PeTiTioneR Ask'S WhEThER The CoMPLAInT NAmEd
VN
DeFEndAnT In TheIR TRUe Names, WiTh STAteMeNTS
ThAT ARE TRUE. (a) ThE WoRdS "CoMperENT CoURT." WhEn USEd
TO ACCOMMODATC VNIFICATION OF THE MUTICIPAL,AND SUPERIOR
COURTS TO APPLY IN ANY CALIFORNIA COUNTY, "ALSO SCE"CAL.CONST.
ART.VIS 1 SLO); In ThE LAST OF A REFERENCE TO A PUBLIC OFFENSE
TRIABLE TO REFERENCE A MISDEMEANDR SUBd(F) ANd (g) WERE
Added FOR dRAFtIng ConVenIenCE.

WhEThER PLAINTIFF COMPLAINT JUSTLY WITH CERTAINTY NAMEd
OMbUDSMAN CHARLAINE
F.OLmedO, As A deFendAnT Who engAged
In miscondUeT. SECond DeFendanT NAMed CRAIg. J.MiTCheIl, And
RObERT SAIKI, eACh dEFENdANT VIOLATEd PLAINTIFFS RIgHT

WHETHER SUPERVISOR CHARLAInE F.OLME DO.An OFFICCR OF
2SV P M M4 M S4 0'
WITh HUGLLC TRUST. FORE WhOM SHALL PROTECT ThE LIBEKTY
IntEREST OF CITIZEnS qUARANTEE
Through The BiL OF
RighTs, And by The 13Th,
,14Th,15Th
, And19 Th.AnendmenTS
AS Wen As bY LeqiSLATiVe InTEnT OF dUe PRUcIesS, ANd
EQUAL PROTECTiOn UNDER
The LAW, A
ThAt CIVIL
LIbeRtiEs pRohibitEd any discRiminaTion, by municipalitys
OR They CouLd be heLd Liable FOR
IL dAmageS'see
2003)'SEE ALSO FORd V.C.
ty.OF gRANd TRAVERSE S35 F.3d.
483,498/6 Th. CIR.2OO8)(CITATION)STATIng MUNICIPALITY
A REASOnAbLE JURY COvld COnCLUde TheRE WAS A diRECT
LinK between The covnthes Policy and The nJukies
SUFFEREd bY PLAInTIFF." SEE E.g. BISbRL-RAMOS v. CItY
OF MAYAQUE2 467 F.30 16,23-24(2St.CIR.2006)

PLAINTIFF FIRST,
SEEKS TO CLARIFy ThE LEGAL
PRINCiLES CONTAOULINg THEADDLCATION OF LAWAND
The ACTUAL CIRCumSTAnCES OF The gIVen InFRInge
menT Stated by pLain

Whether the complaint named the defendant in their true names, with statements that are true