RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
EPIDERMISGUPTA69,
Plaintiff.
-against-
DOMIEISOK; in his official capacity as a
Corporal of the Ridgeway State Police,
Defendant.
Case No. RSC-CV-833
CIVIL COMPLAINT
Presiding Judge: koalaMedvedeva
epidermisgupta69, proceeding with counsel hereby brings this civil action and for
their allegations against the Defendant, it is alleged as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. The Ridgeway State Police is tasked with bringing to justice all violators of State
law, ensuring equal protection of the laws, and ensuring equal justice is granted to
all.
2. On December 27th, 2022, the Plaintiff epidermisgupta69 was on top of the Palmer
Annex Building, where there was concurrently a fire and the presence of several
firefighters conducting a firefighting operation on the building.
3. In front of the Plaintiff was firefighter Dino_Raf, and to his right was the edge of
the roof facing the parking lot of the Annex Building, where a fire engine was
parked with its ladder extended to allow a walkway for firefighters to access the
roof.
4. A firefighter began talking to the Plaintiff, instructing him to get off of the roof.
The firefighter promptly pushed the Plaintiff with his body, at which point the
Plaintiff walked backward away from him to avoid being touched by the
firefighter.
5. The firefighter called for law enforcement presence to the roof, stating that the
Plaintiff was trespassing. The Plaintiff at that point walked away from the
firefighters to avoid getting in their way, and was standing close to the edge of the
roof.
6. As the Plaintiff walked to the edge of the roof, Defendant domieisok climbed the
ladder of the fire engine, responding to the call by firefighter Dino_Raf requesting
law enforcement presence to the roof.
7. When Defendant domieisok determined that the Plaintiff was within range, the
Defendant deployed his department issued TB26 Taser, stunning the Plaintiff.
8. As the Plaintiff was completely stunned by the Defendant’s Taser while on the
edge of the roof, he was physically unable to maintain his balance and fell off of
the roof of the building to the ground below.
9. Pursuant to departmental policy and commonly-accepted legal standards for law
enforcement use of force, the tasing of the Plaintiff was a deprivation of the
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and an unauthorized exercise of the official
functions of the Defendant.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
10. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), clearly established the precedent that, as
protected by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, use of force must be
objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them,
without regard to their underlying intent or motivation, from the perspective of a
reasonable officer on the scene. This precedent has become deeply ingrained,
repeated, and the basis of much of how the law considers law enforcement use of
force.
11. The official use-of-force policy of the Ridgeway State Police (306-2(c) of the
Ridgeway State Police Department Policy Guide) states that “a trooper must, to
the extent possible, utilize an escalation scale of options and refrain from
employing an inadequate approach.”
12. The policy further states that “the third level of force … the application of a baton
or the deployment of a taser … is particularly useful in preventing subjects from
fleeing detainment or in obtaining control of a physical altercation.”
13. The policy outlines several methods for de-escalating a situation or dealing with a
non-resisting suspect (see 306-2(c)(1-2)), including verbal communication and
handcuffing, neither of which were used by the defendant.
14. While this policy is simply an extension of widely accepted guidelines for police
use of force, it demonstrates the clarity of the guidelines given to troopers of the
State Police.
15. In Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U. S. 389, 397 (2015), the Supreme Court put
forth a set of circumstances to consider when applying the objective
reasonableness standard in use of force cases, “the relationship between the need
for the use of force and the amount of force used; the extent of the plaintiff ’s
injury; any effort made by the officer to temper or to limit the amount of force; the
severity of the security problem at issue; the threat reasonably perceived by the
officer; and whether the plaintiff was actively resisting.”
16. There was no need for significant use of force, as the plaintiff was unarmed,
making no effort to resist, and, in fact, actively avoiding interference with the
activities of the firefighters on scene. Taking this into consideration, the officer
used significant force in tasing the plaintiff off of the edge of the roof, and made
no effort to limit the use of force.
17. The severity of the security problem at issue is a non-factor, as there was no threat
to the safety of any individual on scene, and no indication that there would be.
Similarly, there was no threat reasonably perceived by the officer; the plaintiff was
clearly unarmed and had not, at that point, been accused of any crime beyond
trespassing on a scene where firefighting was ongoing. The plaintiff was obviously
not resisting, he had not even realized the presence of the officer before being
tased, and made no effort to resist.
VENUE
18. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section IV of the Constitution of
the State of Ridgeway.
19. As the events occurred within the County of Ridgeway, the venue is correct.
PARTIES
20. epidermisgupta69 is a resident of the State of Ridgeway.
21. domieisok is a resident of the State of Ridgeway, and a Corporal of the Ridgeway
State Police.
22. Defendant is sued in a quasi-official capacity pursuant to 1. R. Stat. § 3114.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS
1 R. Stat. § 3115
23. All previous allegations are restated and incorporated into this cause of action.
24. Precedent has widely established that law enforcement officers are prohibited from
using force in excess of what would be considered reasonable by a reasonable and
objective officer on the scene.
25. The Defendant made no attempt to de-escalate the situation, instead escalating it
significantly and harming the Plaintiff. While the Plaintiff, at the time of the
incident, was unarmed and making no attempt to resist or disobey any kind of law
enforcement action, the Defendant stunned the Plaintiff off of the edge of a roof.
The Defendant, in the process, ignored established departmental policy and failed
to take steps to either communicate with or even handcuff the Plaintiff, who was
standing still and making no effort to resist. This constitutes a deprivation of the
Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful seizure, here
constituted by an unlawfully excessive use of force.
26. As the Plaintiff was tased by the Defendant in violation of widely-established
guidelines for use of force, the Defendant’s actions constitute a violation of the
constitutionally-protected rights of the Plaintiff to be secure from unreasonable
searches and seizures, as protected by the Constitutions of the State of Ridgeway
and the United States. The Plaintiff suffered physical harm, and continues to suffer
harm to his well-being as a result of the violation.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT
1 R. Stat. § 3114
27. All previous allegations are restated and incorporated into this cause of action.
28. The Defendant tased the non-resisting, non-violent Plaintiff in a display of
excessive force, constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions.
29. The Defendant knowingly conducted the unauthorized exercise of his official
functions, as he did so in open disregard for policies regarding law enforcement
use of force taught to all law enforcement officers in the State of Ridgeway.
PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff requests that the Court grant the following relief:
30. A declaratory judgment that the actions of the defendant constitute a deprivation
of the rights of the plaintiff granted by the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
31. A declaratory judgment that the defendant is liable for official misconduct.
32. Punitive damages of 3,000$ for Official Misconduct (1 R. Stat. § 3114), the
second cause of action.
33. Compensatory damages of 125$ for the first cause of action, the violation of the
plaintiff’s rights (1 R. Stat. § 3115).
34. Award the plaintiff any expenses of litigation, including attorneys’ and filing fees.
35. Plaintiff also seeks any additional relief not requested herein that the Court may
determine to be reasonable.
DATED: December 30th, 2022
Respectfully submitted,
CoastBreeze
Attorney for the Plaintiff
/s/ CoastBreeze
——―――――――――――
epidermisgupta69
Plaintiff
/s/ epidermisgupta69
APPENDIX A: Footage of the Event
APPENDIX B: Ridgeway State Police Policy Guide
