Fresno Police Ignored Claims of Domestic Violence. Now, the City Will Pay $500,000.
Two women reported attacks and threats from abusive ex-partners to the police. A lawsuit claimed they were ignored.

A lawsuit claimed that Fresno, California police consistently ignored women's claims of domestic violence and threats, leading to the death of one woman and the paralysis of another at the hands of an abusive former partner. This week, an attorney for the women's families announced that the city has agreed to pay $500,000 to settle the lawsuit, ending a nearly nine-year legal battle.
The lawsuit claimed that several Fresno police officers responded callously and inadequately to women's reports of abuse and threats by ex-partners, and failed to arrest the men who attacked them despite ample cause to do so. As a result of the officers' inaction, one of the women, Pamela Motley, was paralyzed, and another, Cindy Raygoza, was killed when their former partners assaulted them.
According to the suit, Motley repeatedly reported violent threats from Paul Motley, her estranged husband, to the police. Despite Paul's repeated violation of a temporary restraining order, police made no attempt to arrest him.
In one April 7th, 2014 incident Paul explicitly threatened to shoot Pamela if she didn't return to him by April 14th. However, when Pamela reported this threat to the police, the responding officer "seemed insensitive and rude to both Pamela and other witnesses who were present and available to give corroborating statements," according to the lawsuit. The officer "did not even exit his vehicle or turn his engine off when speaking to Pamela," and even "told Pamela that she should not be too worried because 'These guys only follow through 1 percent of the time.'" On April 12th, 2014, Paul shot Pamela in the face, paralyzing her, before shooting and killing himself. Pamela died in 2020 after contracting COVID-19.
Police treated Raygoza with similar apathy. According to the suit, Raygoza called Fresno police after her ex-boyfriend, Michael Reams, broke into her home and attacked her. When police arrived, Raygoza told an unnamed officer that she had been a victim of domestic violence in a previous marriage. The suit claimed that the officer then "took it upon himself to berate Cindy and criticize her choices of men," and told Raygoza that "if she continued to associate with [Reams] she would be 'crying wolf' and would not receive any responses to her calls or service to her address."
Police never attempted to arrest Reams, and despite continued threats, Raygoza never contacted law enforcement again. On July 14th, 2014, Reams stabbed Raygoza to death in her home.
In addition to claims from Motley and Raygoza's family, attorney Kevin Little said that more than thirty women eventually joined the lawsuit with claims of mistreatment by Fresno police when reporting domestic violence. This week, after more than eight years of litigation, Little announced that the City of Fresno agreed to a $500,000 settlement.
"Today marks the end of a long road for the families, the Motley and the Raygoza families," Little said during a press conference this week, adding that the two women were fatally and near-fatally attacked "as a result of inaction on the part of the Fresno police department in the face of multiple complaints that they made regarding their abusers that went unresponded, unanswered, unaddressed."
While the hefty settlement can't bring Motley and Raygoza back to their families, it does send a rare—and strong—message to local police departments that encourage officers to brush off domestic violence, or even blame women for becoming victims of their ex-partner's violence.
"She was loving and giving, and she would be there for anyone. And then the time that she needed help, no one was there to protect her and help her," Amanda Sylvester, Motley's daughter, said in a press conference. "No one took her [seriously], and she feared for her life for months."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
My local municipality was recently in trouble for having a 'nuisance law' that basically made it untenable for victims of domestic violence to call the police. If the police got called more than (I think) 3 times to your residence in a given time frame, which I think it was a year, they could:
a) fine you
b) stop responding
c) revoke your occupancy permit & remove you from the city (exile)
d) all of the above
Fresno should sue thier lawyers for fraud. Warren v DC set the precendent cops have no legal obligation to protect you.
Then again in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services.
I was rather wondering how this took 9 years to result in a payout when the city could have just pointed at those cases and given the plaintiffs the finger.
And again, with regard to protective orders, in Castle Rock v. Gonzalez.
They got the message loud and clear.
No, taxpayers got that message. And the message is: leave Fresno and leave California.
In addition to claims from Motley and Raygoza's family, attorney Kevin Little said that more than thirty women eventually joined the lawsuit with claims of mistreatment by Fresno police when reporting domestic violence. This week, after more than eight years of litigation, Little announced that the City of Fresno agreed to a $500,000 settlement.
Odds that Motley and Raygoza are the "Weinstein Victims" worth half-a-million alone and that the other more-than-30 victims are the "Aziz Ansari Victims" who should've chipped in a few bucks like the rest of Californians but, because vagina, get a share of the spoils?
Because $15K apiece before the lawyers take their share in exchange for getting shot in the face and paralyzed or stabbed to death is waaay less than $0.77 on the dollar compared to your average up-and-coming rap artists whose Mom assures us was cleaning himself up.
$500,000.00.
30 women.
8 years.
1 lawyer.
So much for "common sense" gun control.
Advice to all women in California; leave.
The only principle reason seems to have is anti police. They've argued in the affirmative in past articles about reducing police intervention and restorative justice, then complain when cops don't intervene. There seems to be no consistency on what actions they want police to take.
The one that gets me is where they hook people up for waaay less than 48-72 hours and Reason acts like the State has no ability to detain anyone for any amount of time like that's been any sort of credible legal ideal since the Roman Empire.
It adds another dimension to the whole Chicago gun crime discussion when the CPD says, "We can't solve murders because nobody ever witnesses anything." and Reason's policy on policing is effectively Why should they?
I’ve seen this movie before. Police respond, attempt to detain the man, he resists, gets out of the car with a knife, approaches cops, is shot and paralyzed, the women sue, and Reason cheers the mostly peaceful riots that follow
Seems more like their only principle is making the world burn by any means other than AGW.
Yeah it's settled law that cops have no affirmative duty to protect anybody from anyone or anything. Sucks but that's the world we live in and pay taxes for. If you have a sister, daughter, cousin or friend who is threatened by one of these sick fucks you have an affirmative duty to buy her a firearm and make sure she knows how to use it to put this motherfucker out of her misery.
If it's settled law, then why would they pay out 500k in a settlement? It seems the common refrain that cops have no affirmative duty to protect anybody is not universally recognized.
The police said, Evidence? We see no evidence!
Now where have I heard that before.
And yet another "According to the plaintiffs" special from Emma Camp.
But even worse since there is well established case law pointing in the other direction.
The occupation that has one of the highest domestic abuse rates is law enforcement, and they all cover for each other. Perhaps this is why the cops looked the other way.