Ridgeway Unified Courts

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF RIDGEWAY

Searchable full text

12,176 characters extracted

—

RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT CYROBOT, Plaintiff, v. RIDGEWAY PARKS SERVICE; W_15K in his official capacity as Park Ranger I of the Ridgeway Parks Service, Defendant. Case No. RSC-CV-XXX CIVIL COMPLAINT PLAINTIFF Cyrobot, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, for their complaint against W_15K, and employee of the Ridgeway Parks Service alleges: INTRODUCTION 1. The Ridgeway Parks Service are designated with the duty, and responsibility as a protector of the trees, the wildlife, and our State Parks. When the Ridgeway Parks Service steps out of this sphere, however, the intentions of their duties fall into question. 2. On or about the 15th of November, 2022, the Plaintiff was grazing the streets in the City of Palmer. While on his tenure, he began walking toward a crowd of individuals, containing the Defendant and countless other individuals. 3. As he arrived at the gathering group of people, an individual profiled the Plaintiff to be an individual who allegedly attacked them. Despite this allegation holding no probable cause to adequately determine the Plaintiff to be a suspect, the Defendant who is a Park Ranger, discharged his department-issued Taser (“TB26”), stunning the Plaintiff. 4. The Defendant then detained Plaintiff, and escorted him to his department-issued pickup truck, labeling the Ridgeway Parks Service. Plaintiff was placed in the back of the truck, and was forced to wait for over two minutes until the Defendant informed the complainant that he had to let the Plaintiff leave. 5. Probable Cause was not established to use the excessive force of tasing Plaintiff, nor to detain him. As a result thereof, the Plaintiff has suffered a considerable deprivation of his constitutionally protected rights. This court should uphold those rights by granting the reliefs prayed of herein, anything otherwise would be a consequential miscarriage of justice. PARTIES 6. Plaintiff Cyrobot (“Mr. Cyrobot”) is a blue-collar working individual who resides in Palmer, Ridgeway. Mr. Cyrobot is a long time enthusiast of the law, and hopes to retain a job in law enforcement in the near future. 7. Defendant w_15k (“Defendant 15k” or “Ranger 15k”) is sued in his official capacity as a Park Ranger I within the Ridgeway Parks Service. Pursuant to the Civil Claims act, Defendant 15k is sued to retain all applicable relief under the sections thereof. 8. Defendant Ridgeway Parks Service (“RPS”) is a state-government body charged with the general control, supervision, and maintenance of all state parks or designated properties within its scope of authority. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 9. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section IV of the Constitution of the State of Ridgeway. 10. Venue is proper in this Court because the incident took place within Ridgeway County. FACTS 11. The Ridgeway Parks Service (“RPS”) is responsible for the security, protection, and wellbeing of “public lands” Wildlife Conservation Act, §1(a)(iv). 12. RPS is obligated by statute to ensure “[The] [e]nforcement of all laws and regulations on designated properties.” Id. This obligation includes ensuring the investigations, and the pursuit of justice to “all offenses pertaining to wildlife or conservation.” Id. 13. The authority of the Ridgeway Parks Service is clear, and effectively with the translucent intention to divert the authorities of the RPS to the wildlife sphere. Stepping out of this sphere ultimately overlooks those intentions. I. The Unlawful Detainment of Plaintiff 14. On November 5th, 2022, the Plaintiff was roaming the streets of the City of Palmer. As he was roaming a bystander began to bring forth allegations against the Plaintiff. Despite the Defendant not having any evidence or eye-witness accounts of the allegation, the Plaintiff was ambushed by the Defendant with a department-issued TB26, ultimately incapacitating him. 15. The Constitution of the United States of America, specifically the 14th Amendment, provides that it is absolutely prohibited for government officials to “detain[] a person in the absence of probable cause.” Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911, 919 (2017). Further, it has been made abundantly clear that “[U]nder our system[,] suspicion is not enough for an officer to lay hands on a citizen.” Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 104 (1959). 16. The Defendant’s actions prove contrary to both prohibitions as set in Henry, doing so by both: (1) Not having a reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain Plaintiff; and (2) Doing worse than laying hands on Plaintiff, and instead tasing him with a hand-held device designed to expel electrical contacts to incapacitate those who are deemed a threat. The Defendant, however, posed no threat prior to this unlawful detainment. 17. Defendant, after over two minutes of holding Plaintiff in captivity without probable cause, openly noticed that he did not have adequate, nor reasonable suspicion to detain the Plaintiff. Even after this pronouncement, Defendant continued to detain the Plaintiff for several more minutes. Once the Defendant finished his conversation with the complainant, Plaintiff was released. II. The Sphere of Duties of the Ridgeway Parks Service 18. The Wildlife Conservation Act sets clear the establishment of the duties of the Ridgeway Parks Service. In such, it sets ground that the Ridgeway Parks Service are to pursue detainment in only the crimes of “offenses pertaining to wildlife or conservation.” Id. In this case, however, the Park Ranger stepped out of the sphere of his specific duties to investigate and pursue justice for strictly offenses pertaining to wildlife. 19. The Supreme Court of the United States has similarly ruled in a case where a Police Officer acted out of his jurisdiction, holding that “If [an] officer act[s] beyond the sphere of his appropriate jurisdiction, [their] act is a nullity.” United States v. Bailey, 34 U.S. 238, 260 (1835). When we look into the lawmakers objective jurisdiction for the Ridgeway Parks Service, it is translucently clear that they are prohibited from acting outside of their designation jurisdiction. 20. The Wildlife Conservation Act sets clear the Ridgeway Parks Service’s designated properties, those being: (1) State parks; (2) State recreational facilities; and (3) Undesignated state properties. All three of these designated districts, however, do not fall anywhere within the City of Palmer (excluding Palmer beach), nor the Palmer Dealership. The detainment, and unlawful use of excessive force were far out of the bounds of the RPS as prescribed in the Wildlife Conservation act, thus constituting the Defendant’s act to be “a nullity” Ibid. III. Plaintiff is Permitted to Sue Despite His Citizenship Status 21. Under the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution, all persons in the United States, and by extension, all regions therein, are subject to equal protection under the law. In the current reading of the State of Ridgeway Constitution, the State of Ridgeway is a part of that union. Accordingly, the 14th amendment must be upheld in this Court. 22. In Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S. 371 (1971), the Supreme Court held that access to the courts is universal, and must not be disallowed to any person. The limiting of “frivolous litigation” is not grounds for the dismissal of any demographic’s ability to file suit. Furthermore, in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U. S. 202 (1982) the Supreme Court held that non-citizens are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections. 23. Under no circumstances should the basic right to file a suit be constricted by this court, as it is translucently afforded by the Constitution of the United States of America. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Unlawful Use of Excessive Force) 24. All allegations in this complaint are re-alleged and incorporated as reference in this cause of action. 25. It is clearly established law that an officer may not use force that, in light of the circumstances and as perceivable by a reasonable, objective officer, is excessive, unreasonable, and unnecessary. 26. In taking the actions described above, including but not limited to detaining Plaintiff, in not taking other courses of action to capitulate Plaintiff, in not using a variety of tools vested to the Defendant to gain reasonable control over the situation, in not maintaining a safe distance from Plaintiff, in ignoring the availability of alternative methods to take the plaintiff into custody as outlined by department directives, by failing to deescalate a circumstance where Plaintiff was clearly demonstrating signs of distress, and in cuffing the Plaintiff, seizing him of all further potential threat, and detaining him without probable cause, the defendant intentionally violated Plaintiff’s right to be free from excessive force, guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 27. The actions of the defendant, as described herein this complaint, were embarked upon with the knowledge of, or in conscious disregard of, the harm that would be inflicted upon Plaintiff. As a result of said conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief against Defendant, in his official capacity, in a relief sufficient to punish him and to deter others from like conduct. 28. The unreasonable seizure of Plaintiff was the undeviating and proximate cause of his death, bodily injury, pain, suffering, loss of liberty, mental and emotional suffering, expenses, worry, fear, anguish, shock, anxiety, and nervousness. Plaintiffs are entitled to all of their damages in an amount to be ascertained according to presented evidence and testimony at trial. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Deprivation of Rights) 29. All allegations in this complaint are re-alleged and incorporated as reference in this cause of action. 30. By detaining, and tazing the Defendant without probable cause to believe that the crime was committed, the acts of the Defendants, their employees, have blatantly violated the translucent rights of the Plaintiff’s prescribed by the Constitution of the State of Ridgway & The Constitution of the United States. 31. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts of the defendant, their employees, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer the reverberations of the detainment, directly harming the Plaintiff’s wellbeing. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Arbitrary Detention) 32. All allegations in this complaint are re-alleged and incorporated as reference in this cause of action. 33. The detention of Plaintiff by Defendant constituted an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 34. The detention of Plaintiff by Defendant conducted pursuant to a policy, practice, or custom that violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the court grant relief as follows: A. For declaratory judgement that the actions of Defendant described herein this Complaint violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; B. For declaratory judgement that the use of force by Defendant was excessive, and unauthorized provided the situation described herein; C. For declaratory judgement that the actions of Defendant described herein this Complaint exceeded their statutory authority; D. Permanently enjoin Defendant, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from acting out of the bounds of their jurisdiction as prescribed in the Wildlife Conservation Act; E. Award to Plaintiff his reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses of litigation; and F. Such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate Respectfully Submitted. STICKZA Managing Partner COHN, CICERO, & GOODRICH, LLC Suite 3B, Palmer Apartments Palmer, RW 33328 D: stick#0677 E: [email protected] MATRIX_OC Senior Associate COHN, CICERO, & GOODRICH, LLC Suite 3B, Palmer Apartments Palmer, RW 33328 D: Matrix#7263 E: [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff APPENDICES APPENDIX A - Footage of Initial Event APPENDIX B - Continued Footage

Cyrobot_v._Ridgeway_Parks_Service.pdf

Original document

Searchable full text

Document record