ultra beatdown lawsuit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Miami Division

JESSE CAMPODONICO, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. :

THE CITY OF MIAMI, :JAVIER ORTIZ,NATHANIEL DAUPHIN, :EDWARD LUGO, andHAROLD JAMES, :

Defendants. :_______________________________________

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Jesse Campodonico sues the City of Miami, Sergeant Javier Ortiz, and

Officers Nathaniel Dauphin, Edward Lugo, and Harold James, for damages.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action for damages arising out of a beating, tasing, and false arrest

and coverup by City of Miami police officers on the evening of March 25, 2011, at the Ultra

Music Festival held at Bicentennial Park. This action alleges violations of federal civil rights

laws and the laws of the State of Florida, and the Plaintiff seeks in excess of $75,000

exclusive of interest and costs.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§

1331, 1332(a), and 1367(a).

Case 1:12-cv-24077-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/09/2012 of 29

2

3. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue lies in the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, because it is the judicial district and

division in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims

occurred.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff Jesse Campodonico (“Plaintiff Campodonico”) is a citizen of the State

of New York.

5. Defendant City of Miami (“Defendant City”) is a political subdivision of the

State of Florida, a Florida municipal corporation, and at all relevant times had ultimate

authority over the City of Miami Police Department and the other defendants. The Defendant

City was responsible for the hiring, training, supervision, discipline, and conduct of the

individual defendants, as all of them were employed by the City of Miami Police Department

at all relevant times.

6. Defendant Javier Ortiz (“Defendant Ortiz”) is a Sergeant with the City of

Miami Police Department and a citizen of the State of Florida. At all relevant times,

Defendant Ortiz was acting under color of law as the agent, servant, and employee of the

City of Miami, was in uniform, and was armed. Defendant Ortiz is being sued in his

individual capacity.

7. Defendant Nathaniel Dauphin (“Defendant Dauphin”) is a police officer with

the City of Miami Police Department and a citizen of the State of Florida. At all relevant

times, Defendant Dauphin was acting under color of law as the agent, servant, and employee


3

of the City of Miami, was in uniform, and was armed. Defendant Dauphin is being sued in

his individual capacity.

8. Defendant Edward Lugo (“Defendant Lugo”) is a police officer with the City

of Miami Police Department and a citizen of the State of Florida. At all relevant times,

Defendant Lugo was acting under color of law as the agent, servant, and employee of the

City of Miami, was in uniform, and was armed. Defendant Lugo is being sued in his


9. Defendant Harold James (“Defendant James,” and together with Defendants

Ortiz, Dauphin and Lugo, the “Defendant Officers”) is a police officer with the City of

Miami Police Department and a citizen of the State of Florida. At all relevant times,

Defendant James was acting under color of law as the agent, servant, and employee of the

City of Miami, was in uniform, and was armed. Defendant James is being sued in his


GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

A. The Defendant Officers’ False Arrest and Excessive Use of Force

10. On the night of March 25, 2011, Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James

were working in an off-duty capacity at the Ultra Music Festival at Bicentennial Park. Upon

information and belief, the Defendant City contracted with the private entity putting on the

festival to provide City of Miami police officers for the event. The Defendant City assigned

each of the Defendant Officers to work at the front entrance of the festival, with Defendant

Ortiz, the ranking officer, acting as their supervisor.


4

11. This was not the first time that the Defendant Officers had worked an off-duty

job under Defendant Ortiz’s supervision. Defendant Ortiz is frequently approached by private

companies to assemble teams of police officers to work off-duty details. Defendant Ortiz has

previously hand-picked each of the other Defendant Officers to work off-duty jobs under his

supervision, with Defendants Lugo and James being officers who Defendant Ortiz frequently

turns to when he is looking to staff an off-duty detail.

12. Plaintiff Campodonico traveled from his hometown in New York to attend the

Ultra Music Festival and arrived at the festival at around 10:30 p.m. on March 25, 2011,

accompanied by his girlfriend, Crystal Iglesias, and several other friends.

13. Plaintiff Campodonico entered the festival alongside Ms. Iglesias. At the

entrance, private event security did not allow Ms. Iglesias into the park because she was

holding a glow stick in her hand.

14. While Ms. Iglesias was speaking to private event security, Defendant Dauphin

approached her and Plaintiff Campodonico and told them that Ms. Iglesias could not enter

the festival.

15. As Plaintiff Campodonico and Ms. Iglesias began leaving the festival,

Defendant Dauphin, who has a history of misconduct involving harassment and excessive

force, positioned himself within one-half of an inch from Plaintiff Campodonico’s face in a

threatening manner.

16. Defendant Dauphin then punched Plaintiff Campodonico, grabbed Plaintiff

Campodonico’s hair, pulled his head down by the hair, and began to repeatedly punch


5

Plaintiff Campodonico in the face with wide, swinging upper cuts while Plaintiff

Campodonico was bent over his waist.

17. At no point did Defendant Dauphin or any other officer have probable cause

to arrest Plaintiff Campodonico or Ms. Iglesias for anything.

18. Soon after Defendant Dauphin began to strike Plaintiff Campodonico, multiple

City of Miami police officers arrived on scene, including Defendants Ortiz, Lugo, and James.

19. Plaintiff Campodonico was thrown to the ground by some combination of the

police officers who had arrived.

20. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, and Lugo then proceeded to repeatedly strike

Plaintiff Campodonico’s face and body with their hands, knees, and feet.

21. During the incident, one or more of the Defendant Officers kicked Plaintiff

Campodonico repeatedly throughout his body, including his head; dropped their knees onto

Plaintiff Campodonico’s back multiple times as he lay on his stomach; and threw multiple

round-house type punches (commonly referred to as “hay-makers”) which connected hard

with Plaintiff Campodonico’s face and head, all while Plaintiff Campodonico was down on

the ground.

22. Plaintiff Campodonico attempted to get in the fetal position to deflect the

barrage of blows to his face and body from the Defendant Officers. He begged the Defendant

Officers to stop hitting him.

23. After Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, and Lugo beat Plaintiff Campodonico for

several minutes, Defendant James discharged his hand-held Electronic Control Device


6

(“ECD” or “taser”), by shooting two probes from the taser into Plaintiff Campodonico’s

body.

24. The two probes were connected by wire to the taser. Immediately after the

probes latched onto Plaintiff Campodonico’s skin, Defendant James pulled the trigger to his

taser which sent an electrical charge through the wires and into Plaintiff Campodonico’s

body.

25. As captured on video by a stranger who was also attending the festival,

approximately nine seconds after the first taser discharge, and with the two probes still

embedded in Plaintiff Campodonico’s body, and despite Plaintiff Campodonico’s obviously

submissive position, Defendant James pulled the trigger to the taser a second time, sending

a second electrical charge through Plaintiff Campodonico’s body.

26. Approximately fourteen seconds after the second taser discharge, Defendant

James issued a third taser charge. On the third discharge, defendant James used the “drive-

stun” method, which means he applied the taser directly to Plaintiff Campodonico’s body

while pressing the taser’s trigger and sending a third charge through his body. Throughout

the entire period that Plaintiff Campodonico was tased, he never got up from the ground.

27. Both immediately before the first taser discharge, and in between the

subsequent discharges, Plaintiff Campodonico was on the ground, and was laying on his

stomach or side or on his knees with his stomach facing the ground.

28. Bystanders were horrified by the Defendant Officers’ actions. One bystander,

a school teacher who had never met Plaintiff Campodonico before, saw what was taking


7

place, repeatedly yelled, “They’re going to kill him!,” and then attempted to rush in to stop

the beating when she saw an officer kick Plaintiff Campodonico in the head.

29. Another bystander who also had never met Plaintiff Campodonico before

began to film the incident using his hand-held device and later posted the video of what he

witnessed publicly on YouTube.

30. The bystander’s video captured the three taser discharges and demonstrated

that Plaintiff Campodonico was on the ground and helpless both immediately before the first

taser discharge, and in between each subsequent taser discharge.

31. Bystanders witnessing the incident reacted to the Defendant Officers’ conduct

by making comments such as:

a. “Did you see them just knocking that guy out for no reason?”

b. “They just started knocking him out.”

c. “They just started whacking him.”

d. “They just put him in a choke-hold and started punching.”

e. “They tased that guy like four times.”

f. “That’s f**ked up. That’s f**ked up.”

32. After the tasing, Defendant Dauphin placed Plaintiff Campodonico under arrest

and handcuffed him.

33. After Plaintiff Campodonico was handcuffed, one of the Defendant Officers

threw him to the ground and one or more of the Defendant Officers further beat and kicked

Plaintiff Campodonico while he was handcuffed.


8

34. After the beating ended and Plaintiff Campodonico was in handcuffs and

sitting, several of the Defendant Officers began to mock and laugh at Plaintiff Campodonico.

35. For instance, one or more of the Defendant Officers took pictures of Plaintiff

Campodonico with his personal hand-held device while laughing, and Defendant Dauphin

said to Plaintiff Campodonico words to the effect of, “I whooped you’re a**,” and “get a new

girlfriend and upgrade,” while laughing at Plaintiff Campodonico as he sat bleeding and in

pain.

36. Thereafter, Defendant James prepared an arrest affidavit and Plaintiff

Campodonico was transported to the Dade County Jail.

37. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo, and James subsequently caused the Miami-

Dade State Attorney’s Office to file an Information falsely accusing Plaintiff Campodonico

of three counts of battery on a law enforcement officer and one count of resisting arrest with

violence. See Information, State v. Campodonico, F11-8033 (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir. filed Apr.

25, 2011).

38. On February 14, 2012, the State Attorney’s Office nolle prossed the charges

against Plaintiff Campodonico based on insufficient evidence.

B. Improper Use of a Taser

39. At the time of this incident, the Defendant City had in effect a written policy

regarding the use of tasers, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

40. Defendant James’ use of the taser violated the Defendant City’s written policy

and generally accepted standards regarding the administration of a taser in at least four


9

respects.

41. First, at all relevant times, Plaintiff Campodonico was not actively or

aggressively resisting any of the officers, lacked the ability to physically threaten or hurt the

officers, and was not attempting or preparing to flee or escape.

42. Thus, Defendant James’s use of the taser violated generally accepted standards

and the Defendant City’s written policy regarding the circumstances under which a taser may

be discharged and the drive-stun method may be utilized. See Exhibit 1 at 18.4.3, 18.4.11.

43. Second, neither immediately before the first taser discharge, nor in between the

subsequent discharges, did Defendant James issue verbal warnings to Plaintiff Campodonico

that he was about to discharge his taser, notwithstanding the fact that it was reasonable and

practical for Defendant James to verbally warn Plaintiff Campodonico.


and the Defendant City’s written policy regarding verbal warnings an officer must issue

when using a taser on a subject. See Exhibit 1 at 18.4.5.

45. Third, Defendant James failed to assess in between taser discharges whether

it was necessary to continue tasing Plaintiff Campodonico in order to subdue him.


and the Defendant City’s written policy regarding assessments to be performed in between

taser discharges. See Exhibit 1 at 18.4.6.3.

47. Fourth, at the time of the incident, Defendant James had failed to participate

in any regular in-service training sessions regarding the use of a taser.


10

48. Thus, Defendant James’ use of the taser violated generally accepted standards

regarding regular in-service training and the Defendant City’s written policy requiring

officers with tasers to participate in annual in-service training. See Exhibit 1 at 18.4.1.1.

C. Preparation of a False Report

49. Because a taser was deployed against Plaintiff Campodonico, the police

officers were required by departmental policy to submit a Response to Resistance Report

(“RTRR”) to the Internal Affairs division of the City of Miami Police Department. See

Exhibit 1 at 18.4.8.

50. The purpose of the RTRR is to create a record of a taser incident sufficient for

the Defendant City’s Internal Affairs division to evaluate whether an officer’s use of the taser

complied with departmental policy and was justified under the circumstances. See Exhibit

1 at 18.4.8.1 & 18.4.8.3.

51. Therefore, it is necessary that the supervisor in charge of preparing the RTRR

and conducing the post-incident investigation be a person not involved in the incident.

52. In this instance, however, the post-incident investigation and resulting RTRR

was not prepared by a disinterested objective supervisor. Instead, it was prepared by

Defendant Ortiz, who was personally involved in the use of force and claimed to be a victim

in the criminal case.

53. The RTRR contains “statements” purportedly taken by Defendant Ortiz

from seven police officers involved in the incident, as well as Defendant Ortiz’s own

narrative of the incident.


11

54. Evidence developed during the discovery process in the criminal case revealed,

however, that the RTRR prepared by Defendant Ortiz contained numerous fabrications in an

apparent attempt to justify the arrest and use of excessive force against Plaintiff

Campodonico.

55. In countless respects, the RTRR is materially contradicted by the deposition

testimony of the police officers who provided the purported “statements” contained within

the RTRR.

56. In their depositions in the criminal case, at least five police officers

contradicted substantial portions of the “statements” attributed to them in the RTRR and, in

fact, denied having told Defendant Ortiz many of the matters attributed to them.

57. For example, a number of the officers’ “statements” in the RTRR claim that

the officers personally observed Plaintiff Campodonico bite, punch, and kick other named

officers. Those same officers testified in their depositions that they never personally observed

the biting, punching, or kicking of the other named officers and never told Defendant Ortiz

that they had.

58. The RTRR is also contradicted by the video taken by the innocent bystander.

59. For example, in the RTRR, the officers purportedly stated that Plaintiff

Campodonico tensed his arms, kicked his legs, bit one officer, and kicked another officer in

the crotch between taser cycles.

60. The video, however, demonstrates that Plaintiff Campodonico was on the

ground and defenseless while being tased.


12

61. City of Miami Police departmental policy regarding the use of tasers provides

that a “supervisor shall respond to the scene and conduct an inquiry into the incident.”

Exhibit 1 at 18.4.8.1.

62. However, such policy does not expressly provide that a supervisor (such as

Defendant Ortiz in this instance) involved in the use of force may not be the one who

conducts such inquiry.

63. Thus, Defendant City has failed to establish clear guidelines expressly

prohibiting supervisors involved in taser incidents from evaluating whether the taser was

properly used.

64. The failure to establish such a clear, express guideline contributed significantly

to Plaintiff Campodonico’s damages associated with defending the criminal case filed against

him, because if the post-incident investigation had been performed by a supervisor not

involved in the use of force, such officer would have discovered that Mr. Campodonico was

the victim of police brutality, and that there was no probable cause to arrest him.

D. Defendant City was Aware of Defendant Officers’ History of Misconduct

65. During the course of the Defendant City’s employment of the Defendant

Officers, it became aware, or should have become aware, of information indicating the

Defendant Officers’ inability to follow orders and departmental policies and unfitness to

serve in a capacity where force could be used.

66. Prior to March 25, 2011, Defendant Ortiz had been:

a. the subject of twenty citizen complaints filed with the Defendant City


13

since joining the police force in March 2004;

b. investigated by the Defendant City’s Internal Affairs division for using

excessive force;

c. investigated for using excessive force by the Civilian Investigative Panel

of the City of Miami (“CIP”), a civilian oversight agency that monitors City of Miami Police

Department practices and investigates claims of City of Miami police officer misconduct; and

d. placed on a “Monitoring List” maintained by the CIP for City of Miami

Police officers, which lists officers who demonstrate a pattern of misconduct.

67. Prior to March 25, 2011, Defendant Dauphin had been:

a. the subject of at least fifty-five complaints filed with the Defendant City,

disciplined eleven times by the Defendant City;

b. investigated by the Defendant City’s Internal Affairs division for using

excessive force, refusing to follow orders, harassment, violating a domestic violence

injunction, failing to comply with subpoenas, and failing to timely prepare reports;

c. the subject of at least twelve complaints filed with the CIP; and

d. placed on the CIP’s Monitoring List.

68. Prior to March 25, 2011, Defendant Lugo had been:

a. the subject of sixteen citizen complaints filed with the Defendant City

and at least eight complaints filed with the CIP since joining the police force in June 2001;

b. counseled and/or disciplined by the Defendant City at least eleven times

for committing at least fifteen violations of departmental policies;


14

c. investigated by the Defendant City’s Internal Affairs division for using

excessive force, failing to report another officer’s criminal activity, and improper use of

restraints;

d. the subject of two separate recommendations by City of Miami Police

disciplinary personnel, arising out of separate incidents, that he be terminated from the police

department; and

e. placed on the CIP’s Monitoring List.

69. Prior to March 25, 2011, Defendant James had been:

a. the subject of twenty citizen complaints filed with the Defendant City

since joining the police force in March 2004;

b. investigated by the Defendant City’s Internal Affairs division and the

CIP for using excessive force and failing to document an arrestee’s resulting injury; and

c. also investigated by the Defendant City’s Internal Affairs division for

failing to comply with subpoenas.

70. The Defendant City knew, or should have known, about the Defendant

Officers’ history of misconduct, but nevertheless permitted the Defendant Officers to serve

in a capacity on March 25, 2011, where force could be used.

E. Plaintiff Campodonico’s Damages

71. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of the Defendants City, Ortiz,

Dauphin, Lugo, and James, Plaintiff Campodonico suffered damages, including the

following:


15

a. injuries to his face and body, causing severe pain and suffering and

emotional distress;

b. harm to reputation as a result of the false arrest and malicious

prosecution;

c. financial loss for having to retain counsel to defend him in connection

with a false arrest and malicious prosecution;

d. inconvenience, loss of time and money, and other hardships in

defending against the criminal charges, exacerbated by the fact that he was at all relevant

times a New Jersey resident;

e. loss of the value of his trip from New Jersey to Miami for the Ultra

Music Festival; and

f. violation of his constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution to be free from an unreasonable search and

seizure of his person, and common law rights to be free from battery, malicious prosecution,

false imprisonment, and negligence by the police.

72. The Defendants are subject to punitive damages for their conduct.

73. Plaintiff Campodonico is obligated to pay undersigned counsel a reasonable

fee for their services.

74. All conditions precedent to the maintenance of this action have occurred, been

performed, or been waived.

75. Plaintiff Campodonico complied with the pre-suit notice requirement of Fla.


16

Stat. § 768.28(6)(a) by giving the Defendant City written notice of his claim on or about

February 15, 2012. The Defendant City did not dispose of Plaintiff Campodonico’s claim

within 6 months of such notice, and therefore denied the claim. See Fla. Stat. § 768.28(6)(d).

COUNT I(Claim for Excessive Force in Violation of the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §

1983 against Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo, and James)

76. Plaintiff Campodonico re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 75 above, and

incorporates them into this Count.

77. At all relevant times, Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James acted under

color of law.

78. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James deprived Plaintiff Campodonico

of his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures when:

a. Defendant Dauphin, unprovoked and without probable cause or

provocation, struck a blow against Plaintiff Campodonico that took him to the ground;

b. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin and Lugo repeatedly struck Plaintiff

Campodonico in his face and body with their hands, knees and feet;

c. Defendant James discharged his taser multiple times against Plaintiff

Campodonico; and

d. the Defendant Officers continued to beat Plaintiff Campodonico after

handcuffing him.

79. At all relevant times, the law was clearly established that the force used by the

Defendant Officers was excessive and violated the Fourth Amendment.


17

80. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendants Ortiz,

Dauphin, Lugo and James, Plaintiff Campodonico has suffered damages.

COUNT II(Claim for False Arrest in Violation of the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo, and James)




color of law.

83. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James deprived Plaintiff Campodonico

of his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures when they

arrested Plaintiff Campodonico without a warrant or probable cause.

84. At all relevant times, the law was clearly established that arresting Plaintiff

Campodonico violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and

seizures.



COUNT III(Claim for Conspiracy to Violate Constitutional Rights in Violation of the FourthAmendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo, and

James)




18


color of law.

88. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James reached an agreement and

understanding to violate Plaintiff Campodonico’s Fourth Amendment rights against

unreasonable searches and seizures by agreeing that one, some, or all of them would use

excessive force against him and falsely arrest him.

89. Multiple overt acts were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, including

the following:

a. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin and Lugo repeatedly struck Plaintiff


b. Defendant James tased Plaintiff Campodonico;

c. Defendant Dauphin handcuffed Plaintiff Campodonico;

d. Defendant Ortiz drafted the RTRR; and

e. Defendant James prepared and signed the arrest affidavit for Plaintiff

Campodonico.

90. As a result of the Defendant Officers’ conspiracy, Plaintiff Campodonico’s

Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated.

91. At all relevant times, the law was clearly established that the Defendant

Officers’ agreement and conduct violated Plaintiff Campodonico’s Fourth Amendment right

against unreasonable searches and seizures.



19


COUNT IV(Claim for an Unconstitutional Policy/Custom in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against Defendant City)



94. Plaintiff Campodonico possessed a constitutional right secured by the Fourth

Amendment to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

95. Plaintiff Campodonico was deprived of his Fourth Amendment rights on March

25, 2011, when he was falsely arrested and excessively beaten and tased by the Defendant

Officers.

96. Upon information and belief, and notwithstanding its written policy, the

Defendant City has an unwritten policy and custom where it does not provide officers to

whom tasers are issued any regular in-service training on the use of a taser, such as training

on:

a. determining the circumstances under which it is appropriate to discharge

a taser;

b. conducting discharge-to-discharge assessments on the need for further

tasing, including training on how to discern whether a subject’s actions after a taser discharge

are voluntary efforts to resist or involuntary reactions to the taser’s electrical current; and

c. determining the circumstances under which it is appropriate to use the

drive-stun method.


20

97. The Defendant City’s unwritten policy and custom of failing to regularly train

its officers to whom tasers are issued amounts to deliberate indifference to the constitutional

rights of persons with whom its officers come into contact.

98. A police officer’s excessive and unconstitutional use of a taser is a known or

obvious consequence of a municipal policy and custom where officers are not provided with

regular in-service training on the appropriate use of a taser.

99. The Defendant City’s policy-makers disregarded that known or obvious

consequence by permitting officers such as Defendant James to continue carrying a taser

without receiving regular in-service training.

100. At the time of the incident, Defendant James, the officer who discharged the

taser, had not received regular in-service training on the use of a taser.

101. As a result of his lack of training, Defendant James discharged his taser three

times against Plaintiff Campodonico’s body when it was unnecessary to issue even a single

taser discharge, did not issue any verbal warnings to Plaintiff Campodonico before

discharging his taser, did not conduct any assessment between taser discharges of whether

it was necessary to continue tasing Plaintiff Campodonico, and utilized the drive-stun method

when it was unnecessary to do so.

102. Accordingly, the Defendant City’s unwritten policy and custom of failing to

regularly train its officers in the use of tasers caused its employee, Defendant James, to

violate Plaintiff Campodonico’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and

seizures.


21

103. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts of the Defendant City,

Plaintiff Campodonico has suffered damages.

COUNT V(Claim for Battery against Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo, and James)



105. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James intentionally inflicted harmful or

offensive contact upon Plaintiff Campodonico when:

a. Defendant Dauphin, unprovoked and without probable cause, struck a

blow against Plaintiff Campodonico;

b. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin and Lugo repeatedly struck Plaintiff


c. Defendant James discharged his taser multiple times against Plaintiff

Campodonico; and

d. the Defendant Officers continued to beat Plaintiff Campodonico after

handcuffing him.

106. The force used by the Defendant Officers was excessive and unreasonable

under the circumstances.

107. When the Defendant Officers committed such wrongful acts, they acted within

the scope of their employment, and acted in bad faith, with malicious purpose, and/or in a

manner exhibiting wanton and wilful disregard of human rights, safety and/or property.


22



COUNT VI(Claim for Malicious Prosecution against Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo, and

James)



110. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James instigated and caused to be

commenced a criminal proceeding against Plaintiff Campodonico styled State v.

Campodonico, F11-8033 (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir. filed April 25, 2011).

111. The criminal case against Plaintiff Campodonico ended in Plaintiff

Campodonico’s favor because the State of Florida nolle prossed the case for insufficient

evidence.

112. The Defendant Officers instigated and caused to be commenced the criminal

case with malice.

113. There was no probable cause to support the criminal charges against Plaintiff

Campodonico.

114. When the Defendant Officers committed such wrongful act, they acted within






23

COUNT VII(Claim for False Imprisonment against Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo, and

James)



117. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James intentionally restrained Plaintiff

Campodonico by arresting him and taking him to the Dade County Jail.

118. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James restrained Plaintiff Campodonico

against his will.

119. Plaintiff Campodonico was aware at all relevant times that the Defendant

Officers had restrained him.

120. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James acted without legal authority in

restraining Plaintiff Campodonico because the arrest was not supported by probable cause

or a warrant.

121. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James’s arrest of Plaintiff Campodonico

was unreasonable and unwarranted under the circumstances.

122. When the Defendant Officers committed such wrongful act, they acted within






24

COUNT VIII(Claim for Negligence against Defendant James)



125. At all times material, Defendant James had a duty to exercise reasonable care

in the administration of his taser.

126. Defendant James breached his duty of reasonable care in the administration of

his taser by:

a. using a taser under circumstances where it was unauthorized and

unnecessary;

b. failing to be regularly trained in the use of a taser;

c. failing to properly warn Plaintiff Campodonico before each taser

discharge; and

d. failing to assess between taser discharges whether subsequent discharges

were necessary.

127. When Defendant James committed such wrongful acts, he acted within the

scope of his employment, and acted in bad faith, with malicious purpose, and/or in a manner

exhibiting wanton and wilful disregard of human rights, safety and/or property.

128. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendant James,



25

COUNT IX(Claim for Civil Conspiracy against Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo, and James)



130. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James reached an agreement and

understanding to do an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means.

131. Specifically, Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James reached an

agreement and understanding to commit one or more of the following torts against Plaintiff

Campodonico, as alleged in above: battery, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution

by agreeing that one, some, or all of them would use excessive force against Plaintiff

Campodonico, falsely arrest him battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting arrest

with violence, and maliciously prosecute him for those offenses.

132. Multiple overt acts were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, including

the following:

a. Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin and Lugo repeatedly struck Plaintiff


b. Defendant James tased Plaintiff Campodonico;

c. Defendant Dauphin handcuffed Plaintiff Campodonico;

d. Defendant Ortiz prepared the RTRR; and

e. Defendant James prepared and signed the arrest affidavit for Plaintiff

Campodonico.


26

133. When the Defendant Officers committed such wrongful acts, they acted within





COUNT X(Claim for Respondeat Superior Liability against Defendant City of Miami)



136. Subject to certain statutory limitations, the Defendant City is liable for the

negligent or wrongful acts of its employees while acting within the scope of their office or

employment to the same extent as a private employer. See Fla. Stat. § 768.28(1)(a), (5).

137. At all relevant times, Defendants Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo and James committed

the torts of battery, false imprisonment, civil conspiracy and negligence while acting within

the course and scope of their employment as employees of the Defendant City.

138. One statutory limitation on imposing Respondent superior liability on the

Defendant City is that it “shall not be liable in tort for the acts or omissions of an officer,

employee, or agent committed while acting outside the scope of her or his employment or

committed in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wilful and

wanton disregard of human rights, safety, or property.” Fla. Stat. § 768.28(9)(a).

139. As permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d), in the alternative to the contrary


27

allegations set forth in this Complaint, Plaintiff Campodonico alleges that the Defendant

Officers did not commit the above-mentioned torts of battery, false imprisonment, civil

conspiracy, or negligence in bad faith or with malicious purpose, or in a manner exhibiting

wilful and wanton disregard of human rights, safety, or property.

140. Accordingly, Respondent superior liability ought to be imposed on the

Defendant City for the Defendant Officers’ acts of battery, false imprisonment, civil

conspiracy, and negligence to the extent provided by law.

COUNT XI(Claim for Negligence against Defendant City)



142. The Defendant City has a duty to protect individuals from acts of false arrest,

excessive force, battery, malicious prosecution and negligence by the officers it employs.

143. During the course of the Defendant City’s employment of the Defendant

Officers, the Defendant City knew or should have known that:

a. each of the Defendant Officers had histories of misconduct indicating

their unfitness to serve as police officers;

b. each of the Defendant Officers had histories of misconduct indicating

their unfitness to serve in a capacity where force, including force by way of a taser, could be

used;

c. Defendant James carried a taser without receiving regular in-service


28

training regarding the use of a taser; and

d. the Defendant City’s own policies regarding the use of tasers failed to

expressly prohibit officers involved in taser incidents from serving as the supervisor

responsible for conducting post-incident investigations.

144. The Defendant City breached its duty of reasonable care by:

a. retaining the Defendant Officers as police officers;

b. permitting the Defendant Officers to serve in a capacity where force,

including force by way of a taser, could be used;

c. allowing Defendant James to carry a taser while failing to regularly train

him regarding its use; and

d. failing to set forth a clear policy that would have prohibited Defendant

Ortiz from serving as the supervisor responsible for the post-incident investigation in this

case.

145. As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful acts of Defendant City,


PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE Plaintiff Jesse Campodonico demands the following relief against

Defendants City, Ortiz, Dauphin, Lugo, and James:

a. judgment in favor of Plaintiff Campodonico and against each of the

Defendants on the above-mentioned counts;

b. an award of damages, including any and all actual, compensatory,


29

consequential, and nominal damages;

c. an award of punitive damages;

d. reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any

other applicable law;

e. joint and several liability;

f. interest; and

g. such other relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Campodonico demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Scott A. Srebnick________________Scott A. Srebnick, Esq.Florida Bar No. [email protected] A. Arteaga-Gomez, [email protected] Bar No. 18122SCOTT A. SREBNICK, P.A.201 South Biscayne Blvd.Suite 1380Miami, Florida 33131Telephone: 305-285-9019Facsimile: 305-377-9937

Attorneys for Plaintiff JesseCampodonico


ultra beatdown lawsuit

Documents