Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
9,387 characters extracted
—
RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
FRISTAPET,
Plaintiff,
v.
RIDGEWAY STATE POLICE;
EQUA106 in their official capacity as a
Trooper of the Ridgeway State Police,
Defendant.
Case No. RSC-CV-798
CIVIL COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, FristaPet (hereinafter “Frista” or “Plaintiff), files this collective action against
Defendant, Equa106 (“Equa” or “Trooper Equa”) (collectively, “Defendant”), to seek justice for
Plaintiff who was tormented, maltreated, and abused under custody of the Defendant, and the
Ridgeway State Police. Plaintiff, by and through their undersigned counsel, for their claims
against the Ridgeway State Police, allege:
INTRODUCTION
1. State Law Enforcement Officers of the State of Ridgeway swear under oath to not “do any
act or thing,” that is “injurious to the Constitution or Government thereof.” When this
oath is transgressed upon, the integrity of the law is halted, and the levees of
constitutional protections are breached. The Defendant, who is a Trooper within the
Ridgeway State Police, swore this exact oath when he was sworn in to become a law
enforcement officer of the State of Ridgeway. In taking this oath, he was vested with the
responsibility to preserve, and protect every right of the Citizens of the State of
Ridgeway. This duty, however, was blatantly overlooked.
2. On or about December 29, 2022, the Plaintiff was retained in lawful police custody under
the Ridgeway State Police. Moments after the detainment was effectuated by restraints,
Trooper Equa106 repeatedly discharged his department-issued TB26 taser, incapacitating
the Plaintiff several times despite being constrained, and posing no considerable threat to
the Troopers, or the general public.
3. Plaintiff pleaded, and adjured for Trooper Equa106 to cease his consistent deployment of
the taser. Trooper Equa106 did not stop, however, and instead continued to tase the
Plaintiff, despite showing complete compliance, and not posing any threat that would
warrant the use of a taser, a device used for immobilizing non-compliant individuals.
4. The Plaintiff files this suit to seek the redress for the Defendant’s engagement in
unreasonable excessive force, unnecessary tasing, and improper restraint. Accordingly,
insofar as Plaintiff seeks by means of the above-styled action to hold accountable the
Defendant responsible for this egregious and unwarranted use of force, this civil action is
firmly in the interest of the public.
PARTIES
5. Plaintiff FristaPet is an industrious Citizen of the State of Ridgeway who works diligently
to afford transportation, income sources, and shelter to house himself off the streets. Mr.
FristaPet currently resides in Sterling Heights, Ridgeway.
6. The named Defendant in this case are the Ridgeway State Police, a state-level law
enforcement agency, and Equa106, who committed the acts and assault that resulted in
significant injury when the Defendant miscarried their obligation to adhere by their duties
of care of an individual in custody when he repeatedly deployed their department-issued
tasers, each time striking the plaintiff, physically assaulting him.
7. Defendant Equa106 is a Trooper of the Ridgeway State Police, and Resident of the State
of Ridgeway.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section IV of the Constitution of the
State of Ridgeway.
2. Venue is proper in this Court because the incident took place within Ridgeway County.
FACTS
8. Law-enforcement officers are sworn to protect and defend the lives of others. See Bailey
v. Wheeler, 843 F.3d 473, 485 (11th Cir. 2016).
9. Defendant overlooked his sworn oath when he failed to defend the life of the plaintiff, in
deliberately abusing his department-issued taser.
10. Defendant repeatedly incapacitated Plaintiff, all while spurring out taunting comments
pertaining to the use of force.
11. Plaintiff was tased approximately three times, all while constrained by the Plaintiff with
their department-issued handcuffs.
12. Plaintiff pleaded for Defendant to stop several times, to which the Defendant overlooked
and continued tasing the Plaintiff.
13. Plaintiff has suffered considerable damage to his rights, his persons, and his dignity.
14. Defendant showed clear lack of care for Plaintiff in tasing him countless times with no
warranted reason.
15. Based on acquired evidence and belief prior to the use of excessive force, Defendant gave
no verbal command or warning prior to tasing Plaintiff. Despite Plaintiff consistently
complying with Defendant to “stop resisting,” prior to the tasing of Plaintiff, the
Defendant did not issue any further warnings to Plaintiff that he was going to tase him, or
give him any commands as required by the Law Enforcement Training Center (“LETC”),
Ridgeway law, and Constitutional limits on the use of force.
16. Upon acquired evidence and belief, while repeatedly being tased, Plaintiff was in clear
distress, begging Trooper Equa106 to stop tasing him. Defendant did not yield to these
pleadings, and continued the rampant deployment of his taser. The delay of care to
Plaintiff caused, and certainly contributed to the translucent deprivation of the Plaintiff’s
constitutionally-protected rights.
I. Duty of Care
17. When a law enforcement officer places a subject into custody, a duty of care towards that
subject emanates. See County of Sacramento v. Lewis 523 U.S. 833 (1998). When this
duty of care results in harm or injury as a result of misconduct and negligence, the law
enforcement officer has failed to uphold that duty.
18. On or about December 19, 2022, the Defendant failed to uphold that duty in deploying
his taser upon Plaintiff who was restrained with handcuffs. By game mechanisms, it is
absolutely imperative to note that upon being placed in handcuffs, an individual loses the
ability to access any items that would otherwise be on their person, and subsequently the
ability to present a threat to others through the use of deadly weapons.
19. Plaintiff, having lost all ability to pose a threat to the Defendant, has suffered a translucent
violation of constitutionally protected rights; and an overt deprivation of his assured duty
of care by the Defendant. Defendant overlooked his required duty of care in noticing that
the Plaintiff was detained and did not pose a threat, in deploying a department-issued
taser upon the compliant plaintiff, in taunting the Plaintiff throughout the incapacitation,
and in the process violating constitutionally-protected rights.
20. Having such duty of care been overlooked, the Plaintiff has suffered a real injury to his
protected rights secured under the U.S. Constitution to be free from Unreasonable Search
and Seizure.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(1 R. Stat. § 3114 - Official Misconduct)
1. All allegations in this complaint are re-alleged and incorporated as reference in this cause
of action.
2. Defendant failed to adequately uphold his required duty of care to Plaintiff who was
within his custody.
3. Defendant also used his office in an unauthorized way by deploying the
department-issued taser, which is strictly for use of non compliant individuals, against
Plaintiff who was consistently compliant with all orders from Defendant.
4. Defendant, in committing the unauthorized exercises of his official functions, did so
knowingly, for the Defendant is trained in the constitutional rights of the public.
5. Through this unlawful exercise, the Defendant also chilled the bedrock rights of the
Plaintiff, causing harm to him.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(1 R. Stat. § 3115 - Deprivation of Rights)
6. All allegations in this complaint are re-alleged and incorporated as reference in this cause
of action.
7. By detaining, and repeatedly tazing the Plaintiff without warranted reason and despite
consistent compliance,, 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 and The Constitution of the United States.
8. 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.
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 Defendant is liable for Official Misconduct;
C. For injunctive relief, enjoining and restraining Defendant from engaging in the
practices and conduct complained of herein;
D. For injunctive relief to each cause of action requiring the Defendant to adhere to
their statutory obligations;
E. An award of punitive damages to Plaintiff, against Defendant, in the amount of
$3,000 to compensate for the egregious deprivation of rights;
F. Award to Plaintiff his reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses of litigation;
and
G. Such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.
ELLOM8HOWAREYOU
Senior Associate
COHN, CICERO, & GOODRICH, LLC
Suite 3B, Palmer Apartments
Palmer, RW 33328
D: ello !#2023
E: [email protected]
STICKZA
Managing Partner
COHN, CICERO, & GOODRICH, LLC
Suite 3B, Palmer Apartments
Palmer, RW 33328
D: stick#0677
E: [email protected]
Counsel of Record
Document record
File size
135.3 KB
Uploaded
Jan 1, 2023 12:00 PM
Filed
Jan 1, 2023 12:00 PM
Filing code
COMPLAINT
Uploaded by
fristapet
Notes
FristaPet v. Equa106 - Amended Complaint (1).pdf — archived from the Trello docket (https://trello.com/c/bLU7VP8j)
