|
|
Shelton v. City of Manhattan Beach9/28/2004
y, all four of plaintiff's automobile tires were punctured while his car was parked in the department's employee parking lot. Captain Marshall recommended to a lieutenant that a criminal complaint be filed and surveillance undertaken. Captain Marshall also advised Chief Klevesahl a crime report should be taken. Chief Klevesahl told plaintiff not to file a crime report. But plaintiff was ordered to e-mail Chief Klevesahl about the vandalism. This order came directly from Chief Klevesahl. Plaintiff obeyed the order. In a September 23, 2001 memorandum to Chief Klevesahl, plaintiff stated: "Remember Chief, the very day that the order was finally served to the Officers[,] all four of my tires were damaged with large contractor nails in an employee parking spot. Nothing was done despite my request to investigate. Nothing. The only action taken was against me in `ordering' me to cancel the DR number and crime report, then `report' the damage to my vehicle directly to you through [a lieutenant], via email. I followed my order and did what I was told. Nothing was done about it." Plaintiff was upset and frustrated by the inaction.
Between September 15 and October 7, 2001, plaintiff received dozens of crank telephone calls in the middle of the night. Plaintiff believed the calls were related to the August 22, 2001, internal complaint against Officers Sellan and Eccles. Plaintiff so advised Captain Marshall. At Captain Marshall's suggestion, plaintiff kept a log of the calls. The calls stopped only after plaintiff spread a false rumor that the telephone company had installed a trap. Chief Klevesahl was advised but took no action.
On September 23, 2001, plaintiff sent a memorandum to Chief Klevesahl. Among other things, plaintiff complained of inaction on the August 22, 2001, internal complaint and the failure to investigate the September 11, 2001, vandalism. Plaintiff asked for help in resolving the situation. Plaintiff discussed the prank telephone calls he had been receiving. Plaintiff expressed the suspicion that Officers Sellan and Eccles were involved in the prank calls. Plaintiff described the effect the calls were having on his ability to sleep.
With respect to the investigation of his August 22, 2001, internal complaint, plaintiff stated: "I know you indicated that funds were tight due to the money spent on [another investigation]. Please reconsider an outside investigator as to expedite and conclude this nightmare I'm living. Money should be no object when it relates to this type of complaint and issue. In light of what you said about not `being comfortable going to [the city manager] for more money for another outside investigation[,]' please insure that every possible `available' internal resource is directed towards resolution of this investigation. [ ] To date, nobody has said word `one' to me about what if anything is being done. Again, I don't have to remind you but I had to `pester' you on a nea
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Show All Case Laws California PEO
|