Matthew DeCossas Suit

Case 2:16-cv-03786-NJB-MBN Document 1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Elizabeth Z. DeCossas, Individually)
& as Tutrix for Matthew DeCossas, )
And Ronald DeCossas
)
)
versus
)
)
St. Tammany Parish School Board;
)
Bryon Gerchow; Kevin R Darouse; W. )
L.Trey Folse III; Leonard Tridico)
Neal M. Hennegan; Peter J. Jabbia; )
Michael Astague
)
___________________________________)
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 2:16-cv-03786
Section (G)(5)
Judge N. Brown
Mag. M. North
PETITION FOR MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS

NOW
INTO
COURT,
through
undersigned
counsel,
come
Elizabeth DeCossas , Mother of, and Tutrix of the minor

child,
Matthew
DeCossas;
and
Ronald
DeCossas,
Father
of
Matthew DeCossas and hereinafter state their claims against

Defendants for violations of their respective civil rights
and violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 as follows:
Elizabeth
majority
and
DeCossas,
resident
person
citizen
of
of
the
St.
full
Tammany
age
of
Parish
Louisiana was at all times the Natural Mother and tutrix of

minor, Matthew DeCossas, who at all times relevant to these
proceedings,
pursuant
to
was
sixteen
Louisianas
years
of
mandatory
age
and
attended,
attendance
law,
Fontainebleau High School, a public high school operated by

employees, staff, and management employed by and under the
control of the St. Tammany Parish School Board, a semiautonomous governmental body operating under the auspices
and
regulations
of
St.
Tammany
Parish,
the
Louisiana
Legislature, the Louisiana State School Board authority and

the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Ronald DeCossas at all times relevant to this cause,
was a person of the full age of majority and a resident

citizen of St. Tammany Parish Louisiana and was the natural
father of Matthew DeCossas, to whom he had loaned his own
personal cell phone which he had locked, pass-coded, and

encrypted
for
security
and
privacy
protection
secured
herein by the First Fourth, and Fifth Amendments of the

United States Constitution made applicable to the states by
the Fourteenth Amendment.
Additional
Defendants
alleged infra. are:

a)
to
the
Civil
Rights
violation
Deputy Bryan Gerchow, a citizen of St. Tammany
Parish, employee of the St. Tammany Parish Sheriffs

Department commissioned a deputy thereof, and on loan
to and under the immediate supervision and control of
the defendant, the St. Tammany Parish School Board at

Fountainebleau High School;
b)
Kevin R. Darouse, citizen of St. Tammmany, and
Supervisor
Board,
of
Administration
charged,
as
in
this
for
St.
case,
Tammany
with
School
providing
initial unbiased due process hearings on disciplinary

charges;
c)
W.L.
Trey
Folse,
III,
citizen
of
St.
Tammany
Parish and currently supervisor of St. Tammany Parish

Scool Board;
d)
Leonard
Tridico,
citizen
of
St.
Tammany
Parish
and employee of the St. Tammny School Board as alleged

chief
disciplinarian
Fountainebleau High Scool;
and
investigator
at
e)
Neal M. Hennegan, citizen of St. Tammany Parish
f)
Peter J. Jabbia, citizen of St. Tammany, employed
and elected member of St. Tammany School Board;
as assistant school supervisor in supervisor in charge

of civil rights;
g)
Michael Astague, citizen of St. Tammany, employee
of St. Tammany School Board as Assistant Principal at

Fountainebleau,
disciplinary
and
charged
investigation
and
with
liaison
processing
and
employees charged with investigations or charges;

Plaintiffs
have
exhausted
their
with
other
administrative
remedies, such as they were, and in fact Plaintiffs were
never accorded with any real rights; or with any real due
process
procedures
or
hearings
conforming
to
that
procedural and substantive due process guaranteed under the

U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and made applicable
to
states
Amendment.
feeble
and
their
Although
attempt
to
ambiguous
and
subdivisions
Louisianas
comply
under
the
legislature
with
their
Fourteenth
had
made
constitutional
obligations in passing LSA R.S. 17:416, that statute is

weak,
contains
no
objective
standards
for
implementation, so St. Tammany School Board intentionally

perverted
policy
the
legislative
which
is
intent
guaranteed
to
to
implement
block
its
own
compliance
with
Constitutional due process in any form preventing citizens
from having any contradictory hearings; having assistance

of counsel; having any venue for making objections to basic
violations of a citizens inherent legal rights; and is
carefully
conducted
by
Defendant
school
board
and
its
employees to support only the School Boards position with

hearings closed to participation except for school board
officials,
plaintiffs
participate,
and
does
here,
raise
to
not
permit
speak,
to
constitutional
evidence on their behalf.
the
citizens
object,
have
violations
such
or
as
counsel
offer
All hearings are a sham; so
called appeals are an opportunity for the school board to
further,
honestly
or
dishonestly,
perpetuate
its
own
position meaning that School Board affairs are conducted in

a one sided star chamber closed meeting, and all those
made defendants herein know and fully well know that their
conduct of disciplinary matters do not comply with basic
rights,
constitutional
or
legal
requirements,
and
are
perpetrations of extreme illegalities by those serving as

public servants.
I.
First Cause of Action

I.
year
Plaintiffs contend that on 8 th January 2016 that 16

old
U,
S,
Citizen,
Matthew
DeCossas,
for
whom
Elizabeth DeCossas was legal tutrix, arrived on campus of

Fouintainebleau High School and was immediately ordered to
the
office
Matthew
of
defendant
DeCossas
was
Leonard
good
Tridico,
student
and
with
although
no
prior
disciplinary problems, Tridico, in the presence of Bryan

Gerchow,
the
Defendant
Deputy
Sheriff,
without
either
notifying the minors legal guardian or reading him his

Miranda
warning
proceeded
to
forcibly
and
threateningly
interrogate him and search Matthew DeCossas and all his

personal,
private,
constitutionally
protected
effects
without any credible evidence to support such invasive and

illegal search and interrogation.
Notwithstanding
that
the
II.
initial
illegal
detainment
and forcible search of the minor on 8 th January 2016 by the

defendant sheriffs deputy, Gerchow, and defendants Tridico
and
Astague
continued
fathers,
to
found
absolutely
illegally
Ronald
hold
DeCossas
nothing.
DeCossas,
cell
phone
These
and
defendants
which
seized
his
contained
constitutionally protected data and information and it was
not until these defendants threatened and illeglly forced

Matthew
to
unlock
his
fathers
cell
phone
was
Matthew
DeCossas permitted to return to his next class, having been

improperly and illegally detained and falsely imprisoned by
the School Boards representatives.
Tridico and Astague illegally seized the cell phone
belonging to Matthews father, Ronald DeCossas, doing so

without notifying the owner of the cell phone or notifying
the minors legal guardian, or obtaining a court order all
in violation of the U. S. Constitution, the First and Fifth

Amendments; and the States laws and constitution. Tridico
and Astague also improperly and illegally detained Matthew
in their offices after the clean search of all of Matthews
effects
for
further
unlawful
detention
and
there
threatened, extorted, and forced Matthew DeCossas without

legal authority or cause into unlocking his fathers cell
phone
which
his
father
had
instructed
him
never
to
do,
thereby violating his fathers and Matthews right to their

personal
privacy
and
due
process
in
violation
of
their
clear rights under the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments,
made applicable to states and their subdivisions under the

Fourteenth
Amendment.
Defendants
usurped
all
proper
authority under color of law, and illegally made no effort
to notify Matthews legal tutrix, or the actual owner of

the phone, Ronald DeCossas, and did not seek a court order
based on reasonable cause, although that would have been
the legal, prudent and responsible course of action by nonjudicial governmental representatives rather than resorting
to threats, torture, force, illegal extended detention, and

extortionate threats of a minor child, by persons such as
these defendants who clearly have no such legal authority

over any citizen of the United States.
After
punishment
having
against
unconstitutionally
DeCossas
threatened
cell
Matthew
scaring
phone
III.
immediate
DeCossas,
him
thereby
force
into
violating
and
summary
unlocking
Ronald
illegally
their
First
and
and
Fifth
Amendment
rights
to
privacy
and
their
rights
to
procedural and substantive due process, Defendants Tridico

and
Astague
had
access
to
and
illegally
perused
the
entirety of the owners confidential data privately held on
the phone, leading Defendants Tridico, Astague, and Gerchow
to allege there witnesses who were also threatened by

Tridico, Astague, and Gerchow also threatened by force and
extortion into agreeing to make irrelevant, fabricated, and

untimely allegations against Matthew DeCossas; and although
the initial invasion of the data on the cell phone was

illegal,
they
commenced
further
improper,
forced
interrogations of Matthew DeCossas pursuing the fruit of

the forbidden tree, being that data from the illegally,
unconstitutionally, breached data from Plaintiffs private,
confidential,
constitutionally
protected
information
contained on the cell phone; and without use of which the
Defendants would have had no evidence of any kind or any

support for disciplinary claims to mount against Matthew
DeCossas, since the initial interrogation and search that

same day was entirely negative for actionable evidence.
Defendants
DeCossas
back
Tridico,
and
IV.
Astague,
willfully
and
in
and
Gerchow
maximum
bad
called
faith,
conducted another unauthorized, illegal, forced detention
and forced interrogations without the minor child, Matthew
DeCossas having been advised about any of his legal rights
or provided any opportunity for even a phone call; read his
Miranda warnings required due to the potential charges of

drug
use/possession;
DeCossas
was
not
and
again
advised
activities and interrogations.
of
his
the
tutrix,
Defendants
Elizabeth
illegal
Tridico, Astague, and Gerchow dictated at least three
different
statements
that
they
then
forced
the
unprotected and unrepresented minor to unwillingly write in

his own hand and then threatened and forced him to sign,
even though they were inherently contradictory and did not

match
any
true
facts
or
evidence
beyond
some
contrived
scenarios from fruit of the forbidden tree using names

and other data discovered only upon the rifled cell phone
as an alleged theoretical basis of facts from which they

fabricated their accusations.
Elizabeth
DeCossas
was
not
advised
of
any
of
the
illegal activities conducted by and on behalf of the St.

Tammany School Board by the other Defendants until after
the multiple, illegal interrogations, searches, invasion of
Ronald
DeCossas
statements
until
protected
late
in
cell
the
phone
afternoon
data,
when
the
the
forced
School
Board and its employees believed that they had locked in
their
version,
advised
the
tutrix
of
Matthew
DeCossas
that he had been recommended for expulsion on disciplinary

and
drug
which
was
allegations
supported
and
alleged
except
by
possession,
concocted,
illegally obtained evidence.
neither
contrived,
of
or
Plaintiffs will show that
the Defendants have a long history of abusive behavior,

threats, intimidations, extortions, falsification of facts
and
statements,
persecutions
and
violations
of
minor
students civil rights; and their parents civil rights all

of which is known, condoned, encouraged, and hidden by the
defendants and the St. Tammany Parish School Board despite

complaints directed to them.
On
Board,
14th
and
particularly
January
the
2016
other
Leonard
V.
the
St.
Tammany
Defendants
Tridico,
Parish
School
Astugue,
Kevin
herein,
Michael
including
Darouse, et. al. held a hearing, supposedly pursuant to LSA

R.R. 17:416 but the hearing was a poor imitation of the
requirements
Plaintiffs
of
herein
the
were
Louisiana
denied
statute
any
in
opportunity
that
to
the
have
counsel, present evidence, call or examine witnesses, make
objections based on constitutional violations, or object to

the
gross
School
one-sided
Board
nature
employees
in
stated
which
only
unfounded
the
Defendant
opinions
and
illegal
evidence
based
on
illegally
obtained
and
constitutionally protected information allegedly linked to
Ronald DeCossas locked cell phone which had been forced
open thru threats and intimidation through repeated long

term
detention
Defendant
of
Sheriffs
Deputy
and unrepresented child.

the
Louisiana
procedural
and
law
minor
and
by
Gerchow
Defendant
against
Tridico
an
and
undefended
The hearing was a sham even under
did
substantive
not
even
due
attempt
process
to
and
provide
at
its
conclusion, the hearing officer, Defendant Kevin R. Derouse

was observed by attendees to pull his previously prepared
and signed decision in favor of the School Board and the
ordered expulsion for four semesters, from the bottom of

his
papers
to
present
as
his
decision
evidence he had heard during the hearing.

Plaintiff,
Elizabeth
VI.
DeCossas
based
determined
on
that
the
an
appeal could be taken to the School Board and noticed an
appeal to the Defendant School Board in a timely fashion,
although employees of Defendant School Board advised her
that the notice date was much later and if filed at that
time, an appeal on this matter would have been untimely and
dismissed.
Defendant
School
Board
scheduled
an
appeal
February
2016,
and
contrary
for
Plaintiffs which was conducted by St, Tammany Parish School

Board
on
Louisiana
18th
Statute
demanding
again
fair
and
just
to
the
contradictory
hearings providing procedural and substantive due process,

Defendant, Peter Jabbia, ran the supposed fair appeal to
exclude
any
objections
to
procedure
or
validity
of
any
evidence, refused to permit Counsel to participate, heard

only
recitation
of
already
unconstitutionally
obtained
the
the
discreditedand
illegal
evidence,
recanted,
refused
to
Jabbia
to
permit Plaintiffs to participate in any fashion, and it was

intention
permit
School
interrogate
of
the
School
Board
and
minor,
Board
its
and
members
Matthew
Peter
to
DeCossas,
repeatedly
procedurally
unprotected, simply for the purpose of corroborating the
School Boards and the other Defendants previous illegal

and
unconstitutional
actions
in
clear
violation
of
Plaintiffs legal rights and constitutional protections as

guaranteed by law to persons and protected under 42 U.S.C.
Section
1983.
School
Board
and
other
Defendants
were
guilty of clear, overt, willful and bad faith violations of

Plaintiffs rights.
Neal
M.
Hennegan,
threatened,
In addition, Defendant School Member,
harassed,
non-lawyer
and
blatantly
intimidated
and
willfully
Plaintiffs,
and
their
attorney,
never
lost
in
telling
them
from
the
dais
during
session at the appeal hearing that the School Board had

a
case
in
court,
and
that
Plaintiffs
were
getting bad legal advice if they were counseled to file

suit in court.
VII.
Petitioners are entitled to, and seek redress under
Section 1983, and request appropriate orders of this Court,

enjoining
the
St.
Tammany
Parish
School
Board
and
its
employees, school officials gone lawless, rogue and wild

acting
under
color
of
law,
including
the
individual
Defendants named herein as specific actors in the detailed

account of violations; from further prejudicial or other
unconstitutional
DeCossas
expulsion
based
references
from
to
disciplinary
upon
the
school;
Matthew
action
alleged
events
DeCossas
or
an
order
that
against
leading
all
any
Matthew
to
his
reports
or
records
or
disciplinary action concerning same be expunged from all

records,
and
especially
his
school
records
and
driver
training records; that the expulsion be reversed and he be
returned to where he should have been before lawlessness,

thuggery,
and
overzealousness
on
the
part
of
Defendants
intervened to damage and forever destroy his reputation and
that of his parents; an admonition to Defendants that such

gross violations of a citizens constitutional rights
not
be
Section
tolerated;
1983
and
awarding
Judgment
substantial
of
this
monetary
Court
will
under
damages
to
Plaintiffs for the willful and abusive violations of rights

and
civil
rights
guaranteed
to
citizens
including
Plaintiffs by the U.S. Constitution and made applicable to
these Defendants by the Fourteenth Amendment including, but

not limited to, extreme emotional distress, subjection to
public
embarrassment
Plaintiffs
lives,
needlessly
incurred
and
punitive
by
humiliation,
damages
Plaintiffs
in
and
disruption
attorney
defending
of
fees
against
willful bad faith disciplinary actions under color of law,

unconstitutional
policy
and
procedures
intentionally
and
constitution
and
willfully violative not only of the U.S. constitution, and

Section
statute
1983,
LSA
intentionally
procedure
but
R.S.
of
Louisianas
17:416
ignored,
which
which
Defendants
implementing
Defendants
own
willfully
instead
completely
controlled
and
contrary
like
Star Chamber procedure designed to provide no required

notice, procedural or substantive due process for citizens
and Plaintiffs, and likewise intentionally and willfully in

bad
faith
right
to
blocking
assistance
Plaintiffs
of
access
counsel
at
to
all
and
guaranteed
stages
of
the
disciplinary process.
Plaintiffs also seek in judgment any
and all further equitable or legal relief implicit in or

appropriate from the facts or existing law.
VII.
was
The expulsion of Matthew DeCossas for four semesters

irrational,
unequal
to
other
personally
action
subjective,
taken
by
excessive,
the
same
persons
and
in
similar situations including the alleged co-perpetrator of

the
alleged
triggering
event,
who
has
now
recanted
and
admits that Astague, Tridico, and Gerchow threatened and

eventually
forced
and
verbal
and
comprised
him
assaults,
thru
into
unlawful
detentions,
capitulating
to
threats,
Defendants
accusations that were wholesale fabrications by Defendants

clear
violations
of
his
fundamental
civil
rights through unequal protection of the law and subjective

punishment.
II.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

As
an
individual
alternative
and
collective
I.
cause
of
Defendants
action
against
enumerated
the
herein,
separate and apart from their allegations and demands for
relief under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983,

Plaintiffs are entitled to recover against them for their
repetitive,
Plaintiffs
foregoing
willful,
civil
and
intentional
which
are
rights
allegations,
as
specified
in
violations
the
incorporated
reference thereto as if copied verbatim and
above
herein
of
and
by
en extenso.
Plaintiffs demand relief and a judgment against the St.

Tammany School Board and the named Defendants to the same
extent as prayed for within the First Cause of Action.
II.
Plaintiffs reiterate their individual and collective
demands
for
the
various
judgments,
civil
and
equitable
relief, and damages as prayed for in the First Cause above.

III.
Plaintiffs request trial by jury on all issues in both
the first and second causes of action.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Fred E. Salley

_____________________________
FRED E. SALLEY, T.A. (11665)
SALLEY & ASSOCIATES
P.O. Box 3549
77378 Hwy 1081 Cretien Annex
Covington, Louisiana 70434
Telephone: (985) 867-8830
Facsimile (985) 867-8927
Counsel for all Plaintiffs,
Elizabeth DeCossas, et. al.
SERVICES
Services by Certified Mail:
St. Tammany Parish School Board

321 Theard Str.
Covington, La. 70434
Deputy Bryan Gerchow
Fountainebleau High School
100 Bulldog Drive
Mandeville, LA. 70471
Kevin R. Darouse
321 Theard Str.
W.L. Trey Folse
321 Theard Str.
Leonard Tridico
100 Bulldog Drive
Neal M. Henegan
410 Magnolia Lane
Peter J. Jabbia
321 Theard Str.
Michael Astague
100 Bulldog Drive
VERIFICATION
STATE OF LOUISIANA
PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY
Before me, the undersigned authority and notary public
for the Parish
and State aforesaid, personally came and
appeared before me:
Elizabeth Zalot DeCossas
Who upon being placed under oath verified that she is a
citizen and major person residing in St. Tammany Parish and

the mother and Tutrix of Minor, Matthew DeCossas;
That she is a Plaintiff in the proposed civil action
being filed against the St. Tammany Parish School Board,

et. al;
That she has read the contents, claims and allegations
contained in that aforesaid complaint and that they are

true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information,
and belief.
Signed before me, Notary Public

St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana
This ____ day of April, 2016
_____________________________
My Commission is thru________
________________________
Elizabeth Zalot DeCossas
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERIFICATION
PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY
Before me, the undersigned authority and notary public
for the Parish
and State aforesaid, personally came and
appeared before me:
Ronald DeCossas
Who upon being placed under oath verified that he is a

citizen and major person residing in St. Tammany Parish and
the father of Minor, Matthew DeCossas;
That he is a Plaintiff in the proposed civil action
being filed against the St. Tammany Parish School Board,

et. al;
That he has read the contents, claims and allegations
contained in that aforesaid complaint and that they are

true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information,
and belief.
Signed before me, Notary Public

St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana
This ____ day of April, 2016
_____________________________
My Commission is thru________
________________________
Ronald DeCossas
JS 44 (Rev. 11/15)
Case 2:16-cv-03786-NJB-MBN Document 1-1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 2
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
Elizabeth Z. DeCossas, ei. al.
St. Tammany Parish School Board, et. al
St. Tammany Parish
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

NOTE:
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
St. Tammany Parish
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
Attorneys (If Known)
Fred E. Salley, P.O. Box 3549, Covington, La. 70434 504-450-3880
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only)

1
U.S. Government
Plaintiff
U.S. Government
Defendant
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
Citizen of This State
1
Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
DEF
1
and One Box for Defendant)

PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
4
4
of Business In This State
Citizen of Another State
Incorporated and Principal Place

of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country
Foreign Nation
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only)

CONTRACT
TORTS
110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veterans Benefits
160 Stockholders Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise
REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property
PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
448 Education
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
PERSONAL INJURY
365 Personal Injury Product Liability
367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal
Property Damage
385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
463 Alien Detainee
510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
530 General
535 Death Penalty
Other:
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement
625 Drug Related Seizure

of Property 21 USC 881
690 Other
BANKRUPTCY
422 Appeal 28 USC 158
423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
820 Copyrights
830 Patent
840 Trademark
LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
720 Labor/Management
Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act
SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS

870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
871 IRSThird Party
26 USC 7609
IMMIGRATION
462 Naturalization Application
465 Other Immigration
Actions
OTHER STATUTES
375 False Claims Act
376 Qui Tam (31 USC
3729(a))
400 State Reapportionment
410 Antitrust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
890 Other Statutory Actions
891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
895 Freedom of Information
Act
896 Arbitration
899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes
V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)

1 Original
Proceeding
2 Removed from
State Court
Remanded from
Appellate Court
4 Reinstated or
Reopened
5 Transferred from
Another District
(specify)
6 Multidistrict
Litigation
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 U.S.C. 1983
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Civil Rights Claim by student against School Board for violations under color of law
VII. REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY
DATE
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
(See instructions):
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

Yes
No
JURY DEMAND:
DEMAND $
JUDGE
DOCKET NUMBER
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
/s/ Fred E. Salley
04/28/2016
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #
AMOUNT
APPLYING IFP
JUDGE
MAG. JUDGE
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 11/15)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a)
(b)
(c)
Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II.
Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III.
Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV.
Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than
one nature of suit, select the most definitive.
V.
Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407.
When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.
VI.
Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII.
Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

AO 398 (Rev. 01/09) Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons

for the
Eastern
District
__________ DistrictofofLouisiana
__________
Elizabeth Z. Decossas, et. al.
Plaintiff
v.

Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 16:3786
NOTICE OF A LAWSUIT AND REQUEST TO WAIVE SERVICE OF A SUMMONS

To: St. Tammany Parish School Board, 321 Theard Str., Covington, LA. 70434
(Name of the defendant or - if the defendant is a corporation, partnership, or association - an officer or agent authorized to receive service)
Why are you getting this?

A lawsuit has been filed against you, or the entity you represent, in this court under the number shown above.
A copy of the complaint is attached.
This is not a summons, or an official notice from the court. It is a request that, to avoid expenses, you waive formal
service of a summons by signing and returning the enclosed waiver. To avoid these expenses, you must return the signed
waiver within 30 days (give at least 30 days, or at least 60 days if the defendant is outside any judicial district of the United States)
from the date shown below, which is the date this notice was sent. Two copies of the waiver form are enclosed, along with
a stamped, self-addressed envelope or other prepaid means for returning one copy. You may keep the other copy.
What happens next?
If you return the signed waiver, I will file it with the court. The action will then proceed as if you had been served
on the date the waiver is filed, but no summons will be served on you and you will have 60 days from the date this notice
is sent (see the date below) to answer the complaint (or 90 days if this notice is sent to you outside any judicial district of
the United States).
If you do not return the signed waiver within the time indicated, I will arrange to have the summons and complaint
served on you. And I will ask the court to require you, or the entity you represent, to pay the expenses of making service.
Please read the enclosed statement about the duty to avoid unnecessary expenses.
I certify that this request is being sent to you on the date below.
Date:
05/09/2016
/s/ Fred E. Salley

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party
Fred E. Salley
Printed name
P.O. Box 3549

Covington, LA. 70434
Address
fsalley@charter.net
E-mail address
504-450-3880
Telephone number


for the
Eastern
District
__________
Plaintiff
v.

Defendant
)
)
)
)
)

To: Kevin R. Darouse, 321 Theard Str., Covington, LA. 70434

What happens next?
the United States).
Date:
05/09/2016
/s/ Fred E. Salley

Fred E. Salley
Printed name
P.O. Box 3549

Address
fsalley@charter.net
E-mail address
504-450-3880
Telephone number


for the
Eastern
District
__________
Plaintiff
v.

Defendant
)
)
)
)
)

To: W.L."Trey" Folse, 321 Theard Str., Covington, LA. 70434

What happens next?
the United States).
Date:
05/09/2016
/s/ Fred E. Salley

Fred E. Salley
Printed name
P.O. Box 3549

Address
fsalley@charter.net
E-mail address
504-450-3880
Telephone number


for the
Eastern
District
__________
Plaintiff
v.

Defendant
)
)
)
)
)

To: Peter Jabbia, 321 Theard Str., Covington, LA. 70434

What happens next?
the United States).
Date:
05/09/2016
/s/ Fred E. Salley

Fred E. Salley
Printed name
P.O. Box 3549

Address
fsalley@charter.net
E-mail address
504-450-3880
Telephone number


for the
Eastern
District
__________
Plaintiff
v.

Defendant
)
)
)
)
)

To: Neal M. Hennegan, 410 Magnolia Lane, Mandeville, LA. 70471

What happens next?
the United States).
Date:
05/09/2016
/s/ Fred E. Salley

Fred E. Salley
Printed name
P.O. Box 3549

Address
fsalley@charter.net
E-mail address
504-450-3880
Telephone number


for the
Eastern
District
__________
Plaintiff
v.

Defendant
)
)
)
)
)

To: Deputy Bryan Gerchow, Founainebleau Hish School, 100 Bulldog Drive, Mandeville, LA. 70471

What happens next?
the United States).
Date:
05/09/2016
/s/ Fred E. Salley

Fred E. Salley
Printed name
P.O. Box 3549

Address
fsalley@charter.net
E-mail address
504-450-3880
Telephone number


for the
Eastern
District
__________
Plaintiff
v.

Defendant
)
)
)
)
)

To: Leonard Tridico, Founainebleau Hish School, 100 Bulldog Drive, Mandeville, LA. 70471

What happens next?
the United States).
Date:
05/09/2016
/s/ Fred E. Salley

Fred E. Salley
Printed name
P.O. Box 3549

Address
fsalley@charter.net
E-mail address
504-450-3880
Telephone number


for the
Eastern
District
__________
Plaintiff
v.

Defendant
)
)
)
)
)

To: Michael Astague, Founainebleau Hish School, 100 Bulldog Drive, Mandeville, LA. 70471

What happens next?
the United States).
Date:
05/09/2016
/s/ Fred E. Salley

Fred E. Salley
Printed name
P.O. Box 3549

Address
fsalley@charter.net
E-mail address
504-450-3880
Telephone number

Matthew DeCossas Suit

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Matthew DeCossas Suit

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 2:16-cv-03786-NJB-MBN Document 1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PETITION FOR MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Elizabeth DeCossas , Mother of, and Tutrix of the minor

Matthew DeCossas and hereinafter state their claims against

Louisiana was at all times the Natural Mother and tutrix of

Case 2:16-cv-03786-NJB-MBN Document 1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 2 of 19

Fontainebleau High School, a public high school operated by

Legislature, the Louisiana State School Board authority and

Ronald DeCossas at all times relevant to this cause,

was a person of the full age of majority and a resident

personal cell phone which he had locked, pass-coded, and

herein by the First Fourth, and Fifth Amendments of the

alleged infra. are:

Deputy Bryan Gerchow, a citizen of St. Tammany

Parish, employee of the St. Tammany Parish Sheriffs

to and under the immediate supervision and control of

the defendant, the St. Tammany Parish School Board at

Case 2:16-cv-03786-NJB-MBN Document 1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 3 of 19

Kevin R. Darouse, citizen of St. Tammmany, and

initial unbiased due process hearings on disciplinary

Parish and currently supervisor of St. Tammany Parish

and employee of the St. Tammny School Board as alleged

Fountainebleau High Scool;

Neal M. Hennegan, citizen of St. Tammany Parish

Peter J. Jabbia, citizen of St. Tammany, employed

and elected member of St. Tammany School Board;

as assistant school supervisor in supervisor in charge

Michael Astague, citizen of St. Tammany, employee

of St. Tammany School Board as Assistant Principal at

employees charged with investigations or charges;

remedies, such as they were, and in fact Plaintiffs were

Case 2:16-cv-03786-NJB-MBN Document 1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 4 of 19

procedural and substantive due process guaranteed under the

obligations in passing LSA R.S. 17:416, that statute is

implementation, so St. Tammany School Board intentionally

Constitutional due process in any form preventing citizens

from having any contradictory hearings; having assistance

employees to support only the School Boards position with

evidence on their behalf.

All hearings are a sham; so

called appeals are an opportunity for the school board to

Case 2:16-cv-03786-NJB-MBN Document 1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 5 of 19

position meaning that School Board affairs are conducted in

perpetrations of extreme illegalities by those serving as

First Cause of Action

Plaintiffs contend that on 8 th January 2016 that 16

Elizabeth DeCossas was legal tutrix, arrived on campus of

disciplinary problems, Tridico, in the presence of Bryan

notifying the minors legal guardian or reading him his

interrogate him and search Matthew DeCossas and all his

Case 2:16-cv-03786-NJB-MBN Document 1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 6 of 19

without any credible evidence to support such invasive and

and forcible search of the minor on 8 th January 2016 by the

constitutionally protected data and information and it was

not until these defendants threatened and illeglly forced

DeCossas permitted to return to his next class, having been

Tridico and Astague illegally seized the cell phone

belonging to Matthews father, Ronald DeCossas, doing so

in violation of the U. S. Constitution, the First and Fifth

in their offices after the clean search of all of Matthews

Case 2:16-cv-03786-NJB-MBN Document 1 Filed 04/29/16 Page 7 of 19

threatened, extorted, and forced Matthew DeCossas without