emmanuel jones v. city of tallahassee lawsuit

EXHIBIT

A

EMMANUEL JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF TALLAHASSEE; DAVID STITH, individually; SCOTT ANGULO, individually; JEROME MEGNA, individually; and JASON GASTON, individually,

Defendants.

I

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO. 12-CA- .;2_ 150 FLA BAR NO. 0739685

----------------------------COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, EMMANUEL JONES, hereby sues Defendants, CITY OF TALLAHASSEE;

DAVID STITH, individually; SCOTT ANGULO, individually; JEROME MEGNA, individually;

and JASON GASTON, individually, and alleges:

JURISDICTION

1. This is an action for damages in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000)

brought under 42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1988, and under the common law ofthe State ofFlorida.

PARTIES

2. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff, EMMANUEL JONES, has been a resident

of Leon County, Florida, and is over eighteen ( 18) years of age. He is thus sui juris.

3. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant CITY OF TALLAHASSEE ("CITY"),

operated a law enforcement department known as the Tallahassee Police Department ("TPD")

Case 4:12-cv-00521-RH-CAS Document 1-1 Filed 10/03/12 of 17

within the jurisdictional boundaries of this court, and has committed tortious acts within Florida and

within the jurisdiction of this court.

4. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant DAVID STITH, individually, was a law

enforcement officer with TPD and was employed by Defendant CITY. He has committed the actions

complained of in this case within and outside the scope ofhis employment with Defendant CITY,

and within the jurisdiction of this court.

5. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant SCOTT ANGULO, individually, was a law

enforcement officer with TPD employed by Defendant CITY. He has committed the actions

complained of in this case within and outside the scope of his employment with Defendant CITY,


6. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant JEROME MEGNA, individually, was a law




7. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant JASON GASTON, individually, was a law




STATEMENT OF THE ULTIMATE FACTS

8. On or about February 19, 2010 Defendants STITH and ANGULO responded to a

complaint at 318 East Palmer Avenue in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. This home is owned by

Plaintiffs father and is the permanent residence of Plaintiff. Plaintiff maintains this address for

2


purposes of his Florida Drivers License, voter registration, and vehicle titling. Moreover, Plaintiff

physically resides at this address and receives his mail at this address.

9. During the relevant period hereto, Plaintiffs father suffered from infirmities of

advanced age, pre-dementia, Alzheimer's disease, or other mental ailments and became confused and

forgetful. In a state of confusion, Plaintiffs father made an emergency call stating that Plaintiff had

broken into the above described residence. Defendant City, at least, was aware of prior instances of

similar incidents occurring between Plaintiff and his father.

10. During the relevant period hereto, Plaintiff owned a dog that also resided at the above

described residence. This is a peaceful dog and has not previously been reported for roaming-at

large, viciousness, or attack of person or animal.

11. Defendants STITH and ANGULO entered the residence to speak with Plaintiff and

his father. During the entirety of this discussion, Plaintiffs dog was present and was not physically

aggressive towards Defendants STITH or ANGULO. During this interaction, Plaintiff maintained

complete physical and/or voice control of the dog, such that it was passive. During the entirety of

this discussion, Plaintiff was not physically aggressive towards Defendants STITH or ANGULO and

was passive, non-threatening, and non-confrontational.

12. Thereafter, Defendants STITH and ANGULO requested that Plaintiff exist the

residence to continue their discussion. Because of the presence of the dog, Defendant ANGULO

received instructions from his supervisor to remove a pepper-ball gun from his patrol vehicle for use

if necessary.

13. Plaintiff complied with the request to exit the residence, however the dog also existed

the residence. Plaintiff attempted to restrain the dog through physical methods and voice commands.

3


Plaintiff was intoxicated and slow to react, and before he could control the dog, Defendant STITH

fired 3 rounds from his service weapon at the dog. Defendant STITH had no cause or reason to do

so as Plaintiff was attempting to control the dog and Defendant ANGULO had alternative means,

if necessary, to control the dog. Despite that the dog was running away, Defendant STITH then fired

another two rounds towards the dog. Plaintiff in no manner whatsoever directed, instructed,

commanded, persuaded, or allowed the dog to escape his control or attack any person. The dog was

killed by STITH.

14. Thereafter, Defendant MENGA responded to the residence and attempted to subdue

Plaintiff, despite having no cause or reason to do so. A struggled ensued between Plaintiff and

Defendants MENGA and GASTON. Both Defendants MENGA and GASTON forcibly and without

cause pushed Plaintiff to the ground. Defendant ANGULO then tased Plaintiff in the leg, thigh, and

buttocks approximately five to seven times.

15. Thereafter, Plaintiff was arrested for Assault of a Law Enforcement Officer (F.S.

§784.07) and Resisting Arrest with Violence (F.S. §843.01) based upon the assertion that Plaintiff

had instructed or otherwise directed the dog to attack Defendant STITH and had resisted Defendants

MENGA and GASTON. The State Attorney announced Nolle Prosequi on these charges on or about

August 16, 2010 and October 6, 2010, respectively.

16. Defendant CITY thereafter investigated the incident, however brought no charges

against the individual Defendants. Moreover, despite the above described actions, inactions, failures,

and omissions, Defendant CITY performed a deficient and biased investigation and cleared the

individual Defendants of any wrong-doing related to their status as sworn law enforcement officers.

Such clearing shows unlimited ratification ofthe totality of the individually named Defendants'

4


actions related to this incident and effectuates a policy of allowing rouge behaviors from the City's

officers and agents.

17. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned to represent his interests in this matter, and is

obligated to pay a fee for such services. Defendants should be made to pay said fee under applicable

statutes and laws.

COUNT I

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST DEFENDANT STITH

18. Plaintiffrealleges Paragraphs 1 through 17 above in support ofthis count.

19. This is an action against the Defendant STITH for intentional infliction of emotional

distress based on the conduct described herein, including the victimization of Plaintiff.

20. This Defendant, maliciously and intentionally killed and maimed Plaintiffs dog. This

Defendant knew or should have known that there existed no reason or cause whatsoever to abuse and

kill Plaintiffs dog.

21. This Defendant's actions in shooting the dog was outrageous and such conduct would

shock the conscience of a reasonable person, and constituted the actionable tort of intentional

infliction of emotional distress.

22. This Defendants' actions were reckless and/or intentional, and they knew or should

have known that as a result of their actions, Plaintiffs severe emotional distress would likely result.

23. As a direct and proximate result of the above unlawful acts and omissions, Plaintiff

sustained economic damages, including lost income, sustained emotional pain, anguish, humiliation,

insult, indignity, loss of self-esteem, inconvenience, and hurt, and is therefore entitled to

5


compensatory damages. Plaintiff's damages occurred in the past, are presently occurring and will

certainly occur in the future.

COUNT II

TRESPASS TO CHATTEL and CONVERSION AGAINST DEFENDANT STITH

24. Plaintiffrealleges Paragraphs 1 through 17 above in support of this count.

25. Defendant Stith intentionally and without cause approached, caused contact with,

damaged, and caused the death of Plaintiff's dog, which were Plaintiff's chattel under the law.

26. By shooting and killing Plaintiff's dog, Defendant Stith deliberately caused an

interference with the ownership and control of Plaintiff's dog and moreover, the contact with the

animal showed full intention to intermeddle between Plaintiff and his dog.

27. Further, by shooting the animal, Defendant also deliberately caused an interference

with the ownership and control ofPlaintiff's dog, and such shooting likewise showed full intention

to intermeddle.

28. This Defendant's shooting of the dog led directly to their destruction, permanently

interfering with Plaintiff's rights of ownership and control.

29. These actions ofthis Defendant were done intentionally, deliberately, maliciously,

and in the absence of any just cause or reason.

30. Plaintiff sustained damages and emotional pam, anguish, humiliation, insult,

indignity, loss of self-esteem, inconvenience and hurt, and is therefore entitled to compensatory

damages.

6


COUNT III

VIOLATION OF FOURTH AMENDMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT STITH AND CITY

31. Plaintiff realleges Paragraphs 1 through 1 7 above in support of this count.

32. Defendants Stith and City effected an unlawful seizure of Plaintiffs property and/or

effects as described more fully above, without consent or lawful authority.

3 3. Defendants intended to damage Plaintiff in that their harmful acts were deliberate and

substantially certain to result in injury and harm.

34. Defendants acted to violate Plaintiffs right not to be subjected to the unlawful seizure

of property and/or effects under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These

violations were of a type and character as to which any reasonable person would be aware.

35. Defendants further acted to violate Plaintiffs civil rights as protected by 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. All Defendants are persons under applicable law. Defendants are liable, jointly and/or

severally, to Plaintiff for his conduct, individually and in concert, in violating the civil rights of

Plaintiff under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

36. Defendant Stith misused his power, possessed by virtue of state law and made

possible only because of the authority of state law. The violation of Plaintiffs rights, as described

above, occurred under color of state law and is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

37. The foregoing actions of the Defendants were wilful, wanton, and in reckless

disregard ofPlaintiffs rights, and were taken without any lawful justification and/or in the absence

of probable cause.

38. The unlawful seizure of property and/or effects by law enforcement officers of this

7


state is not part of the penalty that citizens have to pay prior to, during, and/or after being charged

with a criminal offense, and constitutes a cognizable claim in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

39. Defendants knew or should have known that their actions against Plaintiff were

excessive given the clearly established law on use and seizure of property and/or effects.

40. Based upon the facts presented to Defendants and the applicable law, no reasonable

law enforcement officer or department could have concluded that there existed any reasonable cause

to seize Plaintiffs property and/or effects. The law was settled and clearly established that the

actions of Defendants constituted unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment at the time the acts

were committed.

41. The actions or inactions of Defendants, as set forth in part above, constituted

deliberate indifference and/or reckless disregard for Plaintiff when Defendants knew of and

disregarded Plaintiff's property rights, and thus their actions or inactions constituted unlawful seizure

in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

42. Defendants were acting under color of state law at all times pertinent hereto. The

brutal shooting and killing ofPlaintiffs dog violated the Fourth Amendment's proscription against

unlawful seizure of property and/or effects. Defendants misused their power, possessed by virtue

of state law and made possible only because of the authority of state law. The violations of

Plaintiffs rights, as described above, occurred under color of state law and is actionable under 42

U.S.C. §1983.

43. In addition to the liability of the Defendant STITH under this count, the CITY is

liable to Plaintiffhereunder due to the deliberate indifference of its employee officers, its ratification

of their actions, and its failure to adequately train and supervise Defendant STITH so as to prevent

8


harm to Plaintiff.

44. The foregoing actions and/or inactions of Defendants were wilful, wanton, and in

reckless disregard of Plaintiffs rights.

45. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions in violation ofthe Fourth

Amendment, Plaintiff has been damaged, which damages include: grave mental anguish, pain and

suffering, loss of capacity to enjoy life, embarrassment, humiliation, and the loss of other

emoluments. These damages have occurred in the past, are occurring at present, and will most likely

occur in the future. Defendants are jointly and/or severally liable to Plaintiff for the unlawful

conduct alleged herein.

46. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages against Defendant Stith under

this count.

COUNT IV

VIOLATION OF FOURTH AMENDMENT AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

4 7. Plaintiff realleges Paragraphs 1 through 1 7 above in support of this count.

48. Defendants effected an unlawful seizure ofPlaintiff and used excessive force on him

as described in part above, without consent or lawful authority.

49. Defendants intended to damage Plaintiff in that their harmful acts were deliberate and

substantially certain to result in injury and harm.

50. Defendants acted to violate Plaintiffs right not to be subjected to the excessive force

and false arrest under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These violations

were of a type and character as to which any reasonable person would be aware.

9


51. Defendants further acted to violate Plaintiffs civil rights as protected by 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. All Defendants are persons under applicable law. Defendants are liable, jointly and/or

severally, to Plaintiff for his conduct, individually and in concert, in violating the civil rights of

Plaintiff under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

52. Defendants misused their power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible

only because of the authority of state law. The violation of Plaintiffs rights, as described above,

occurred under color of state law and is actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

53. The foregoing actions of the Defendants were wilful, wanton, and in reckless

disregard ofPlaintiffs rights, and were taken without any lawful justification and/or in the absence

of probable cause.

54. The use of excessive force and false arrest by law enforcement officers of this state

is not part of the penalty that citizens have to pay prior to, during, and/or after being charged with

a criminal offense, and constitutes a cognizable claim in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

55. Defendants knew or should have known that their actions against Plaintiff were

excessive given the clearly established law.

56. Based upon the facts presented to Defendants and the applicable law, no reasonable

law enforcement officer or department could have concluded that there existed any reasonable cause

to seize Plaintiff or to exert physical force against him. The law was settled and clearly established

that the actions of Defendants constituted false arrest and excessive force under the Fourth

Amendment at the time the acts were committed.

57. The actions or inactions of Defendants, as set forth in part above, constituted

deliberate indifference and/or reckless disregard for Plaintiff when Defendants knew of and

10


disregarded Plaintiff's rights, and thus their actions or inactions constituted excessive force and false

arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

58. Defendants were acting under color of state law at all times pertinent hereto. The

false arrest of Plaintiff and excessive force violated the Fourth Amendment's proscription against

false arrest and excessive force. Defendants misused their power, possessed by virtue of state law

and made possible only because of the authority of state law. The violations ofPlaintiffs rights, as

described above, occurred under color of state law and is actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

59. In addition to the liability of the individual Defendants under this count, the CITY

is liable to Plaintiff hereunder due to the deliberate indifference of its employee officers, its

ratification of their actions, and its failure to adequately train and supervise the individual

Defendants so as to prevent harm to Plaintiff.

60. The foregoing actions and/or inactions of Defendants were wilful, wanton, and in

reckless disregard ofPlaintiff's rights.

61. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions in violation of the Fourth

Amendment, Plaintiff has been damaged, which damages include: grave mental anguish, pain and

suffering, loss of capacity to enjoy life, embarrassment, humiliation, and the loss of other

emoluments. These damages have occurred in the past, are occurring at present, and will most likely

occur in the future. Defendants are jointly and/or severally liable to Plaintiff for the unlawful

conduct alleged herein.

62. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages against the individual Defendants

under this count.

11


COUNTV

FALSE ARREST AGAINST CITY

63. Paragraphs 1 through 17 are hereby realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

64. This is an action against Defendant CITY for false imprisonment/false arrest and is

pled in the alternative.

65. Plaintiff is entitled to relief against Defendant CITY in that it, through its officers,

intentionally and unlawfully arrested and restrained Plaintiff against his will, deprived Plaintiff his

liberty without any reasonable cause, and maintained such complete restraint and deprivation for a

period of time. The actions by the officers were committed within the course and scope of his

employment with Defendant CITY.

66. This unlawful restraint of Plaintiffs' liberty was also accomplished by the Officers,

as agents of Defendant CITY, confining Plaintiff to an area in which the Plaintiff did not wish to be

confined and by compelling the Plaintiff to go where they did not wish to go. Defendant restrained

Plaintiff without any justification and in the absence of probable cause.

67. At all times material to this action, and at all times during which the Plaintiff was

being unlawfully restrained, the Plaintiff was restrained against their will, and without consent, so

that the Plaintiff was not free to leave their place of confinement.

68. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs have been

damaged, which damages include: mental anguish, pain and suffering, bodily injury, loss of capacity

for the enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of reputation, lost employment

opportunities, lost wages, and the loss of other emoluments. These damages have occurred at

present, in the past and will most likely occur in the future.

12


COUNT VI

FALSE ARREST AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS

69. Paragraphs 1 through 1 7 are hereby realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

70. This is an action against the individual Defendants and is pled in the alternative. For

the purpose of this Count alone, the individual Defendants were acting outside the course and scope

of their duties and employment with CITY.

71. Plaintiff is entitled to relief against the individual Defendants in that the individual

Defendants intentionally and unlawfully arrested and restrained Plaintiff against his will; deprived

Plaintiff of his liberty without any reasonable cause or color of authority; and maintained such

complete restraint and deprivation for a period of time.

72. This unlawful restraint of the Plaintiffs liberty was also accomplished by the

individual Defendants confining Plaintiff to an area in which the Plaintiff did not wish to be

confined and by compelling the Plaintiff to go where the Plaintiff did not wish to go. The individual

Defendants restrained Plaintiffs without any justification and in the absence of probable cause.

73. At all times material to this action, and at all times during which the Plaintiff was

being unlawfully restrained, the Plaintiff was restrained against their will, and without consent, so

that the Plaintiff was not free to leave his place of confinement. The individual Defendants acted in

bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human

rights or safety.

74. As a direct and proximate cause of these Defendants' actions, Plaintiff has been

damaged, which damages include: mental anguish, pain and suffering, bodily injury, loss of capacity

for the enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of reputation, lost employment

13


opportunities, lost wages, and the loss of other emoluments. These damages have occurred at

present, in the past and will most likely occur in the future.

COUNT VII

BATTERY AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS

7 5. Paragraphs .1 through 1 7 are hereby realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

76. This is an action against the individual Defendants and is pled in the alternative. For

the purpose of this Count alone, the individual Defendants were acting outside the course and scope

of his duties and employment with CITY.

77. The individual Defendants without justification or the Plaintiffs consent, touched

Plaintiffs person in an offensive and harmful manner, in that the individual Defendants battered

Plaintiff, hit him and caused Plaintiff to sustain injuries. The individual Defendants intended to hit,

push and otherwise batter the Plaintiff. This unlawful touching was also accomplished by the

individual Defendants without any justification and in the absence of probable cause to arrest

Plaintiff. The individual Defendants intended to cause harm to Plaintiff or there was substantial

certainty that harm would occur.

78. The individual Defendants acted in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner

exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights or safety. The individual Defendants knew

that Plaintiff did nothing wrong, and certainly nothing illegal at the time that he touched Plaintiff as

alleged herein.

79. As a direct and proximate cause ofDefendants' actions, Plaintiffhas been damaged,

which damages include: mental anguish, pain and suffering, bodily injury, loss of capacity for the

enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of reputation, lost employment opportunities,

14


lost wages, and the loss of other emoluments. These damages have occurred at present, in the past

and will most likely occur in the future.

COUNT VIII

BATTERY AGAINST CITY

80. Paragraphs 1 through 17 are hereby realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

81. This is an action against Defendant CITY and pled in the altemati ve. For the purpose

ofthis Count alone, the individual Defendants were acting inside the course and scope of their duties

and employment with the CITY.

82. Defendant CITY, through its agent and employee, while acting within the scope of

their employment with Defendant, without justification or the Plaintiffs consent, touched Plaintiff's

person in an offensive and harmful manner, in that the individual Defendants battered Plaintiff, hit

him and caused Plaintiff to sustain injuries. Defendant, through its agents and employees, intended

to hit, push and otherwise batter the Plaintiff. This unlawful touching was also accomplished by

Defendant without any justification and in the absence of probable cause to arrest Plaintiff.

Defendant intended to cause harm to Plaintiff or there was substantial certainty that harm would

occur.

83. The actions by the individual Defendants were committed as agents of Defendant

CITY and were committed within the course and scope of their employment with Defendant CITY.

84. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant's actions, Plaintiffhas been damaged,

which damages include: mental anguish, pain and suffering, bodily injury, loss of capacity for the

enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of reputation, lost employment opportunities,

lost wages, and the loss of other emoluments. These damages have occurred at present, in the past

15


and will most likely occur in the future.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following:

(a) that process issue and this court take jurisdiction over this case;

(b) that this court grant equitable relief against Defendants under the

applicable counts set forth above, mandating Defendants' obedience

to the laws enumerated herein and providing other equitable relief to

Plaintiff;

© that this court enter judgment against Defendants and for Plaintiff

awarding compensatory damages from all Defendants and punitive

damages to Plaintiff from the individual Defendants for Defendants'

violations, as provided by law;

(d) that this court enter judgment against Defendants and for Plaintiff

permanently enjoining Defendants from future violations of the state

and federal laws enumerated herein;

(e) that this court enter judgment against Defendants and for Plaintiff

awarding Plaintiff costs, attorney's fees, and interest as provided by

law; and

(f) that this court grant such other and further relief as is just and proper

under the circumstances.

16


•

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby d~~ trial by jury on all issues herein that are so triable.

DATED this Li day of August 2012.

17

Respectfully submitted,

Marie A. Mattox [FBN 0739685] MARIE A. MATTOX, P .A. 310 East Bradford Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32303 Telephone: 850-383-4800 Facsimile: 850-383-4801

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF


emmanuel jones v. city of tallahassee lawsuit

Documents