f-<

L.U
~
(f)
(J)
::;s
~
o
r:t)
N
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
MELISSA ENGLE CIVIL ACTION NO.:
Plaintiff
VS.
CHIEF MATTHEW REIMONDO and
SERGEANT GARRETT KELLEY 110 and
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
Defendants MARCH 12,2013
COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION AND FACTS
1. MELISSA ENGLE, brings this action to redress her rights as secured under 42 U.S.c.
Section 1983, 1988 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,
based upon Defendants' violation of Plaintiff's First Amendment Rights to free expression,
assembly, malicious prosecution and intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress, and
other state law claims. Since November 2010, and in all times relative herein, the Plaintiff was
elected to the town council of East Hampton, Connecticut and was subsequently named chair of the
town council. Subsequent to her election in November of 2000, in her capacity as a citizen of the
town of East Hampton and as a member of the East Hampton town council, the Plaintiff addressed
many personal and community concerns regarding the cost to the Town of East Hampton of
maintaining a police chief as opposed to a resident state trooper.
2. On or about June 2010, the Town of Easton Hampton, by Town manager Jeffrey O'Keefe,
Case 3:13-cv-00335-JBA Document 1 Filed 03/12/13 Page 1 of 12
3:13-cv-00335
,....;
I
N
~
o
~
o
acted to remove police Chief Matthew Reimondo (herein after "Reimondo"). This was based in part
upon the concerns of the Town of East Hampton, which were raised by the Plaintiff at numerous
times both to East Hampton citizens on an individual basis and at public meetings and hearing at
which she addressed town members.
3. The East Hampton town council voted six to one (the Plaintiffs vote being in the
majority) approving the termination of police Chief Matthew Reimondo and provision of severance.
Subsequently, police Chief Matthew Reimondo, in retaliation for the Plaintiff s conduct on
advocating his removal from the position of Chief of Police for the Town of East Hampton, began a
campaign of harassment and intimidation against Ms. Engle. This campaign of harassment and
intimidation began by Reimondo directly and by Sergeant Garrett Kelly (herein after "Kelly") ofthe
East Hampton Police Department under direction of Reimondo.
4. The Defendant's conduct included, but was not limited to the following::
a. lntentionally refusing to provide protection to the property of the Plaintiff on or
about August 2010. This was contrary to the request of the Plaintiff that specific individuals
not be allowed to enter her property, Kelly, under the direction of Reimando, did intentionally
escort trespassers into the property of the Plaintiff.
b. On or about November 2010, Kelly, under the direction and supervision of
Reimando and whose duty it was to maintain order and maintain a police presence at town
2
Case 3:13-cv-00335-JBA Document 1 Filed 03/12/13 Page 2 of 12
council meetings, knowingly and willfully refused to follow the direction oftown council
members including that of the Plaintiff. In addition, Kelly refused to address the disruptive
conduct of the individuals in attendance whose conduct intentionally disrupted the actions
and speech of the Plaintiff.
5. Reimando and Kelly, under the supervision and direction of Reimando, initiated an
investigation and prosecution of Ms. Engle based upon her properly providing absentee ballots to
East Hampton's citizens in order that they may participate in a referendum election to re-instate
Reimando as Chief of Police for the Town of East Hampton. Said investigation and prosecution was
baseless, without probably cause and intended to intimidate and harass Ms. Engle because of her
advocacy and protected speech.
JURISDICTION
6. This action arises under Title 42 of the United States Code Sections 1983 and 1988.
Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331, 1343,2201 and 2202, and the
above described constitutional and statutory provisions. This Court has pendent jurisdiction over the
State and common law counts set forth herein.
VENUE
7. This action properly lies in the District of Connecticut pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. Sections
1391 (b) and 1391(c).
3
Case 3:13-cv-00335-JBA Document 1 Filed 03/12/13 Page 3 of 12
U
~
~
ill
u.:/
Eo-<
<
>-<
u
0
ill
<
ill
~
0
CQ
0
~
::E:
0
u
~
j
I
0
co
0
-l
C;
::;:
~
u::
N
d:;;
0'
l.()
N
"<'fi
ci
Z
(fJ
52
:=>
""""'
c
,....;
,....;
,....;
I
l.()
"<'fi
v:::;,
a
v:::;,
~
.
v:::;,
c
0
0
I
l.()
"<'fi
v:::;,
;.l
~
.
l.()
N
0'
,....;
I
N
"<'fi
0
v:::;,
0
f-;
u
f-<
l::l
f-<
(f)
~
~
d:;;
N
PARTIES
8. The Plaintiff, Melissa Engle, is and was at all times relevant to this Complaint, a citizen of
the United States and resident of the state of Connecticut.
9. The Defendant, Police Chief Matthew Reimando, is at all times relevant to this
Complaint, an officer of the Town of East Hampton, Connecticut. As such, he acted on behalf of the
Town of East Hampton, Connecticut as to the matters described herein and has been responsible for
the enforcement and administration ofthe laws and regulation of the State of Connecticut and the
Town of East Hampton in matters relevant to this complaint. He is sued individually and in his
official capacity. Reimando is sued individually and as an agent ofthe Town of East Hampton
acting within the scope within this course and scope of such agencies with its knowledge and
consent.
10. The Defendant, Sergeant Garrett Kelly, is and was at all times relevant to this complaint
an officer of the Town of East Hampton Police Department. He acted on behalf of the Town of East
Hampton as to the matters described and has been responsible for the enforcement of the
administrative laws and regulations of the State of Connecticut and the Town of East Hampton in
matters relevant to this complaint. He is sued individually and in his official capacity. Kelley,. at all
times relevant to this Complaint was directly supervised by Reimando. Kelley I sued individually
and as an agent ofthe Town of East Hampton acting within the scope within this course and scope of
4
III
c
Case 3:13-cv-00335-JBA Document 1 Filed 03/12/13 Page 4 of 12
o
~
u
ili
j
~
S
~
u::
N
rn
~
1.0
~
~
such agencies with its knowledge and consent.
11. The Defendant, Town of East Hampton, is a Connecticut Municipality which, has a
various times relevant to the conduct described herein, has maintained a police department in
accordance with its authority as a municipality, for the purpose of engaging in law enforcement
within the Town of East Hampton.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: (As to Defendants Reimando & Kelly - Violation of 42 U.S.C.
1983)
1. Paragraphs one through eleven are incorporated as if fully set out here.
12. Defendants Reimando and Kelly were, at all times mentioned herein expect those
specifically listed, were employed by and duly appointed and acting police officers of the town of
East Hampton. By their conduct, Defendants knowingly and intentionally did harass and intimidate
the Plaintiff based upon her advocacy of dissolving the Town of East Hampton Police Department
and as a result, terminating the employment of the Defendants by the Town of East Hampton.
13. The result ofthe above-described actions on the part ofthe Defendants, the Plaintiff has
suffered and continues to suffer irreparable harm for which she has no adequate remedy of law.
Foregoing actions on the part of the Defendant were intentional in that the Defendants acted with an
intent to injure the Plaintiff or with a reckless regard for her rights.
5
Case 3:13-cv-00335-JBA Document 1 Filed 03/12/13 Page 5 of 12
14. The actual harassment, intimidation and malicious prosecution by the Defendants against
the Plaintiff was in violation of the Plaintiff's right to free expression and assembly under the law
has caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiff irreparable harm due to actual and threatened
deprivation of her constitutional rights.
15. Defendants Reimando and Kelley have deprived Plaintiffs of their First Amendment
rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 by virtue of their personal involvement in the aforesaid
actions and because Reimando supervised and/or directed all of the Kelley in connection with the
actions described above.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: (As to Defendant Town of East Hampton Violation of 42
U.S.C. 1983)
1. Paragraphs one through fifteen of the First Cause of Action are incorporated as if fully set
out here.
16. Defendant Town of East Hampton is liable for the violation of
Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 in one or more ofthe
following ways:
a. These actions were taken pursuant to official policy of the Defendant Town of East
Hampton;
b. These actions were the result conduct in accordance with the policy and customs of the
6
Case 3:13-cv-00335-JBA Document 1 Filed 03/12/13 Page 6 of 12
Defendant town of East Hampton;
c. These action were taken as a failure to train by the Defendant Town of East Hampton.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: (As to All Defendants - Malicious Prosecution of the Plaintiff)
1. Paragraphs one through fifteen of the First Cause of Action are incorporated as if fully set
out here.
16. The Plaintiffs actions did not violate any laws or ordinances of the State of Connecticut
or Town of East Hampton.
17. The Defendant Reimando, falsely and maliciously and without probable cause,
provocation or warrant, ordered the investigation and prosecution ofthe Plaintiff on a purported
charge of failure to comply with the Connecticut Election Laws.
18. Following the initiation of the investigation and initiated prosecution, under the direction
of Reimando, the Plaintiff was compelled to retain an attorney and expend sums of money on her
behalf.
19. The actions of the Defendants were the result of malice, personal ill will and reckless
disregard of the Plaintiff s right to liberty.
20. The actions of the Defendants in unlawfully and maliciously causing the prosecution,
constitute a violation of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 in that the Defendants were
acting under color oflaw, deprived Plaintiff of her rights which are guaranteed by the Fourth and
7
Case 3:13-cv-00335-JBA Document 1 Filed 03/12/13 Page 7 of 12
Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution.
21. As a direct and approximate result of the malicious, wrongful, precedential, and unlawful
acts herein above alleged, the Plaintiff suffered great mental and physical stress and has been
damaged in good name, reputation, and credit and has been subject to public humiliation,
embarrassment and shame to her damage.
THE PENDANT CLAIMS
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (As to All Defendants - Violation ofthe Constitution of the
State of Connecticut)
1. Paragraphs one through twenty-one of the Second Cause ofAction are by reference hereby
incorporated into this the Fourth cause of Action.
22. The actions of the Defendants violated the Plaintiff s rights as secured by the Constitution
of the State of Connecticut.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (As to All Defendants - Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress - of Plaintiff Engle)
1. Paragraphs one through twenty-on of the Third Cause of Action are by reference hereby
incorporated into this the Fifth Cause of Action.
22. The defendants intended to inflict severe emotional distress, or in the alternative, knew or
should have known that their actions would inflict severe emotional distress.
8
Case 3:13-cv-00335-JBA Document 1 Filed 03/12/13 Page 8 of 12
23. The conduct of the defendants was extreme and outrageous.
24. The plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress.
25. The defendants' conduct was the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiffs distress.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (As to All Defendants - Reckless Infliction of Emotional Distress
- of Plaintiff Engle)
1. Paragraphs one through twenty-on of the Third Cause of Action are by reference hereby
incorporated into this the Sixth Cause of Action.
22. The defendants-recklessly inflicted severe emotional distress upon the plaintiff.
23. The conduct of the defendants was extreme and outrageous.
24. The plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress.
25. The defendants' conduct was the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiffs' distress.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (As to All Defendants - Connecticut Common Law,
Malicious Prosecution)
1. Paragraphs one through twenty-one of the Third Cause of Action are by reference hereby
incorporated into this the Seventh Cause of Action.
22. The Defendants commenced and continued criminal and civil proceedings against the
Plaintiff without probable cause for such proceeding and with malice.
23. As a result ofthe aforementioned conduct, the Plaintiff has continued to suffered
9
Case 3:13-cv-00335-JBA Document 1 Filed 03/12/13 Page 9 of 12
damages.
24. The conduct of the Defendant was a direct and approximate cause ofthe Plaintiff's
damages.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (As to All Defendants- Abuse of Process)
1. Paragraphs one through twenty-one of the Third Cause of Action are by reference hereby
incorporated into this the Eighth Cause of Action.
22. The Defendants did initiate criminal and civil process against the Defendants for the
purpose ofretaliation against the Plaintiff for her conduct of and speech in advocating the dissolution
of the Town of East Hampton Police Department. As a result, they caused harm to the Plaintiff.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (As to Defendant Reimando - Negligent Supervision)
1. Paragraphs one through twenty-one of the Third Cause of Action are by reference hereby
incorporated into this the Ninth Cause of Action.
22. The Defendant Reimando, did direct and supervise Kelley to initiate and continue
criminal and civil process against the Plaintiff without probable cause and with malice and retaliation
10
Case 3:13-cv-00335-JBA Document 1 Filed 03/12/13 Page 10 of 12
to the Plaintiff's conduct and expression.
The Defendant Reimando knew, or should have known thorough the exercise of ordinary
care, that Kelley's conduct would subject the Plaintiff to unreasonable risk of harm. As a result of
negligent supervision of Reimando and the conduct of Kelley, the Plaintiff was directly harmed,
intimidated, harassed and damaged in good name and credit and was the subject of public
embarrassment and shame.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (As to all Defendants - Trespass)
1. Paragraphs one through twenty-one of the Third Cause of Action are by reference hereby
incorporated into this the Tenth Cause of Action.
22. The intentional entrance by Kelley onto the property of the Plaintiff, without justification
or permission, or active permission had been withdrawn, constituted a civil trespass against the
Plaintiff.
23. Said trespass by Kelley, under the direction of Reimando, was done with malice or
reckless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff and as retaliation against the conduct and protected
speech of the Plaintiff.
24. As a result of the aforementioned conduct ofthe Defendants, the Plaintiff has suffered
damages.
11
Case 3:13-cv-00335-JBA Document 1 Filed 03/12/13 Page 11 of 12
o
C()
N
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs claim:
a. That the conduct of the Defendant's violated the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
c. Judgment against each ofthe Defendants, Jointly and Severally;
d. Reasonable attorney's fees and costs;
e. Compensatory damages;
f. Punitive Damages
g. Such other, further relief as to this court may seem just and equitable; and
PLAINTIFF
E er ar
. F 0 bo & Associates, LLC
280 Adams Street
Manchester, CT 06040
Tel: (860)645-0006
Fax: (860)645-1110
Email: Derek@Lobo-Law.com
12
Case 3:13-cv-00335-JBA Document 1 Filed 03/12/13 Page 12 of 12