Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 1 of 26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT -------------------------------------------------------------x ALBERT EADDY and LISA EADDY, Plaintiffs, v. P.O. JEMIOLA, P.O. CACELA, P.O. COLON, SGT. DUDLEY, SGT. MINARDI, P.O. FORMICA, P.O. CANACE, P.O. REID, P.O. AGOSTO, P.O. CRESPO, JOHN DOES, CITY OF NEW HAVEN, AND JOHN DESTEFANO, Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------x

11-cv-1081 (MPS) FIRST CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiffs ALBERT EADDY and LISA EADDY through their attorney Michael A. Deem, Esq., state as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is a combined civil rights and personal injury action. The claims arise from

the malicious and wanton beating of Mr. Eaddy by defendant Jemiola, a sworn member of the City of New Haven Police Department (NHPD). Jemiola crushed the bones in Mr. Eaddys neck by repeatedly striking him with a solid object, as defendant Colon orchestrated the assault. Several members of the NHPD refused to intervene on Mr. Eaddys behalf despite having several opportunities to do so. Immediately after the attack, Mr. Eaddy was denied medical care and treatment by Jemiola, Colon, and other New Haven police officers; despite obvious signs of severe physical injury, as part of a conspiracy to cover-up their misconduct.

Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 2 of 26

2.

Plaintiffs seek the following relief jointly and severally: compensatory, punitive,

and presumed damages; disbursements, costs, and attorneys fees; and such other and further relief as this court deems just and proper. JURISDICTION 3. This action is brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 28 U.S.C. 1331

and 1343, 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 4. Supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367 exists for claims of

negligent supervision, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, recklessness, negligence, loss of consortium, and indemnification. 5. Venue is laid within the District of Connecticut in that a substantial part of the

events giving rise to the claims occurred within this judicial district. PARTIES 6. Plaintiff ALBERT EADDY was at all times relevant herein, a citizen of the

United States, a resident of Hamden, Connecticut, and legal spouse of Lisa Eaddy. 7. Plaintiff LISA EADDY was at all times relevant herein, a citizen of the United

States, a resident of Hamden, Connecticut, and legal spouse of Albert Eaddy. 8. Defendant CITY OF NEW HAVEN is a governmental entity created under the

laws of Connecticut and is responsible for the actions of the NHPD. 9. Defendants SGT. DUDLEY and SGT. MINARDI, were at all times relevant,

employed as a sworn members and supervisors of the NHPD, and assigned to supervise

Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 3 of 26

defendants P.O. Cacela, P.O. Jemiola, P.O. Colon and John Does. They at all times acted under color of state law, and are sued in their individual capacities. 10. Defendants P.O. CACELA, P.O. JEMIOLA, P.O. COLON, P.O. FORMICA, P.O.

CANACE, P.O. REID, P.O. AGOSTO, P.O. CRESPO and JOHN DOES (the true names and number

of whom are presently unknown and includes both male and female police officers), were at all times relevant, employed as sworn members of the NHPD. They at all times acted under color of state law, and are sued in their individual capacities. 11. Defendant JOHN DESTEFANO, since 1989, was the duly elected and acting

Mayor of the City of New Haven, and responsible for its day-to-day activities. He is sued individually. NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE SUIT 12. Within six months of the events giving rise to the underlying claims, a written

Notice of Intent was filed with the City/Town Clerk of New Haven, CT. Over thirty days have elapsed since the filing of said notice, and defendants claims have not been settled or otherwise disposed. 13. The Notice of Intent was filed on February 22, 2011, and assigned Claim No.

00203522 00226 00039 03:10:31p. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS History of Racial Profiling in the State of Connecticut and the City of New Haven 14. In 1999, the State of Connecticut enacted the Alvin W. Penn Racial Profiling

Prohibition Act ("Penn Act"). The Penn Act prohibits law enforcement agencies from using a person's race or ethnicity as the sole factor in determining probably cause for an arrest or reasonable suspicion for detention or an investigatory motor vehicle stop. It also requires police 3

Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 4 of 26

departments to (a) adopt written policies prohibiting discriminatory stops, searches, and detentions, and (b) collect and provide annual data on traffic stops, offenses, dispositions, and complaints of discriminatory stops to the African-American Affairs Commission ("AAAC"). Police departments' obligation to submit data ended with their October 1, 2001 submission. 15. In December 2001, the chief State's Attorney published a racial profiling report,

based on July 1, 2000 through June 30 2001 data. The report concluded that "the differences observed in stopping minority drivers, the nature of stops, and dispositions [existed but] were generally small." 16. On November 21, 2002, members of the NHPD participated in a Community

Justice Dialogue Project, sponsored by Community Mediation, Inc., Greater New Haven Branch of the NAACP, and Junta for Progressive Action, to prevent racial profiling. The dialogue brought together citizens of New Haven and NHPD to discuss issues related to racial profiling. A youth forum attended by 200 students who shared their experiences of racial profiling and how it affected their lives was also held. Eight additional community dialogues were held between October 2002 and January 2003. Additional dialogues were held in four suburbs of the city of New Haven, as well as at Southern State University and Yale University. Each of the dialogues produced specific action plans to reduce racial profiling that would be undertaken in each area. 17. On February 3, 2003, Mr. DeStefano gave a Mayor's State of the City Address.

Mr. DeStefano's comments expressly included, Third, there's no gain, no more important accomplishment of the last several years that we are least able to see roll back than the safety of city streets. The police command staff, the management teams and city residents must move forward with our next phase of community policing irrespective of the cuts we're about to face; our racial profiling initiative and working with police departments throughout the region to prevent abuse. Partnering with the NAACP on their "Stop the Violence" campaign. Working with partners 4

Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 5 of 26

throughout the city to end violence, and our focus on quality of life issues. Working hard, harder than ever before with neighborhoods to problem solve and provide smarter policing. 18. On information and belief, New Haven's racial profiling initiative was part and

parcel of the action plans created by the community dialogues to reduce racial profiling in, inter alia, the City of New Haven. 19. On May 23, 2003, the Penn Act was amended. It required the police to: (1)

provide the data on traffic stops and complaints to AAAC, as well as the Chief State's Attorney; and (2) put AAAC, instead of the Chief State's Attorney, in charge of reviewing the data and producing the annual reports for the governor and legislature. 20. NHPD has refused or failed to provide AAAC with data on traffic stops in 2003,

2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. 21. On January 30, 2009, a protest was held in front of the New Haven police

substation on Whalley Avenue regarding racial profiling. NHPD had posted the mug shots of 25 African-American men on a wall in the Whalley Avenue police substation. The 25 individuals were not wanted for any crime, but were individuals the NHPD wanted to push out of the neighborhood or into jail. 22. On information and belief, the traffic stop data submitted by NHPD for 2009

reveals drastic irregularities with respect to the frequency of stops and professional performance of sworn members of the NHPD. For example, the following total stops were reported to AAAC: January February March April May June July 31 41 336 322 570 554 509 5

Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 6 of 26

August September October November December Total 23.

414 314 88 84 60 3,323

On information and belief, in 2009 black drivers were stopped at a rate

approximately 7% higher than their population category, which is statistically significant. 24. On information and belief, the traffic stop data submitted by NHPD for 2010

reveals drastic decreases from total stops conducted in 2009. For example, the following total stops were reported to AAAC: January February March April May June July August September October November December Total 25. 62 84 91 156 166 107 144 147 43 56 75 92 1,223

On information and belief, in 2010 black drivers were stopped at a rate

approximately 13% higher than their population category, which is statistically significant. 26. From 2006 through 2010, NHPD experienced a very high rate of turnover in

chiefs of the department, five, as well as other management level officials within the department, which should have put Mr. DeStefano on notice that heightened supervision of the NHPD would or might be required, especially in light of the above.

Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 7 of 26

27.

On information and belief, the disparity in motor vehicle sops by the NHPD was

the result of Mr. DeStefano's highly unreasonable conduct, involving an extreme departure from ordinary care, in a situation where a high degree of danger was apparent, specifically the violation of federal and state constitutional rights of black drivers within the City of New Haven. History of the New Haven Police Department 28. On November 15, 2004, defendant City of New Haven entered into a written

collective bargaining agreement effective from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2008 ("Agreement 1"), with New Haven Police Union Local 530, Council 15, AFSCME ("Local 530") and Council 15, AFSCME ("Council 15"). 29. On information and belief, the parties to Agreement 1intentionally omitted the

creation and use of a formal, written performance evaluation system ("PES") from said agreement. 30. In March 2007, two members of the NHPD Narcotic Squad were indicted and

taken into custody by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for accepting bribes from local bail bondsmen and stealing money at crime scenes. The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) was subsequently hired by the City of New Haven to conduct an objective and comprehensive study of specific areas within the NHPD. 31. In November 2007, PERF released the results of said study in New Haven Police

Department Assessment, final Report of findings pursuant to said contract. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference said Final Report. The Final Report provided, in part, Findings: The Department does not have an active annual performance appraisal system or any systematic approach to assessment of individual performance beyond the supervisors day-to-day review of activity on the job. The Director of Labor Relations for the City of New Haven confirmed that 7

Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 8 of 26

the police department is no different from other departments. Performance appraisals are not protected documents under prevailing freedom of information legislation, leaving individuals and the city vulnerable to disclosure of personal information. This matter is reported to be a major concern to union membership and an issue in labor relations. A system of annual performance appraisal is a best practice followed by all progressive police agencies. Performance appraisals are opportunities for both employees and supervisors to assess career progression over the past year, set new performance goals and document career interests, training needs and aspirations for the future. Recommendation: Establish a performance appraisal system. The department should implement a formal, written performance evaluation system to reward superior performance, address substandard performance and to hold personnel accountable for their past performance. 32. On November 17, 2009, defendant City of New Haven entered into a written

collective bargaining agreement effective from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2011 ("Agreement 2"), with Local 530 and Council 15. 33. On information and belief, the parties to Agreement 2 knew of the PERF Final

Report, but intentionally omitted the creation and use of a PES from said agreement. 34. On information and belief, since at least July 1, 2004, NHPD lacked a PES

beyond day-to-day review of its sworn uniformed employees' on the job activities, which prevented supervisors and managers from properly training, supervising, and disciplining employees that engaged in misconduct. 35. Defendant City of New Haven, as well as the members of Local 530, created a

policy, custom or practice of deliberate indifference to the training, supervision and disciplinary needs of its police officers, by formally agreeing to the lack of a PES. 8

Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 9 of 26

Mr. Eaddy's Specific Allegations 36. In about 1952, the City of New Haven enacted local traffic ordinances which

regulate vehicles and parking within the city limits. As such, drivers within the city limits are not subject to C.G.S. 14-251 (Improper Parking). The current traffic and parking regulations are found in Chapter 29, Traffic and Motor Vehicles, of the New Haven Code of Ordinances ("Chapter 29"). 37. On September 2, 2010, at approximately 00:20 hours, Jemiola and Cacela

conducted a motor vehicle stop of the car driven by Lahsunda Adkins ("Lashunda"). Ronda Adkins ("Ronda") and Mr. Eaddy were passengers in said vehicle. Jemiola and Cacela did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to conduct said stop. 38. On information and belief, Jemiola and Cacela stopped the vehicle pursuant to the

NHPD's policy, custom or practice of targeting certain individuals to push "out of the neighborhood or into jail." 39. The driver and passengers in the car were directed to remain in the car, as the

police officers returned to their patrol car. Mr. Eaddy, knowing that the police lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause and in fear of police brutality, elected to flee. Members of the NHPD pursued him on foot. Mr. Eaddy was caught and placed in custody a few blocks away from the location of the stop. 40. NHPD has written use of force policy that prohibits the use of strikes with a

police baton to a persons head or neck, due to the likelihood of causing serious bodily injury or death. 41. On information and belief, a single physical strike to a person's head or neck with

a police baton constitutes use of deadly force. 9

Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 10 of 26

42.

Defendant Jemiola struck Mr. Eaddy in the back of the head with a solid object

immediately after apprehending him, despite the fact that Mr. Eaddy offered absolutely no resistance. Mr. Eaddy was stunned and unable to stand as a result of the unlawful strike. Jemiola then began to drag Mr. Eaddy to the back of a single family residence on Carmel Street, New Haven, CT. 43. On information and belief, defendant Colon directed Jemiola to Cuff him. You

know how. Jemiola then handcuffed Mr. Eaddy excessively tight, causing loss of circulation to his hands and numbness. Jemiola then resumed dragging Mr. Eaddy to the back of the residence. 44. On information and belief, Minardi arrived after Mr. Eaddy was handcuffed, but

prior to Jemiola dragging Mr. Eaddy behind the residence. 45. Jemiola then delivered three more unlawful strikes to the back of Mr. Eaddys

head and neck with a solid object, after reaching a secluded area behind the house. Mr. Eaddy heard the bones in his neck break and crush during the course of the beating, and the entire left side of his body go numb. As a result, Mr. Eaddy was unable to move and asked Cacela, Dudley, Jemiola, Colon, Minardi, Formica, Canace and/or John Does to transport him to the hospital. 46. On information and belief, Colon replied, Thats what you get when you run.

Drag him. Jemiola directed Mr. Eaddy to get up. Mr. Eaddy replied that he was unable to get up, and again asked to be taken to a hospital. 47. On information and belief, Colon and Formica picked Mr. Eaddy up by his arms

and brought him to a paddy wagon, with his feet dragging on the floor. 48. On information and belief, in light of Mr. Eaddy's signs of severe physical injuries

and mode of injury, emergency medical protocol required that Mr. Eaddy's head, neck and upper torso be immobilized; Cacela, Dudley, Jemiola, Colon, Minardi, Formica, Canace and John Does 10

Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 11 of 26

knew of said protocol; but they negligently, recklessly or intentionally refused to follow protocol or provide emergency medical care. 49. On information and belief, Jemiola, Cacela, Canace, Dudley and/or Minardi

accompanied Mr. Eaddy to the paddy wagon. Mr. Eaddy. Mr. Eaddy asked said defendants to transport him to the hospital upon arriving at the paddy wagon. All said defendants refused to do so, and failed to request emergency medical care on Mr. Eaddy's behalf, in violation of NHPD policy, custom and practice. 50. Mr. Eaddy was subsequently taken to the holding center at One Union Avenue,

New Haven, CT. Reid, the driver of the paddy wagon, opened the rear door to said vehicle. Mr. Eaddy asked Reid to transport him to the hospital. Reid responded, You shouldnt have run. Youre an old timer. You know better. Mr. Eaddy was then escorted into the holding center. 51. Immediately upon entering, Agosto and/or Crespo asked, Whats wrong with

him? Reid responded, He ran. Mr. Eaddy pleaded to be taken to the hospital, but Reid, Agosto and/or Crespo failed to do so despite obvious signs of severe physical injury. 52. A female Jane Doe wearing a white shirt approached Mr. Eaddy. Mr. Eaddy

referenced his torn clothes, the dirt covering his body, deep marks in his wrists caused by the handcuffs, and asked Jane Doe to transport him to the hospital. Jane Doe shook her head no and departed the area. 53. Several other detainees summoned another John/Jane Doe on Mr. Eaddys behalf,

but John/Jane Doe failed to summon medical personnel for Mr. Eaddy. 54. Subsequently, Mr. Eaddy was transported to 121 Elm Street, New Haven, CT. Mr.

Eaddys restraints were removed, and he immediately collapsed due to his injuries. A state

11

Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 12 of 26

Judicial Marshal responded, inquired of Mr. Eaddy for approximately five seconds, then departed. 55. A few moments later a supervisor for the Judicial Marshals responded with

emergency medical personnel. He stated, We aint going down for this. Eaddy, you alright? Mr. Eaddy responded in the negative. Mr. Eaddy was then rushed to Yale/New Haven Hospital. 56. On information and belief, Yale/New Haven Hospital medical personnel

determined that Mr. Eaddy suffered from a broken vertebra, a crushed vertebra, nerve damage, and severe pain. Mr. Eaddy remained in the hospital until approximately September 7, 2010, and was required to endure three shots daily to prevent blood clots resulting from the brutal beating he sustained. 57. While at the hospital a female New Haven police officer stated to Mr. Eaddy, I

want you to know were not all like that." 58. While an inpatient at the hospital, a John Doe harassed Mr. Eaddy to further the

conspiracy and interfere with Mr. Eaddys First Amendment right to seek recourse for his injuries in federal court. John Doe also stated, You shouldnt have run. As John Doe began to leave Mr. Eaddy elevated his hospital bed and observed a Jemiola inside his hospital room. John Doe and Jemiola departed together. 59. On September 2, 2010, P.O. Jemiola wrote an incident report that was reviewed

by Sgt. Dudley, the Desk Sergeant. Said report identified Sgt. Minardi, P.O. Cacela, and P.O. Colon as being involved in the underlying incident. 60. On information and belief, at all times relevant, Dudley was responsible for

making and maintaining accurate records of the whereabouts and actions of all NHPD uniformed

12

Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 13 of 26

employees, but failed to do so as part of and in furtherance of the conspiracy to cover-up the individual defendants' misconduct. 61. On information and belief, Mindardi and/or Dudley used their positions as

supervisors as part of and in furtherance of the conspiracy to cover-up the individual defendants' misconduct. 62. Fraudulent criminal charges were subsequently brought against Mr. Eaddy in

furtherance of the conspiracy to cover up the defendants misconduct. 63. All criminal charges filed against Mr. Eaddy and arising from the incident of

September 2, 2010 were subsequently withdrawn or dismissed. 64. As a result of the fraudulent charges Mr. Eaddy was unlawfully imprisoned in

excess of thirty days. 65. The City of New Haven knew or should have known of Dudley or Minardi's

propensity to engage in misconduct by virtue of being named in at least three other civil rights actions for similar misconduct, but failed or refused to terminate their employment in a timely manner. 66. On information and belief, Mr. Eaddy's damages would have been avoided

through implementation of a PES, or proper training, supervision and discipline. 67. To the extent that defendants' conduct involved discretionary acts and malice,

wantonness or intent to injure, said conduct falls within an exception to governmental immunity. 68. After Mr. Eaddy was placed in the paddy wagon, Jemiola and/or Cacela cited

Lashunda for violation of C.G.S. 14-251 and 14-230a (Failure to Drive to the Right). 69. On April 25, 2012, Jemiola testified that he authored his police report with the

assistance of Cacela, who was standing nearby and provided input as Jemiola wrote the report. 13

Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 14 of 26

Jemiola's report provides that he and Cacela had "received numerous anonymous complaints from a known source over the past several weeks of drug activity in front of 34 Hudson Street[, New Haven, CT]." 70. The tax rolls, land records and engineer's office of the City of New Haven do not

contain any record of a "34" Hudson Street. Jemiola testified that he would be surprised if 34 Hudson Street did not exist because he has driven by the house several times and actually looked at the numbers. 71. Jemiola also conceded under oath that neither C.G.S. 14-230a nor 14-230(a)

apply to the vehicle or conditions under which Lashunda was driving. Hence, the citation was issued improperly. 72. Jemiola further conceded that he did not know if the gears in Lashunda's vehicle

were ever placed in park, during the period of time for which the citation for allegedly violating C.G.S. 14-251 was issued. 73. On May 8, 2012, Cacela testified that he and Jemiola knew they did not have

reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle driven by Lahsunda for suspected drug activity, but had agreed to stop the vehicle based on the parking and driving violations in hopes of finding something. 74. On information and belief, the allegations of "numerous anonymous complaints

from a known source" in Jemiola's report and the citations for violation of C.G.S. 14-251 and 14-230a are pure fabrications, and mere attempts to cover-up their misconduct of racial profiling as well as cover-up the city of New Haven's custom and practice of racial profiling.

14

Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 15 of 26

75.

On June 28, 2012, Sgt. Dudley, NHPD, testified that he has never received any

detailed training regarding Chapter 29, and that he has issued several parking tickets for violation of C.G.S. 14-251. 76. On information and belief, the city of New Haven has not provided its sworn

members with adequate training regarding the provisions of C.G.S. 14-230a and 14-251, Chapter 29 or the interplay between state and local parking laws, which constituted highly unreasonable conduct, involving an extreme departure from ordinary care, in a situation where a high degree of danger was apparent, specifically the violation of the federal and state constitutional rights of drivers within the City of New Haven. 77. On information and belief, the failure to adopt and implement a PES created an

environment in which even the most junior members of the NHPD felt free to submit fraudulent police reports and issue baseless citations for violations of statutes that do not apply to drivers within the City of New Haven, but which do provide the basis for infringing on the federal and state constitutional right of individuals. failure to implement a PES constituted highly unreasonable conduct, involving an extreme departure from ordinary care, in a situation where a high degree of danger was apparent, specifically the violation of the federal and state constitutional rights of drivers within the City of New Haven. 78. David Taylor observed several police officers beating Mr. Eaddy with flashlights

in the backyard of 116 Carmel Street, New Haven, CT, on the date in question. 79. Kimberly Minder observed Mr. Eaddy laying on the ground in front of 116

Carmel Street on the day in question, as he moaned in severe pain.

15

Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 16 of 26

DAMAGES 80. As a direct and proximate result of the said acts of the defendants, Mr. Eaddy

suffered the following injuries and damages: a. Violation of his rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; b. Violation of his rights under the Connecticut Constitution, Article I, 7 and 9, and the laws of Connecticut; c. Loss of physical liberty; d. Life threatening injuries, broken bones, permanent nerve damage, severe pain and suffering, extreme fear, and emotional trauma; e. Economic damages including loss of income; and f. Humiliation and embarrassment. 81. The physical, psychological, and economic consequences of the defendants

actions continue to date, and are expected to be perpetual. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I 1983 Claim for Use of Excessive Force 82. 83. All the above paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. By his conduct and under color of law, defendant Jemiola deprived Mr. Eaddy of

his constitutional right to be free from excessive and unreasonable force. 84. As a result Mr. Eaddy was injured. COUNT II 1983 Claim for Failure to Intercede 85. All the above paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. 16

Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 17 of 26

86.

By their conduct and under color of law, defendants Cacela, Dudley, Colon,

Minardi, Formica, Canace, Agosto, Crespo and/or John Does each had opportunities to intercede on behalf of Mr. Eaddy to prevent the excessive use of force and unreasonable seizure but due to their intentional conduct or deliberate indifference declined or refused to do so. 87. As a result Mr. Eaddy was injured. COUNT III 1983 Claim for False Arrest and Imprisonment 88. 89. All the above paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. By their conduct and under color of law, defendants Cacela, Dudley, Jemiola,

Colon, Minardi, Formica, Canace, Reid, Agosto, Crespo and/or John Does intended to and did deprive Mr. Eaddy of his constitutional right to be free from false arrest and false imprisonment. 90. 91. At all times relevant, these defendants acted forcibly in apprehending Mr. Eaddy. The wrongful, unjustifiable, and unlawful apprehension, arrest, detention, and

imprisonment were carried out without a warrant. 92. At all times relevant, the unlawful, wrongful, and false arrest and imprisonment of

Mr. Eaddy was without right or probable cause, and was forcible and against his will. 93. Eaddy. 94. Mr. Eaddy was wrongfully, unlawfully, and unjustifiably charged, arrested, All of the foregoing occurred without any fault or provocation on the part of Mr.

detained, and deprived of his liberty against his will, and was imprisoned by said defendants. 95. At all relevant times, said defendants were employees of the NHPD and the City

of New Haven, and were acting for, upon and in furtherance of the business of their employers and within the scope of their employment. 17

Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 18 of 26

96.

As a result Mr. Eaddy was injured. COUNT IV 1983 Claim for Delay and Denial of Medical Care and Failure to Protect While in Custody

97. 98.

All the above paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. By their conduct and under color of law, defendants Cacela, Dudley, Colon,

Minardi, Formica, Canace, Reid, Agosto, Crespo and/or John Does acted with malicious or at least deliberate indifference in failing to protect Mr. Eaddy from violence while in custody and in failing to secure the medical care required for his serious injuries, in a manner that deprived him of his constitutional rights and perpetuated and exacerbated his physical, emotional and psychological pain and suffering. 99. As a result Mr. Eaddy was injured. COUNT V 1983 Monell Claim 100. 101. All the above paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. Defendant City of New Haven endorsed an official policy by which its policy

makers failed to create and implement a written performance evaluation system for the sworn members of the NHPD, and policymakers knew or but for their deliberate indifference should have known that sworn members of NHPD had a history of mishandling similar situations, lack of accountability or lack of training and supervision. 102. The practice of not implementing a written performance evaluation system or

providing needed training, supervision or discipline to sworn members of the NHPD was so persistent and widespread that it constitutes a custom or usage and implies the constructive knowledge of policymaking officials of said defendant. 18

Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 19 of 26

103.

Said defendant maintained a practice or custom of failing to train, supervise or

discipline the sworn members of the NHPD to such an extent that it amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of those with whom municipal employees would come into contact. 104. Said defendant failed in or prohibited the training, supervision or discipline of

sworn members of the NHPD to such an extent that it amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of those with whom its employees would come into contact. 105. Said defendant's policy, practice or custom, or failure to train, supervise or

discipline was the moving force/proximate cause of the violation of Mr. Eaddy's federally protected rights. 106. Said defendant's custom and practice of failing to provide needed training and

supervision regarding motor vehicle sops, racial profiling and/or Chapter 29 to sworn members of the NHPD was so persistent and widespread that is constitutes a custom or usage and implies the constructive knowledge of policymaking officials. 107. As a result Mr. Eaddy was injured. COUNT VI Pendent Claim for Conspiracy 108. 109. All the above paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. Defendants Cacela, Dudley, Jemiola, Colon, Minardi, and/or John Does, under

color of law, conspired with one another to deprive Mr. Eaddy of his rights, including the rights: to be free from the intentional use of unreasonable force; to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; to associate and speak freely; and to be free from false arrest, false imprisonment, and the delay and denial of medical attention.

19

Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 20 of 26

110.

It was part of the conspiracy that defendant Jemiola did, among other acts,

physically assault Mr. Eaddy while he was not resisting and after he was rendered immobile while in police custody. 111. In furtherance of the conspiracy and in order to cover up the acts of brutality, said

defendants engaged in the following: a. Falsely arresting and imprisoning Mr. Eaddy; b. Fabricating and contriving the criminal charges lodged against Mr. Eaddy; c. Although they were aware of the brutality and were required to report it immediately, deliberately suppressing the truth; d. Denying Mr. Eaddy access to medical personnel or facilities where the cause of his injuries would be discovered; e. Submitting false police reports, statements, and testimony to support the fabricated charges lodged against Mr. Eaddy to insulate themselves from administrative and criminal sanctions; f. Jointly devising a false, exculpatory version of the events of September 2, 2010, which would be told to investigating authorities; and g. Refusing to come forward with evidence and information that would incriminate said defendants, in violation of their sworn duty as law enforcement personnel; h. Failing to make and maintain accurate records of the whereabouts and assignments of the individual defendants on September 2, 2010; and i. Denying Mr. Eaddy all communication with family members and friends while an inpatient in Yale/New Haven Hospital. 112. As a result Mr. Eaddy was injured. 20

Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 21 of 26

COUNT VII Pendent Claim for Violation of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut 113. 114. All the above paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. The conduct of the defendants City of New Haven, Cacela, Dudley, Jemiola,

Colon, Minardi, Formica, Canace, Reid, Agosto, Crespo and/or John Does deprived Mr. Eaddy of his rights under Article 1, 7 and 9 of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, including the right: to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, to be free from false arrest, to be free from the use of excessive force, to be free from abuse of process, and to be free from malicious prosecution. 115. Defendants' constitutional misconduct was the direct and proximate result of

defendant City of New Haven's policies, customs or practices, and directly and proximately caused the violations of Mr. Eaddy's rights under the Constitution of the State of Connecticut. 116. Defendants City of New Haven, Jemiola and Cacela deprived Mr. Eaddy of his

rights under Article 1, 20 of the Connecticut constitution by stopping and detaining him on the basis of his race or ethnicity. 117. As a result Mr. Eaddy was injured. COUNT VIII Pendent Claim for Assault and Battery 118. 119. All the above paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. By his actions as set forth above, defendant Jemiola committed atrocious acts of

battery against Mr. Eaddy which included beating him with a solid object about the head and neck, and/or used deadly force, without cause. 120. As a result of the deadly, excessive and/or unnecessary physical force used

against him, Mr. Eaddy suffered damages as set forth above. 21

Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 22 of 26

COUNT IX Pendent Claims of Recklessness and Negligence 121. 122. All the above paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. Defendants Cacela, Dudley, Jemiola, Colon, Minardi, Formica, Canace, Reid,

Agosto, Crespo and John Does were reckless or negligent by: a. Failing or refusing to determine whether probable cause existed to arrest Mr. Eaddy; b. Failing or refusing to properly investigate the situation before arresting Mr. Eaddy; c. Failing to act with the skill of a reasonable police officer; d. Failing to intervene in the violation of Mr. Eaddys civil rights; e. Use of deadly force when tactically contraindicated; f. Use of excessive force; g. Failing or refusing to protect Mr. Eaddy against use of excessive force, arrest without probable cause, denial of medical care, and malicious prosecution; 123. Defendants DeStefano and City of New Haven were reckless or negligent by:

a. Failing or refusing to implement or allow the implementation of a formal, written performance evaluation system for sworn members of the NHPD; b. Failing or refusing to comply with the Penn Act regarding collection and submission of data for motor vehicle stops, despite knowing or having reason to know that racial profiling occurred within the city limits; c. provide training and supervision required by said data; d. provide training regarding Chapter 29; and 22

Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 23 of 26

e. Failing to train, supervise or discipline the individual defendants. 124. Defendants conduct was the direct and proximate cause of Mr. Eaddys damages

as set forth above, and it was foreseeable that the defendants conduct would place Mr. Eaddy in imminent harm. 125. The City of New Haven is liable under C.G.S. 52-557n for the negligent acts of

the aforementioned defendants. COUNT X Pendent Claims of False Arrest and False Imprisonment 126. 127. All the above paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. Defendants Cacela, Dudley, Jemiola, Colon, Minardi, Formica, Canace, Reid,

Agosto, Crespo and/or John Does intended to completely restrict Mr. Eaddys freedom of movement. 128. All of Mr. Eaddys freedom of movement was directly restricted by the

defendants illegal stop, detention, investigation, and prosecution without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. 129. Mr. Eaddy was aware that his movement was restricted and suffered great

humiliation, emotional injuries, and damages as a result of being unlawfully detained COUNT XI Pendent Claim of Malicious Prosecution 130. 131. All the above paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. Defendants Cacela, Dudley, Jemiola, Colon, Minardi, Formica, Canace, Reid,

Agosto, Crespo and/or John Does initiated or procured the institution of criminal proceedings against Mr. Eaddy; the criminal proceedings have terminated in favor of Mr. Eaddy, said defendants acted without probable cause, and the defendants acted with malice, primarily for a 23

Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 24 of 26

purpose other than of bringing an offender to justice. 132. Said conduct did cause Mr. Eaddy severe emotional and psychological distress,

anguish and anxiety. COUNT XII Pendent Claims of Intentional and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress 133. 134. All the above paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. Defendants Cacela, Dudley, Jemiola, Colon, Minardi, Formica, Canace, Reid,

Agosto, Crespo and John Does conduct intentionally, willfully, and deliberately caused Mr. Eaddy to suffer from severe emotional distress, and the defendants should have foreseen that their conduct would cause such injuries. 135. Said conduct was extreme and outrageous, it exceeded all possible bounds of

decency, and was atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. 136. The defendants conduct was the sole cause of Mr. Eaddys severe distress. COUNT XIII 1983 and Pendent Claims of Loss of Consortium by Lisa Eaddy 137. 138. All the above paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. At all times relevant, Mrs. Eaddy was entitled to the comfort, enjoyment, society

and services of her spouse. By reason of the defendants foregoing conduct, Mrs. Eaddy was deprived of the comfort and enjoyment of the services and society of her spouse, which are guaranteed to her under the laws and Constitution of the State of Connecticut. 139. The defendants conduct undermined Mrs. Eaddys liberty interest in developing

and preserving the integrity and stability of the marital relationship from intervention by the state without due process of law. 140. Defendants misconduct as described above has been exceptionally grievous for 24

Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 25 of 26

Mrs. Eaddy as she was a newlywed at the time of the brutal assault on her husband and subsequent unlawful incarceration. COUNT XIV Pendent Claim for Indemnification 141. 142. All the above paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. The defendant City of New Haven is legally liable to pay on behalf of defendants

Cacela, Dudley, Jemiola, Colon, Minardi, Formica, Canace, Reid, Agosto, Crespo and John Does all sums which each defendant becomes obligated to pay for damages pursuant to and as limited by C.G.S. 7-101a and 7-465. COUNT XV 1983 Claim for Supervisory Liability 143. 144. All the above paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. By his conduct and under color of law, defendant DeStefano agreed and

committed to assisting the minority community within the City of New Haven to stop and prevent racial profiling; failed to remedy said wrongs after being informed of same; created a police or custom under which racial profiling occurred by refusing or failing to comply with the Penn Act, or implement a PES; allowed the continuation of such a custom or policy; supervised his subordinates in a grossly negligent or reckless manner; or displayed deliberate indifference by failing to act on information indicating that unconstitutional acts were occurring. 145. As a result Mr. Eaddy was injured.

COUNT XVI 1983 Claim for Violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments 146. 147. All the above paragraphs are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. By their conduct and under color of law, defendants Jemiola and Cacela stopped 25

Case 3:11-cv-01081-MPS Document 114 Filed 02/20/13 Page 26 of 26

and detained Mr. Eaddy without cause or authority. 148. By their conduct and under color of law, defendants Jemiola and Cacela

intentionally discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of his race or ethnicity. 149. As a result Mr. Eaddy was injured.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request the following relief: 1. Compensatory damages against all defendants; 2. Punitive damages against all individual defendants; 3. Presumed damages against all defendants; 4. A permanent order of protection against all individual defendants found liable for punitive damages; 5. Attorney's fees, costs and disbursements; and 6. Such other and further relief in law or equity as this Court deems just and proper. Dated: February 20, 2013 Ossining, New York _/s Michael A. Deem__________ Michael A. Deem, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs 95 Croton Avenue, Suite 37-T Ossining, NY 10562 (914) 502-0395

26