ROWBERRY continued to withhold the School Interview throughoutMrs. L's trial into August of 212Ibecause the audio recording was exculpatory as to the allegations against G.L.'s mother regarding G.L. and because it proved CATANIIO improperly tainted wifiress testimony. Still two years into the prosecution of G.L.'s mother, Defendants refused to provide exculpatory evidence regarding G.L. despite their Constitutional obligation to provide this information.

98. CATAI.UO falsely testified at Mrs. L's frial in July of 202t that ROWBERRY had indicated he was not familiar enough with Apple products to retrieve the School Interviews from CATANIO's department issued laptop. During CATANIO's testimony at trial, e The audio recording of Robb at the CPS SAFE Centd,r being threatened by CATANIO was also mysteriously *i;G ior "
protoni.d time, however it was somehow recovered upon Mrs. L's defense attomey's discovery demand. On information
"na'Ut.f,
ROWBERRY possesses the IT skills necessary to recover {l1f !!1a}dio files in question and did recover the audio file of CATANIO tbreatening Robb to seize G'L' at the CPS SAFE Center'

COMPLAINT
26 RIGHTS

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
l1
t2
I
15 3
4 !s5sg d
'F,gE
sn$
16 t7
18 19
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 ROWBERRy was again called by the defense investigator in July of 2021to determine whether the School lnterview audio recordings could be refiieved, however ROWBERRY intentionally refused to accept or return his telephone calls' This is consistent with ROWBERRY and CATANIO previously refusing to participate in the recovery of the school lnterview tapes tlroughout the previous two years of the investigation' gg. On information and belief, CATAMO and ROWBERRY had already worked together on numerous cases, including both of them testifying at the same evidentiary hearings in other cases. CATAI.{IO therefore knew that RoWBERRY had extensive computer forensic taining and was qualified as an expert in forensic computer extractions' For example, ROWBERRY had previously exfiacted data from suspects' Apple product(s) at the request of CATANIO and had even testified about his expert qualifications reffieving data from Apple devices for CATAI,IIO's other assignment(s). CATANIO therefore lcrew ROWBERRY was a computer forensic expert with experience retrieving data from Apple devices at the time of her false trial testimony that the School ktterviews could not be retrieved because of ROWBERRY's incompetence with Apple products'
100. Moreover, CATANIO and ROWBERRY's illegal search and seizure tactics in other cases demonstrates that the botched investigation into PlaintifPs mother was not unique.

A pattern and practice of Fourth Amendment violations within the Folsom Police Department has been sanctioned and encouraged by the Sacramento County Disftict Attorney's Office over the course of many cases, including at least two other cases involving CATAI'IIO: the Faun O,Neel case and the Gregory Harms case. Sacramento District Attorney SCHUBERT continues to exert undue pressure on Folsom Police detectives to violate Constitutional norms, which the cITy oF FOLSOM has adopted as a policy and practice within its Police Department. l0l. During cross-examination at the trial of G.L.'s mother, CATANIO admitted that at the direction of DDA COCHRANE and counsel for the CITY OF FOLSOM, she intentionally refused to cooperate with the defense investigator and defense counsel to retieve the PlaintifPs School Interview recording'Io
!
ro Reporter's Transcript on Appeal, pg. 147l-1473, &gdg-$Jegigig!, court of Appeal No' C094996' 2'l

FORVIOLATION OF CIVL

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 J
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
T4
o9
{ Ets
Eii
's9o'
.E F5.FU
E
i9 g
,R#
t5
16 l7
l8
19 20
2T
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 rc2. During cross-examination, CATANIO also affirmed that she had previously testified at the preliminary hearing and included in her written narrative that G.L.'s eldest brother christian had told CATANIO "When we were living on Brophy Drive in sacramento I witnessed llrzlrs. L] stick her fingers up Bob and G['L.]'s anus. I also witnessed her grabbing their testicles.,, These statements supposedly fonned the basis for the investigation pertaining to G.L. However, CATAI.IIO could not explain the glaring discrepancies with this wild accusation:
christian had moved out of the family home in the spring of 2008 before Plaintiff was born in the fall of 2009 and never lived at the Brophy Drive home where the rest of Plaintiff s family moved into in the summer of 201 I . Moreover, Christian later testified under oath at hial that he had never witnessed Mrs. L sexually abuse any of his brothers, nor did he claim to have made any such statementto CATANIO.
103. When CATANIO was pressed by defense counsel under oath, "Isn't it true that christian never said that he ever saw [Mrs. L] puther finger in anybody's anus?" CATANIO simply conceded the fabrication by replying, "I don't know." Again, CATANIO is asked whether that would be an important statement in a sexual assault investigation, which would alert rhe DA to what kind of charges should be filed. CATANIO skirted the questions thanks to cocHRANE',s objection, but she was eventually pinned down' CATANIO utilized approximately half an hour of silence in open court to review the transcripts of her interview(s) with G,L.'s older brother(s). CATANIO could not identiff when or how she was told that Christian witnessed their mother stick her finger into G.L.'s rectum. The jury sat in silence while CATANIO rifled through documents for thirty minutes, unable to back-up her lie that G.L.'s brother had reported to her that he wimessed Plaintiffbeing digitally penefiated in the anus by their mother.
104. Defense counsel asked CATANIO "So you've looked through the entire transcript. You don't see anything about Christian saying he ever saw his mother stick her fingers in the anus of G.L., correct?" CATAI'IIO responds, 'Not in the transcript, no'" CATANIO had falsety memorialized graphic details about G.L. being sexually abused by his 28 COMPLAINTFOR TION RIGHTS

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 U9
* En
833
"s9d
i'*.8.FU
E
,5H ENdl l4
15 t6
17 t8
19 20

21. 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
mother so that her pre-trial report(s) would shock the conscience, but she was unable to provide any evidence of such horrific crimes committed against G.L. at trial. 105. At the behest of cocHRANE, CATANIO fabricated these details about rectal penetration at the preliminary hearing and in her report knowing that G.L.',s brother christian made no such statement. Christian stated under oath at hial that he never saw any of his brothers sexually molesred in the house.lr Yet CATANIO had already perjured herself at CoCHRANE's request in an effort to connect G.L. to crimes that never happened so SCHUBERT could secure convictions against lvfrs' L.
106. COCHRANE called G.L. as a prosecution witness and forced him to testifu at his mother,s trial in July of 2021 regarding the allegations of sexual abuse she and CATANIO had fabricated about G.L. Over the course of two days, G.L. testified under oath about showering' his cPS SAFE Center Interview, and the "stern looks" cocHRANE made in court when G'L:
was talking. G.L.'s trial testimony indicated that the 11-year-old wibaess perceived cocHRANE was trying to intimidate him and manipulate his responses on the witness standby glaring at him with "stern looks" in court. This was a public display of the same covert policy and procedure employed by GATANIO to intimidate and manipulate G.L.'s statements during the school Interview and cPs SAFE Centerlnterview throughoutthe course of the investigation. At the direction of DA SCHUBERT to make a public example out of G'L.'s mother, cocHRANE and CATANIO intimidated and attempted to improperly influence G.L. from the outset of the investigation all the way through his testimony at trial in July of 202I' 107. G.L. stood like a rock at his mother's trial and told the same story that he had professed since he was fnst questioned tlree years earlier in 2018 - that he was not sexually abused by his mother. when asked how old G.L. was when he last snuggled with his mom in bed, he replied .,I would probably do it now." This was G.L''s heartbroken reaction after more than two years of forced separation from his mother as a result of the no-contact protective order obtained by cocHRANE and GATANIO under false pretenses' 11 Reporter,s Transcript on Appeal, pg. 84849, Pgoplc v, PElriCia lr, court of Appeal No' c094996' 29 CIVIL

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.
1 I
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
1 t2
13 -.s
S HH
fi*iFE
i'4 Eg R.H l4
l5
16 t7
18 19
20 2t
,,,)
23 24
25 26
27 28
10g. At trial, CATANIO was asked to clariff her prior statements to G.L.'s paternal grandmother during the investigation wherein CATAMO indicated that "G.L' had made a disclosure." CATANIO had the benefit of her investigation notes, transcripts and case file available to her while testiffing. Yet she could not identiff any legitimate law enforcement purpose for telling G.L.'s grandmother that G.L. had "disclosed." Nor could CATANIO identiff any legitimate law enforcement purpose for telling G.L.'s aunt that whatever event(s) G'L. had disclosed to law enforcement was still happening to him' 109. When asked under oath whether CATAI.IIO was trying to persuade G.L.'s aunt Mary Anne that G.L. had been abused, DDA COCHRAI{E rescued CATA}IIO from answering with an "argumentative" objection.
i 10. CATANIO even admitted in her July 2021 frial testimony that during the School Interview, ,T told Gt.L.] that one of his brothers said that they saw his mother do something inappropriate to his bodY."
l1l. However, when CATANIO was asked under oath at trial who had reponed seeing G.L. digitally penetrated and when, she could not identiff the date or manner of any such accusation that was reported to her despite having all investigative materials available.

Jurv Unanimouslv Dtetermlnes G.L,ts Mother'rNot Guiltvtt of Sex.usl[Y Abusi$s G,L' II2. on August lg,zo2l,The jury found Mrs. L "not guilty" of all thrree charges pertaining to G.L. which had been added to the FAC by COCHRANE at the direction of SCHUBERT based on misrepresentations made by CATANIO. No witnesses could substantiate the information contained in the FAC regarding G.L, - including CATANIO. There was no evidence, eyewihess testimony, DNA evidence, or physical evidence that in any way indicated G.L. was sexually abused by his mother.
l13. The three claims in the FAC pertaining to G.L. were based on information already known by Defendants to be false at the time such charges were brought' I14. Substantial evidence regarding G.L.'s brothers' drug use, mental health problems, motivations for lying, and how CATANIO tainted their testimony was excluded at trial. G.L.'s mother was found guilty of four of the fifteen counts that she was ultimately 30 VIOLATION RIGHTS

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
4 ll
12 13
I
15 o9
!in
E3E
rH$
10 16
T7
18 I9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 charged with. Pursuant to SCHUBERT and COCHRANE's request, on October 8,2021, Mrs. L was sentenced to the maximum possible prison sentence - sixty years to life. She is appealing those convictions on the basis of erroneous evidentiary exclusions. 115. Because of the no-contact protective order COCHRANE, CATANIO and SCHUBERT fraudulently obtained against G.L. and his mother, G.L. was not able to see or speak with his mother again until late October of 202L when the protective order was finally terminated as to G.L. All of G.L.'s contact with his mother since October of 2021has been from behind security glass or by tetephone, which hampers G.L.'s ability to rebuild his parental bond with his mother in a meaningful waY.

Defendants Botched the Criminal Investigntloq
l 16. Defendants relied solely on the fabricated infonnation provided by CATANIO and ignored exculpatory evidence in their possession which clearly indicated that G.L. had not been victimized by any crime. Defendants never produced any physical evidence or eyewitness testimony that G.L. was victimized by a crime in any way? yet they brought criminal charges against G.L.'s mother based solely on their orvn unsupported and unsubstantiated statements. ll7. Defendants failed to timely produce exculpatory evidence throughout the pendency of the criminal proceedings in violation of their Brady responsibilities, then concealed critical evidence of the School Interview which proved that G.L. had no connection to any crime. More importantly, their destruction of the School Interview audio recordings was intended to and did destroy evidence of what G.L. later disclosed in the CPS SAFE Center Interview - that CATANIO had sought to taint G.L.'s testimony by telling him that his brother had witnessed him being "sexually assaulted" by their mother at age 5. 118. CATANIO and ROWBERRY - at the direction of the CITY OF FOLSOM and pursuant to its policies - blocked all of Mrs. L's defense efforts to attempt to recover the School Interview recordings using a computer forensics expert. ROWBERRY and CATAIIIO intentionally ignored multiple calls and requests from Mrs. L's defense team regarding retrieval of the School Interview audio.'

COMPLAINTFOR
31 OF CIVIL

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 )
3 11
1 1
l4
15 o9
HiIeE;.

E.fr'E
6a g
uii#
T6
t7
18 19
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 z7
28 119. The combined actions of all Defendants form the basis for Plaintiff s claims and the damages he sustained. This includes, but is not limited to, how they: fabricated crimes committed against G.L.; coerced and manipulated witnesses; illegally seized G.L.; concealed evidence proving the falsity of the crimes against G.L.; withheld the recording of CATANIO threatening G.L.,s father with removal of his minor children if he did not consent to an illegal search and seizure of G.L. and I.L.; deshoyed G.L.'s School Interviews; and obtained/enforced a no-contact order between G.L and his mother under false pretenses which prevented G'L' from having contact with his mother for over two years' lZ0. The Defendants agreed amongst themselves and with other individuals to act in concert in order to deprive G.L. of his clearly established Constitutional Rights under the Fourilr and Fourteenth Amendments to be free from umeasonable search and seizure and deprivation of liberty without due process of law. All Defendants were badge-carrying law enforcement officers who exercised power possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because they were clothed with the authority of state law.
l2l. The policy and customs of the CITY OF FOLSOM and Sacramento County District Attomey S6HuBERT - who employed the individual Defendants - were the moving forces behind Defendants' Constitutional violations against Plaintiffs. The management, operation, oversigh! taining and policies associated with the investigation of child sexual abuse and other felony investigations by the Folsom Police Department and Sacramento County District Attomey prioritized obtaining convictions over Constitutional safeguards.

IZ2. Due to the failure of adequate monitoring, oversiglrt, policies and procedures in Folsom police Department and by the Sacramento County District Attorney, G.L. was accused of being sexually molested and forced to testiff against his own mother at trial in July of 2021.

Unfounded criminal charges were intentionally brought against G.L.'s mother which were ultimately terminated in G.L.'s favor.
t23. With proper training, monitoring and oversight, the Constitutional rights violations orchestrated by law enforcement in this matter would not have occurred. The exculpatory School Interviews should have been provided by ROWBERRY at the time criminal 32 VIOLATION OF RIGHTS

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 2
3 4
1 1
11 15
E!5et a
.A'FE
rH$
16 t7
18 19
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 charges related to G.L. were brought against his mother. The CITY OF FOLSOM had a chance to redeem itself in July of 2021 when CATANIO's personnel file should have been fully disclosed to the Sacramento Superior Court by CAI.IEPA during the Pitchess motion filed by Mrs. L,s defense attorney. As a pattern and practice, Defendants used false statements and illegal searchesiseizures to improperly influence other witnesses in this and other unrelated criminal cases. Defendants ignored numerous opportunities all the way through August of 202I at Mrs. L's criminal trial to produce the exculpatory audio evidence of G.L.'s School Interview to the Superior Court, provide CATANIO's fulIpersonnel file with the O'Neel claim, and withdraw the groundless charges against Mrs. L pertaining to G.L' t24. COCHRANE and SCHUBERT advised Folsom Police Detectives CATAf{IO and ROWBERRY during the investigative phase of the criminal case, actedbefore having probable cause to arrest G.L.'s mother, held G.L. in a detention facility against his will and the will of his father Robb, and acquired false statements from witnesses for use in a prosecution.

All of those actions fell outside of their offrcial role as prosecutors and thus undermined any prosecutorial immunity they may otherwise enjoy.
125. In furtherance of their conspiracy, Defendants engaged in and facilitated numerous overt acts, including, without limitation, the following:
a. fabricating statements and information for the purpose of unlawfully circumventing probable cause requirements;
b. unlawfully seizing and detaining G.L. druing the CPS SAFE Center Interview and threatening his father to from G.L. from his care in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments ;
c. withholding and destroying material exculpatory evidence from defense counsel and the Court;
d. wrongfully prosecuting G.L.'s mother for sexually abusing G.L. while knowing there was no probable cause that G'L. had been abused;
33 TION OF CIVI

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 J
4 5
6 1
8 9
10 Io9
!15uE;
.A FE'FU E
a9 s9 R.H
12 13
4 15
I
16 17
18 19
20 2T
22 23
24 25
26 .,1
28 e. attempting to manufacture witness statements from unreliable informants based on cATANIo's false statements that G.L. had accused his mother of sexual abuse; and
f. obtaining and enforcing a no-contact protective order under false pretenses which prevented G.L. from seeing or speaking withhis mother for more than two years through October of 2021'
126. G.L was subjected to psychological pressure and additional stress caused by Defendant,s illegal acts. Defendants damaged G.L.'s life, time, health, development, bonding, and childhood. G.L. suffered the loss of his dignity for over two years while his father Robb was powerless to protect him from Defendants. G.L. was belittled and teated as a victim over his and his father's repeated objections. G.L. was isolated from his family because of the bad faith and unmeritorious motives of GATANIO, COCHRANE, SCHUBERT, and RoWBERRY G.L.'s mother was remanded to custody and compelled to defend against fabricated claims because of Defendanrc' illegal conduct and slanderous allegations regarding G'L' This caused G.L.'s liberty to be restrained as a result of the no-contact protective order and subjected G'L' to more stress than any child should be forced to endure' Defendants acted with malice and reckless disregard for G.L.',s rights when they wrongfully obtained the no-contact order against G.L. Defendants never provided G.L. or his father with notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the no-contact order or any other part ofthe investigation and trial' I2T.DefendantsabusedtheirpowerbylabelingG.L.asexualassaultvictimbeforean allegation had been made, let alone an investigation been conducted and a fiial occurred' Law enforcement is required to act fairly and refrain from arbitrarily labeling people as criminals or victims, since this could lead to unjust penalties. Defendants vioiated their duties throughout the course of the investigation with respect to G.L. because they prioritized obtaining convictions and vindicating their personal traumas over seeking the truth. l2g. Not only did G.L. have his life and liberty resffained as a result of the actions of Defendants, but G.L. suffered from extreme gUilt and anxiety while G'L''s mother spent more than two years in jail for crimes against G.L. which he knew that she did not commit' As a FOR
34 oF clvll.

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 {Ffi
1r
Fl8 rzgo-.
-a'Ff r3
ie E
un"H 14
15 r6
l7
18 19
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 direct result of Defendants' intentional, bad faith, willful, wanton, reckless, and/or deliberately indifferent acts and omissions, G.L sustained in-juries and damages which continue to date and will continue into the future, including: physical pain and suffering; severe mental anguish; emotional distress; loss of family relationships; severe psychological damage; legal expenses; humiliation, indignities and embarrassment; degradation; permanent loss of natwal and psychological development; and restrictions on his freedoms, for which he is entitled to monetary and injunctive relief.
l2g. These injgries and damages to G.L. were foreseeable to Defendants at the time of their acts and omissions because they violated G.L.'s clearly established Constihrtional rights.

All of the acts and omissions committed by Defendants were done intentionally, unlawfully, maliciously, wantonly, recklessly, negligently, and/or with bad faith, and said acts meet all of the standards for the imposition of punitive damages'
130. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants described above, G.L. has been denied his Constitutional and statutory rights as stated below and has suffered and continues to suffer mental and emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, discomfort and anxiety.
131. CITY OF FOLSOM and scHUBERT',s policies, practices, conduct and acts alleged herein have resulted and will continue to result in ineparable injury to Plaintiff, including but not limited to further violations of his statutory and constitutional rights. Plaintiff has no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to address the wrongs described herein' plaintiff therefore seeks injunctive relief restraining Defendants from continuing to engage in and enforce the unconstitutional and illegal policies, practices, conduct and acts described herein.
l3Z. G.L. was treated differently than his similarly-sih.rated sister on the basis of his gender. Defendants acted with discriminatory intent in violation of G.L.'s clearly established legal and constitutional rights. Defendants directly and proximately caused G.L.'s humiliation, mental pain and suffering. As a direcq legal and proximate result of Defendants' violations of

COMPLAINT
35 CIVIL

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 'cE a
EBE 13
6H$.0
l5
16 T7
18 19
20 2T
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Plaintiffs statutory, constitutional and common law rights, G.L' has been damaged in an amount to be Proven at trial.
133. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants had an obligation to comply with federal and state laws regarding gender discrimination. Defendants failed to meet these obligations with resPect to G.L.

L34. Unless an injunction is obtained to prevent Defendants CATANIO and COCHRANE from committing further Constitutional violations against G.L. and continuing to defame him, plaintiffwill be irreparably injured. CATAI.IIO and COCHRANE continue to cause G.L. irreparable harm by their ongoing harassment and false insistence that G,L. requires protection from his mother. This includes, but is not limited to, G-L. currently being restricted to non-contact visitation with his mother at California Department of Correction & Rehabilitation facilities.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION
FoRFALSEARRESTA}IDIMPROPERSEIZIIREoFAcqIT,D
(Against Defendants CATANIO & COCIIRANE)
135. plaintiffre-alleges and reincorporates each and every allegation contained in the Factual Allegations and all previous paragraphs, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 136. The actions and omissions of the defendants CATA}ilO and/or COCHRANE deprived G.L. of his clearly established right to be secure in his person, house, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizure as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution by: forcing the minor Plaintiff G.L. to be questioned by Folsom Police, law enforcement and/or CPS on multiple occasions over the objection of G'L. and his father; threatening Robb with the forcible removal of his children if he did not acquiesce to G'L.'s interview at the CpS SAFE Center; and obtaining and enforcing a no-contact order under false pretenses which prevented G.L. from seeing or communicating with his mother for over two years.
137. Defendants CATANIO and COCHRANE subjected G.L. to lengthy detention and intenogations without probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that any crime had been FOR
36 OF CIVIL RIGHTS

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
l3
T4
15 o9
.? efr
Eii.5o_.
3Ff;.trU E
rH$
16 t7
18 t9
20 2I
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 committed and prevented him from leaving the CPS SAFE Center. Defendants CATANIO and COCHRANE persisted with lengthy coercive intenogations of the minor G.L. over the objections of both G.L. and his father. Then they obtained and enforced a'ono contact" order under false pretenses which prohibited G.L. from having any contact with his mother for over two years, which was a de-facto extension of their seizure of G'L. 138. Interrogations and seizures that disregard the Constitutional rights ofchildren wefe a pattem and practice of both SCHUBERT and TIIE CITY OF FOLSOM - at whose CATANIO and COCHRANE acted.
139. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawfrtl conduct, G.L. was injured and suffered significant deprivation of liberty, causing damages as detailed herein. l4O. The right to familial association guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment is ..clearly established', such that any reasonable law enforcement agent in Defendants' situation would know it is unlawful to remove a child from the care, custody, and conffol of his parents or to question, threaten, examine, or search a child in the absence of exigent circumstances without first obtaining a warant to do so. Moreover, the right to familial association guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was so clearly established that any reasonable law enforcement agent, including Defendants, would know that it is unlawful to continue to detain a child from the custody of his parent when the agent knows, or has reason to know, that there is no legal or factual basis for the continued detention. Likewise, the right of children to be free from unreasonable seizure was clearly established pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and G.L.'s rights were violated by his seizure, detention and prolonged interrogation. Defendants funher knew that imposition of a no'contact protective order between a child and his parent which is intentionally obtained by law enforcement under false pretenses violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants' acts were done in knowing violation of G.L.'s clearly established Constitutional rights, and without good faith.

L4l, Defendants CATANIO and COCHRANE, and each of them, had at all times relevant herein, an affirmative duty and obligation to recognize and conduct themselves in a

COMPLAINTFOR
37 OF CIVIL

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 HgH
,,)
uEi-
E.F E 13
5nfi a
l5
16 t7
l8
19 20
2I
)t
23 24
25 26
27 28
manner that confirms, provides for, and does not violate the protections guaranteed Plaintiff under the United States Constitution, inciuding the right to be free from unreasonable seizure the rights to due pfocess of law, privacy, family integrity, and familial relations. sEcqNp cAUsE oF 49Tr9J
'"*f, ;illTffi y"Nt{lff lJ}?ffJf .T'3l,^rIoN
142. Plaintiffre-alleges and reincorporates each and every allegation contained in the Factual Allegations and all previous paragraphs of all previous Causes of Action in this Complaint, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

L43. The actions and omissions of the Defendant CATANIO in threatening to remove the minor G.L. from his father's care without notice and an opportunity to be heard violated the due process clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. CATANIO and COCHRANE agreed jointly to seize G.L. from the care and custody of his father Robb without court author izationif his father did not consent to G,L. being interviewed at the CPS SAFE Center. At the time that said Defendants conspired to seize G.L., there was no wa:rant or court order, nor any imminent risk of serious bodily injt ry to either him within the time it have taken Defendants to obtain a warrant to authorize the seizure. Mrs. L was in custody at the Sacramento County Jail at the time G.L. was seized from his father at the CPS SAFE Center and subjected to interrogation. Thus, Defendants had ample time to seek a court order authorizing seizure of G.L. had they truly feared for his safety.

I44. Defendants CATAI.UO and COCHRANE had at all times relevant herein, an affirmative duty and obligation to recognize and conduct themselves in a manner that confirms, provides for, and does not violate the protections guaranteed Plaintiff under the United States Constitution, including those under the Fourteenth Amendment, to include without limitation, protection of parental rights, due process of law, the right to privacy, family integrity and the right to familial relations. The clearly established right of the family to remain together without the coercive interference of the awesome power of the state encompasses the reciprocal rights of 38 COMPLAINT VIOLATION

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 4
1l
t2
l3
1 15
q9
HEn
EBE
6H$
16 17
18 19
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 both parent and child. Children have the Constitutional right to avoid dislocation from the emotional attachments that derive from the intimacy of daily associations with their parents. 145. In subjecting G.L. to prolonged interrogation at the CPS SAFE Center, threatening the forcible removal of G.L. from his father's care if his father did not consent to G.L.,s interrogation, filing the FAC, obtaining and enforcing the no-contact protective order against G.L. without probable cause to prevent him from having any contact with his mother for more than two years, CATANIO and COCHRAI.{E caused G.L. to suffer deprivations of his fundamental rights to liberty, due process of law, and to be free from unlawful searches, detentions and seizures.

L46. Plaintiff s procedural due process rights pursuant to the Fourteenth amendment were violated by the conduct of Defendants CATAI{IO and COCIIRANE, both of whom were acting under color of state law when they violated Plaintiffs' civil rights by: detaining, intenogating, seizing, threatening to remove G.L. from the care of his father Robb without judicial authorization nor parental consent, and in the absence of exigent circumstances; and obtaiuing and enforcing a no-contact protective order under false pretenses which prevented G from having any contact with his mother for over two years until October of 2021. 147. CATAI.IIO and COCHRANE committed these unconstitutional acts without proper justification or authoriry, without probable cause, and without any specific evidence to suggest that G.L. was in imminent danger of suffering serious bodily injury or death at the hands of his parents.
148. At the time of said detention, interrogation, and seizure of G.L., Defendants, and each of them, knew a parent-child relationship existed between the Plaintiff G.L. and his father Robb and mother Mrs. L, and that G.L. was entitled to the companionship and care of his parents.

I4g. CATAI\IO & COCHRANE failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into the facts prior to detaining and intenogating G.L., filing the FAC, obtaining a no-contact order as to

COMPLAINTFOR
39 OFCIVL

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 I
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
.?:H ll
s$l nocX
E.R'E 13
.!H$ A
l5
l6
T7
l8
19 20
2L
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 G.L., and enforcing the no-contact protective order between G.L. and his mother all the way through termination of the no-contact order in October of 2021. 150. Said Defendants thereby violated Plaintiff s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
151. CATAI{IO and COCHRANE coroborated, acted, and/or conspired to violate PlaintifPs civit rights. CATANIO and COCHRANE purposefully failed to seek and/or obtain a warrant, knowing that insuffrcient grounds or evidence existed to support such application and/or, as detailed below, as a result of unconstitutional policy, custom, or practice of never obtaining lvarrants prior to seizing, detaining and/or intenogating children. 152. As a direct and proximate result of CATANIO and COCHRAI.IE's unlawful conduct, Plaintiffhas suffered severe emotional iqiuries, embarrassment, grief, anguish, and other general and special damages and losses according to proof at trial. Plaintiffhas also incurred, and vi'ill continue to incur, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, including those authorized by 42 U.S.C. section 1988, to an extent and in an amount zubject to proof at trial. 153. CATANIO and COCHRANE acted with malice and with the intent to cause injury to Plaintiff or acted with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiffin a despicable, vile, and contemptible manngr. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover punitive damages from CATANIO and COCHRAI,IE, as perrritted by law and as according to proof at trial, due to the wrongful conduct of said Defendants as herein alleged and to deter them and others from such conduct in the future.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

CONSPIRACTY TO INTERT'ERE WITII CTVIL RIGHTS
rN vroLATroN oF 42 USC $r98s
(Against Defendants CATAIIIO, COCIIRANE' ROWBERRY, & SCHUBERT) 154, Plaintiff G.L. re-alleges and reincorporates each and every allegation contained in the Factual Allegations and all previous paragraphs of all previous Causes of Action in this Complaint, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 155. The actions and omissions of Defendants CATANIO, COCHRANE, 40 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 J
4 5
6 7
8 9
t0
11 T2
13 4
15 I
o9
{ En
{is€.9a'
€$E
Efi#
l6
17 l8
19 20
2I
)1
23 24
25 26
27 28
ROWBERRY and SCHUBERT by silencing G.L. at the preliminary hearing, concealing evidence pertaining to G.L. throughout the investigation and criminal trial in August of 202I, and harassing, coercing, and defaming G.L., together with their conspiracy to deprive G.L. of his Constitutional right to equal protection of the laws, constitute an obstruction of the due course of justice, intimidating a witness, and a deprivation of rights or privileges in violation of subdivisions (2) and (3) ot 42 U.S.C. $ 1985.
156. In firtherance of their conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of his equal privileges the law, Defendants destroyed or withheld evidence of the School Interviews and fabricated statements regarding G.L. on the basis of his gender. Defendants did so for the purpose of strengthening their weak criminal case against G.L.'s mother because all of the other alleged conduct had occuned more than fifteen years prior. Defendants did not employ the same tactics against G.L.'s yormger sister I.L. - such as prolonged intenogation, unsupported criminal charges and imposition of a no-contact protective order - because I.L. was a female and thus did not fit the prosecution's theory thatMrs. L was a child molester who preyed on young boys. 157. This disparate treament of G.L. on the basis of his gender without any rational basis caused personal injury to G.L. and deprived him of his rights and privileges as a citizen of the United States.
158. The actions and omissions of CATANIO, COCHRANE, ROWBERRY and SCHIJBERT in destroying and/or failing to presenre or produce material exculpatory evidence G.L.'s School Interview that was timely and lawfully requested severely prejudiced G.L. and denied G.L. his liberty and equal protection of law. These actions and omissions were taken by said Defendants in furtherance of their conspiracy to deprive G.L. of equal protection of the law 159. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, G.L. suffered the severe emotional anguish associated with a minor being deprived a relationship with his mother by unreasonable and improperly coercive govemment intervention. G.L. was forced to testiff against his own motherby Defendants in July of 2021because a young male victim fit their nanative; G.L. has suffered severe emotional injuries, embarrassment, ridicule, grief, and other damages and losses as described herein, G.L.'s liberty was restrained by the no-contact

COMPLAINTFOR
4t

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 I
9 l0
e:H
11 iii 12
tE;€.t E 13
15 l6
t7
18 t9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 protective order that was knowingly obtained by Defendants without probable cause which prevented the minor G.L. from having any contact with his mother for over two years through October of 2021.
160. In addition, G.L. is entitled to punitive damages against each of the individually named Defendants under 42 U.S.C. $ 1983, in that the actions of these individual Defendants have been taken maliciously, wiltfully, or with a reckless or wanton disregard for G.L.'s clearly established constitutional and statutory rights.

F-OURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
JT]DICIAL DECEPTION
(Against Defendants CATAIilO, COCHRANE, SCHUBERT' ROWBERRY' & CAI\EPA) 16l. G.L. re-alleges and reincorporates each and every allegation contained in the Factual Allegations and all previous paragraphs of all previous Causes of Action in this Complaint, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 1,62. The actions and omissions of CATAIIIO, COCHRAITE, SCHUBERT, ROWBERRY & CANEPA constitute judiciai deception, including: bringing charges against G.L.'s mother in the FAC for sexually abusing G.L. without probable cause; fabricating horrendous stories to the Court that G.L. had been anally peneffated by his own mother; concealing CATANIO's history of wibress tainting from the Court during the Pitchess motion; making false, improper and defamatory communications to third parties that G.L. had "disclosed" that his mother had sexually abused him in order to taint the testimony of those witnesses; and obtaining and enforcing a no-contact protective order under false pretenses that prevented G.L. from having any contact with his mother for more than two years through October 18,202I. Said Defendants deliberately or recklessly made false statements or omissions that were material to the finding of probable cause, and but-for their repeated and ongoing dishonesty: the FAC would not have been amended to allege that G.L. had been sexually abused; no protective order would have been imposed as to G.L.; Mrs. L would not have been remanded back into custody; G.L. would not have been forced to testifr for the prosecution at his mother's trial in July of 2021; CATANIO would have been more effectively impeached at Mrs. L's tial before G.L. was forced to testiff against his mother; and G.L. wouldnot have been subjected to FOR
42 CIVILRIGHTS

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
T2
13 US
3InsE;
€BE
rfi$ T4
1s
l6
t7
18 I9
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 fraudulently-obtained protective order that prohibited him from having contact with his mother from July 2,2019 through October 18,2021-
163. CATANIO and COCHRANE harassed G.L., then at the behest of SCHUBERT, COCHRANE brought charges against G.L.'s mother pertaining to G.L. with ulterior motives of advancing SCHUBERT's political career and knowledge that there was no probable cause to support the three counts pertaining to G.L. in the FAC' 164. Arthe behest of SCHUBERT, COCHRANE and CATANIO intentionally prevented G.L. from testiffing at his mother's preliminary hearing to conceal the lack of probable cause for the charges pertaining to G.L. that COCHRANE added to the FAC.

Defendants initiated criminal proceedings without probable cause, with malice, and the proceedings were ultimately terminated in PlaintifPs favor. 165. COCHRANE, CATANIO, ROWBERRY ANd SCHUBERT COMMittEdfuTthET acts ofjudicial deception by desfroying audio evidence of G.L.'s School Interview, which was material to the finding of probable cause against G.L.'s mother, then:lied to the Court and defense counsel by claiming that the data was irretrievably lost and could not be recovered despite their repeated refusals to allow an independent IT expert to examine CATANIO's department-issued laptop and cell phone.
166. At the Pitchess hearing held on July 7, 2021, CANEPA intentionally concealed CATANIO's documented history of wrongdoing as a CITY OF FOLSOM Police Detective from Sacramento Superior Court Judge Ernest Sawtelle related to the Pitchess motion filed by Mrs.

L's criminal attomey. At the direction of COCHRANE and SCHUBERT, CANEPA and CATANIO conspired to and did conceal CATANIO's sordid history of tainting witness testimony, illegally seizing children, and conducting unlawful searches from Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Ernest Sawtelle through the end of trial in late August of 202L t67. CANEPA, CATAI{IO, COCHRANE and SCHUBERT committed fraud upon the Court during the Pitchess motion by falsely insisted there was no basis to believe CATANIO mishandled evidence of the School lnterviews or tainted witness testimony. When in fact, all Defendants'were on written notice of multiple acts of misconduct committed by CATANIO 43 FORVIOLATIONOF

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 l1
1,2
13 4
15 I
q9
{ FF
Ed*sEI.
€$E
rH$
t6
l7
l8
19 20
2T
aa
23 24
25 26
27 28
other members of the public who hadmade strikingly similar claims about CATANIO with the CITY OF FOLSOM and County of Sacramento.
168. The actions and omissions of Defendants GATANIO, COCHRANE and SCHUBERT in bringing charges against G.L.'s mother for sexually abusing G.L. without probable cause were a willful use of the court's process in bad faith- 169. CATANIO and COCHRANE harassed G.L., then COCHRANE brought charges against his mother pertaining to G.L. with ulterior motives and knowledge that there was no probable cause for the counts pertaining to G.L. Pursuant to SCHUBERT's protocol, COCHRANE and CATANIO prevented G.L. fromtestiffing athis mother's preliminaryhearing to conceal the fact that CATATIIO was lying and there was no probable cause to support the charges pertaining to G.L. that COCHRANE added to the FAC. lZ0. CATANIO, COCHRANE, ROWBERRY and SCHUBERT further conspiredto conceal and destroy audio recording(s) of CATANIO's first School Interviews with G.L. and his sister, which was exculpatory evidence as to the three counts pertaining to G.L., in violation of theft Brady duties. Such concealment continued all the way through tial in August of 2021. l7l. Defendants acted maliciously and for a purpose other than bringing justice to G.L. was burdened and aggrieved by the judicial deception perpetrated by CATANIO' COCHRANE, ROWBERRY, SCHUBERT & CANEPA - all of whom were badge-carrying members of law enforcement with a duty to uphold the Constitution.

FrFTH CApSE OF ACTTON

ABUSE OF PROCESS
(Against CATANIO, COCHRANE and SCHUBERT)
I72. Plaintiffre-alleges and reincorporates each and every allegation contained in the Factual Allegations and all previous paragraphs of all previous Causes of Action in this Complaint, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 173. The actions and omissions of GATANIO, COCHRANE and SCHUBERT constitute an abuse of process, including: bringing felony charges against Plaintiffs mother in the FAC filed in Sacramento Superior Court for sexually abusing G.L. without probable cause;

COMPLAINT
44 OF CIVIL

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
1l
2 13
4 l5
I
o9
{ En
EE?
6Hj 1
l6
t7
18 19
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 CATANIO making false statements to the Court that G.L.'s brother Christian had witness their mother anally penehate G.L. when each Defendant knew such information was fabricatedby CATANIO; making improper and defamatory communications to third parties indicating G.L. had accused his mother of sexual abuse when the Defendants knew Plaintiff had repeatedly denied any abuse and never made such allegations; and obtaining and enforcing a no-contact protective order preventing G.L. from having any contact with his mother between July 2,2019 through October 17,2021. SCHTIBERT knew thatCOCHRANE obtained the no-contact protective order on the basis of CATANIO's false statements but still chose to intentionally overcharge Mrs. L with felonies in the FAC for which there was no basis. Each Defendant knew that their improper use of the Court's process would undermine the likelihood of G.L.'s mother receiving a fair trial.
174- CATANIO and COCHRANE seized and harassed G.L., then at the behest of SCHUBERT, COCHRANE brought charges against Plaintiffs motherpertainingto himwith ulteriormotives of advancing SCTIUBERT's campaign forAttomey General andprejudicing Mrs. L's defense. Each of them had knowledge that there was no probable cause to support the three counts pertaining to G.L. in the FAC. Yet they heartlessly obtained and enforced a protective order which prevented G.L. from having any contact with his mother for over two years because they regarded G.L. as mere roadkill on SCHUBERT's road to higher office. 175. At the behest of SCHUBERT, COCHRANE and CATANIO prevented Plaintiff from testiffing at his mother's preliminary hearing to conceal the lack of probable cause for the charges pertaining to Plaintiffwhich they added to the FAC. Plaintiffwas burdened and aggrieved by Defendants' abuse of process, which was done with the wrongful expectation of a financial or emotional benefit to Defendants. Defendants initiated criminal proceedings without probable cause, with malice, and tle proceedings were ultimately terminated in Plaintiff s favor. 1,76. Defendants were motivated by a malicious and improper pupose of covering up their lack of probable cause when the amended the FAC.
177 - As a direct and proximate result of this abuse of process, G.L. was wrongfully separated from his mbther for over two years and traumatized. Plaintiff suffered the injuries

COMPLAINT FOR
45 OF CIVL RIGHTS

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11os
H!H4E;
€BE
THfr
L2
13 t4
l5
t6
t7
18 l9
20 2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 detailed herein and damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

MONELL RELATED CLAIMS
(Against Defendant CITY OF FOLSOIO
178. Plaintiffre-alleges and reincorporates each and every allegation contained in the Factual Allegations and all previous paragraphs of all previous Causes of Action in this Complaint, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 179. CITY OF FOLSOM, including through its Folsom Police Department entity, is a '!erson" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. $ 1983 and subject to Monell liability. (Monell v.

Dept. of Social Services (1978) 436 U.S. 658.)
180. Defendant CITY OF FOLSOM, including through its agencies, had a duty to Plaintiff at all times to establish, implement and follow policies, procedures, customs andlor practices (hereinafter "policy" or "policies") which confirm and provide the protections guaranteed Plaintiff under the United States Constitution, including those under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, to include without limitation, the protection of the right to familiat relations; the right to privacy; the right not to be defamed or stigmatized; the right to be free unlawful searches and seizures; the right to procedural due process; and the right to equal protection of the law.
181. Defendant CITY OF FOLSOM also had a duty to use reasonable care to select, assign, supervise, train, control and review the activities of all their agents, officers, employees and those acting under them, so as to protect these constitutional rights; and to refrain from acting with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiff in order to avoid causing the injuries and damages alleged herein. Based on the duties charged to the CITY OF FOLSOM, including the nature of work related to child abuse investigations, CITY OF FOLSOM knew or should have known of the obvious need to establish customs, policies, practices and adequate training required to protect the aforementioned civil rights of parents and their children as were violated as described herein above. 182. Defendant CITY OF FOLSOM established and/or iollowed policies, procedures, customs and/or practices which policies were the moving force behind the violations of 46 COMPLAINT FORVIOLATION OF CIVIL

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.
2 3
4 5
6 7
I
9 10
{ Ffi II
iid 12
En€ ',z6 d
irF'E ru
15 16
I7
18 19
20 2T
)')
23 24
25 26
27 28
Plaintiff s constitutional rights, including those under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, by, but not limited to:
a. The longstanding custom, practice, or policy of separating children from their parents without frst having conducted a reasonable investigation; b. The longstanding custom, practice, or policy of failing to obtain a protective custody warant to remove children from parents or caretakers in the absence of exigent circumstances;
c. The longstanding custom, practice, or policy of seizing children from parents without undertaking a particularized or reasonable investigation regarding whether each child should be removed in order to avert serious bodily tqiury; d. The longstanding custom, practice, or policy of failing to undertake lesser intrusive altemative means of ensuring child safety short of removal from the parents andlor imposition of no-contact protective orders;
e. :. The longstanding custom,practice or poliry of concealing witress tainting and other prior wrongdoings by Folsom Police Detectives from the Sacramento Superior Court in criminal investigations, Pitchess hearings, and felony trial testimony; and f. The longstanding custom, practice or policy of ignoring the personal experience of Folsom Police employees that may render them incapable of being an unbiased witness or neutral information gatherer during criminal investigations - including, but not limited to, disregarding public statements by employees that they suffered from child abuse while such employee was actively assigned to child abuse investigations.

E. By acting with deliberate indifference in implementing a policy of inadequate training and/or supervision, and/or by failing to tain and/or supervise its officers, agents, employees and state actors, in providing the constitutional protections guaranteed to individuals, including those under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, when performing actions related to the investigation of child abuse. (This list is not exhaustive due to the pending nature of discovery and the privileged and protected records of investigative proceedings. Plaintiff may seek leave to amend this pleading as more information becomes available.)

COMPLAINTFOR
47

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.
1 )
J
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 l1
12 t3
t4
0s
{ Fn
a{sdE;
.q F.E.FU
E
5H$
15 t6
t7
18 19
20 2t
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 183. CITY OF FOLSOM breached its duties and obligations to Plaintiff by, but not limited to, failing to establish, implement and follow the correct and proper Constitutional policies, procedures, customs and practices; by failing to properly select, supervise, train, control and review its agents and employees as to their compliance with Constitutional safeguards; and by deliberately permitting its agents to engage in the unlawful and unconstitutional conduct as herein alleged with a total indifference to the rights of affected children, including G.L. 184. CITY OF FOLSOM knew or should have known that by breaching the above- mentioned duties and obligations, it was reasonably foreseeable that said unconstitutional policies, practices, customs and usages would cause Plaintiff to be r4jured and damaged. 185. These actions and/or inactions of CITY OF FOLSOM are the moving force behind, and the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff s injuries, as alleged herein' As a result, Plaintiff has sustained general and special damages, to an extent and in an amount to be proven atfral.In addition, Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, attontey's fees, costs and expenses, including those as authorized by 42 U.S.C. $ 1988, to an extent and in an amount to be subject to proof at tial.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
A judicial determination of these issues, and of the respective rights and duties of Plaintiffand Defendants, is necessary and appropriate at this time under the circumstances.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:

1. General and special damages to Plaintiffand against all Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial;

2. Injunctive relief, both preliminary and permanent, as allowed by law;

3. As against the individual defendants, punitive damages as allowed by law;

4. All costs and expenses of suit incurred and reasonable attomeys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. $ 1988;and

5. Any further relief and/or further order(s) as the Court may deem proper, a declaratory judgment that Defendant GATANIO's conduct'as complained 48 VIOLATIONOF RIGHTS

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.

I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
l0
11 12
13 4
15 I
Eg?
,!fi$
16 t7
l8
19 20
2l
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Dated: April___-2A22
herein violated the Constitution or that CATATIO violated her Bradv responsibilities in the Sacramento Superior Court criminal case #19FE010439 against Plaintiff s mother, Peoplc v. PaticipL.;

GAVRILOV & BROOKS
J. Edward Brooks
Attomey for Plaintiff G.L.

COMPLAINT
49 OF CIVILRIGHTS

05/10/2022 Special Meeting Item No.1.