Here is the Complaint that was filed
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
*******************************************************
FELIPE RODRIGUEZ CIVIL NO. 3:08CV00089 (AWT)
V.
CITY OF WEST HAVEN, OFFICER WILLIAM CICCOSANTI AND OFFICER WILLIAM OAKLEY, in their individual capacities
MAY 13, 2008
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
1. This is an action for money damages to redress the deprivation by the defendant and co-defendants of rights secured to the plaintiff by the constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Connecticut. The defendant and codefendants, without probable cause, unlawfully detained, searched, harassed, accused, arrested, charged and falsely made statements against the plaintiff.
2. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under the provisions of §§1331 and 1343(3) of Title 28 and Secs. 1983 and 1988 of Title 42 of the United States Code, and of the pendent jurisdiction of this Court with respect to other causes of action available under state law.
3. During all times mentioned in this complaint the plaintiff was and still is a resident of the United States residing in New Haven, Connecticut and is of full age, and is Hispanic of race.
4. During all times mentioned in this complaint, the defendant, the City of West Haven,was and is a municipal corporation duly chartered as such under the laws of the State of Connecticut.
5. At all times mentioned, the co-defendant, William Ciccosanti, was a police officer employed by the defendant, the West Haven Police Department and was the responding officer on duty at the time of the incident. Co-defendant Ciccosanti is Caucasian of race and white of color and is being sued in his individual capacity.
6. At all times mentioned, the co-defendant, William Oakley, was a police officer employed by the defendant, the West Haven Police Department and was the responding officer on duty at the time of the incident. Co-defendant Oakley is Caucasian of race and white of color and is being sued in his individual capacity.
7. On or about October 13, 2005, the plaintiff was knowingly, yet wrongfully arrested by the defendants for Breach of Peace in the Second Degree, Threatening in the Second Degree and Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree.
8. Just prior to his arrest on the aforementioned date, the plaintiff’s neighbor, Anthony Clarke, was verbally challenging the plaintiff about where his car was parked. It should be noted that plaintiff’s vehicle was legally parked on a public street, but which happened to be in front of Mr. Clarke’s residence.
9. Plaintiff was thereafter arrested by the defendant and co-defendants for alleged brandishing a weapon, which the plaintiff, in point of fact, never removed from the secure location he had it within his home.
10. The plaintiff had a valid Connecticut gun permit for said weapon.
11. In December of 2006, a nolle was entered as to the all of the false charges brought against plaintiff by the defendant and co-defendants
12. Plaintiff was thereafter forced to hire a lawyer and defend himself against completely false and unfounded charges.
13. During all times mentioned in this complaint, the defendant and co-defendants acted under color and pretense of law and engaged in the improper and illegal conduct as aforedescribed, causing severe injury to the plaintiff, and in the process of depriving the plaintiff of the right, privileges and immunities secured to him by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well as the laws of the United States.
14. The acts and omissions of the defendant and co-defendants hereinafter described constituted a deprivation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights, privileges and immunities, and while these acts were carried out under color of law, they had no justification or excuse in law, and were instead gratuitous, illegal, improper and totally unrelated to any activity in which the municipal law enforcement officers should have appropriately and legally engaged in the course of protecting persons or property or insuring civil order.
15. In the manner described herein, the defendant the City of West Haven, which has a history, pattern and practice of depriving Hispanics and other minorities of their rights, maintained and condoned a custom of depriving individuals, such as the plaintiff, of their constitutional rights, through its traditions, policies, ordinances, regulations and decisions officially adopted and promulgated by and through the department.
16. The defendant and co-defendants deprived the plaintiff of his right to be free from warrantless arrest, arrest without probable cause, unreasonable arrest and malicious prosecution. All these rights are secured to the plaintiff by the provisions of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 1983 and 1988; and the State of Connecticut, Art. 1, Sections 1 and 7 respectively.
17. In the manner herein described, all of the aforementioned defendant and co-defendants subjected the plaintiff to false arrest, unreasonable detention, denial of substantive due process of law, and denial of equal protection under law. All these rights are secured to the plaintiff by the provisions of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and by Title 42 of the United States Code §§1983 and 1988 and State of Connecticut, Article 1, Sections 1 and 7 respectively.
COUNT TWO:
1-15. Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the First Count are hereby incorporated by reference and made Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Second Count, as if fully set forth herein.
16. The defendant, through its agents, servants and/or employees, subjected the plaintiff's person to false arrest based upon blatantly false and baseless accusations, which, upon a thorough investigation, would have been decreed as such.
17. In addition, the aforementioned defendant, through the aforedescribed extreme and outrageous acts of its agents, servants and/or employees, along with the individual co-defendants, were responsible for causing the intentional infliction of emotional distress upon the plaintiff as they knew, or should have known, or should have reasonably anticipated that their actions, in wrongfully accusing, detaining, charging, arresting, incarcerating and subjecting the plaintiff to the criminal
justice system as an accused criminal, would cause him to suffer severe emotional, psychological, as well as physical harm to his person.
COUNT THREE:
1-15. Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the First Count are hereby incorporated by reference and made Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Third Count, as if fully set forth herein.
16. In addition, said aforementioned defendant through the aforedescribed acts of its agents, servants and/or employees, along with each of the individual codefendants, were responsible for causing the negligent infliction of emotional distress upon the plaintiff as they knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should well have known, that their actions in wrongfully and publicly accusing, detaining, assaulting, charging, arresting, incarcerating and subjecting the plaintiff to the criminal justice system as an accused criminal would and did cause him to suffer severe emotional, psychological, as well as physical harm to his person.
COUNT FOUR:
1-15. Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the First Count are hereby incorporated by reference and made Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Fourth Count, as if fully set forth herein.
16. The charges were issued against the plaintiff by the State’s Attorney’s office because of the direct request of the individual co-defendants. 17. The multiple charges of criminal conduct which were brought against the plaintiff were done so without any probable cause whatsoever.
18. As there was no legal basis to establish probable cause for the arrest of the plaintiff with respect to the aforementioned charges, the individual codefendants’ actions were malicious in nature.
19. In light of the aforedescribed conduct, the actions of the individual co-defendants constituted the tort of malicious prosecution.
WHEREFORE, in light of all of the foregoing, the plaintiff claims judgment against the defendant and co-defendants jointly and severely as follows:
a. Compensatory damages in an amount this Court shall consider just and reasonable;
b. Punitive damages against the defendants and co-defendants in an amount this Court shall consider to be just and reasonable.
c. Attorney's fees and reimbursement of the costs related to the bringing of this action;
d. Such other relief as this Court shall consider to be fair and equitable.
PLAINTIFF, FELIPE RODRIGUEZ
