Case 3:10-cv-02011-WWE Document 1

Filed 12/21/10 Page 1 of 20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT HELEN ROJAS; IRMA RIVERA; and ALEJANDRO AZANA Plaintiffs : : : DOCKET NO.

: : : v. : : CITY OF WEST HAVEN : CHIEF OF POLICE JOHN KARAJANIS : SERGENT RON CELENTANO : OFFICER BRIAN BOGERT : OFFICER MICHAEL WOLF : OFFICER DEBBIE DAMATO : OFFICER SCOTT BLOOM : : :

December 17, 2010

Defendants.

COMPLAINT This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 to redress the deprivations of rights secured by the Constitution and federal law against the Plaintiffs, Helen Rojas, Irma Rivera and Alejandro Azana, by Defendants, Police Officers of the City of West Haven Police Department. The Plaintiffs allege false arrest, excessive force, malicious persecution, and unlawful entry in violation of the Plaintiffs rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs also assert state law claims alleging violations of the Connecticut Constitution article first, 7, 8 and 9; assault and battery; recklessness and maliciousness; negligent infliction of emotional distress; and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Case 3:10-cv-02011-WWE Document 1

Filed 12/21/10 Page 2 of 20

I.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has jurisdiction of the claims for deprivation of constitutional

rights under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1343; under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988; and this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over all state law claims under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367. 2. Venue is Proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391

because: (1) all defendants reside within the judicial district, and (2) all of the events giving rise to this Complaint occurred in this judicial district. II. PARTIES 3. The plaintiff, Helen Rojas, is a resident of West Haven, County of New

Haven and the State of Connecticut. 4. The plaintiff, Irma Rivera, is a resident of West Haven, County of New

Haven and the State of Connecticut. 5. The plaintiff, A.V., is a minor child and a resident of West Haven, County She brings this action through her

of New Haven and the State of Connecticut. guardian and next of friend Irma Rivera. 6.

The plaintiff, H.V., is a minor child and a resident of West Haven, County

of New Haven and the State of Connecticut. He brings this action through his guardian and next of friend Irma Rivera. 7. The plaintiff, Alejandro Azana, is a resident of New Haven, County of New

Haven and the State of Connecticut. 8. Defendant, the City of West Haven, is a municipality in the County of New

Haven created and existing as a political subdivision of and in the State of Connecticut.

Case 3:10-cv-02011-WWE Document 1

Filed 12/21/10 Page 3 of 20

9.

Defendant, the Chief of West Haven Police, John Karajanis, is the Chief of

the West Haven Police Department, having his principal business address at 200 Saw Mill Road, West Haven, Connecticut and acted under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of the State of Connecticut. Chief Karajanis is being sued in his official and individual capacity. 10. Defendant, Police Sergeant Ron Celentano, is and was at all times

relevant hereto a police officer of the West Haven Police Department, having his principal business address at 200 Saw Mill Road, West Haven, Connecticut and acted under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of the State of Connecticut. Police Officer Morse is being sued in his official and individual capacity. 11. Defendant, Police Officer Brian Bogert, is and was at all times relevant

hereto a police officer of the West Haven Police Department, having his principal business address at 200 Saw Mill Road, West Haven, Connecticut and acted under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of the State of Connecticut. Police Officer Bogert is being sued in his official and individual capacity. 12. Defendant, Police Officer Michael Wolf, is and was at all times relevant

hereto a police officer of the West Haven Police Department, having his principal business address at 200 Saw Mill Road, West Haven, Connecticut and acted under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of the State of Connecticut. Police Officer Wolf is being sued in his official and individual capacity. 13. Defendant, Police Officer Debbie DAmato, is and was at all times relevant

hereto a police officer of the West Haven Police Department, having her principal business address at 200 Saw Mill Road, West Haven, Connecticut and acted under

Case 3:10-cv-02011-WWE Document 1

Filed 12/21/10 Page 4 of 20

color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of the State of Connecticut. Police Officer DAmato is being sued in her official and individual capacity. 14. Defendant, Police Officer Scott Bloom, is and was at all times relevant

hereto a police officer of the West Haven Police Department, K-9 Unit, having his principal business address at 200 Saw Mill Road, West Haven, Connecticut and acted under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of the State of Connecticut. Police Officer Morse is being sued in his official and individual capacity. III. ALLEGATIONS OF FACTS 15. Plaintiff Irma Rivera is the owner of a multi-family residence located at 145

William Street, West Haven Connecticut (Residence). 16. On or about October 25, 2009, the Plaintiffs were on the Second Floor

apartment of the Residence with friends and family members celebrating the birthday of a Mr. Ricardo Azana. 17. At around 12:30 a.m., the Plaintiffs and their guests were eating dinner

when Defendant Police Officers of the City of West Haven (Defendant Officers) forcibly entered the Second Floor apartment, without notice or announcement. 18. The Defendant Officers began yelling and intimidating the Plaintiffs and The Defendant Officers had their

their guests with verbal taunts and threats of arrest.

night sticks in hand and were threatening to use them against everyone in the apartment. 19. The Defendant Officers continued to mock and humiliate the Plaintiffs and

their guests for speaking Spanish and threatened to call the immigration authorities. 20. Plaintiff Alejandro Azana watched as his brother was unexpectedly and

without provocation assaulted by the Defendant Officers. 4

Case 3:10-cv-02011-WWE Document 1

Filed 12/21/10 Page 5 of 20

21.

Plaintiff Alejandro Azana and Plaintiff Helen Rojas pleaded with Defendant

Officers to stop using physical force. A. 22. Additional Facts as to Plaintiff Alejandro Azana

In response to Plaintiff Alejandro Azanas pleas, the Defendant Officers

assaulted him and used a Taser, or other electrical shock device, to his chest two times. 23. The Defendant Officers purposefully and with intent tightened the

handcuffs on Plaintiff Azanas wrists so as to cause skin abrasions and contusions. 24. As a result of the Defendant Officers unreasonable and aggressive

conduct, Plaintiff Azana suffered the following serious and painful injuries: lacerations, contusions and abrasions to the arms, wrists and hands; soreness in the arms and shoulders; and severe and painful headaches. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant Officers,

Plaintiff Azana has endured physical pain, emotional distress, mental anguish and anxiety, and an overall loss of life's enjoyment. B. 26. Additional Facts as to Plaintiff Helen Rojas

Plaintiff Helen Rojas began filming the abuse on her video camera in plain

view of the Defendant Officers. 27. Suddenly, without warning and without provocation, the Defendant

Officers shoved Plaintiff Rojas onto a couch and forcibly knocked the video camera from her hands. 28. Three Defendant Officers surrounded Plaintiff Rojas and put her in

handcuffs. The Defendant Officers purposefully and with intent tightened the handcuffs on Plaintiff Rojas wrists so as to cause skin abrasions and contusions. 29. The three Defendant Officers forcibly grabbed Plaintiff Rojas and removed 5

Case 3:10-cv-02011-WWE Document 1

Filed 12/21/10 Page 6 of 20

her from the apartment to the top of the stairwell. The Defendant Officers shoved Plaintiff Rojas down the stairs from the second floor, grabbing her by the back of her shirt such that her feet did not touch the floor. 30. Plaintiff Rojas was placed into a police vehicle. Plaintiff Rojas explained

to the Defendant Officers that she did not understand English well, and the Officers began making racial slurs towards the Plaintiff Rojas. 31. Suddenly, and without warning, the Defendant Officers pulled Plaintiff

Rojas out of the car with such force that she fell to the ground. Plaintiff Rojas could not break her fall because her hands were secured by handcuffs. The Defendant Officers transferred Plaintiff Rojas to a different police vehicle. 32. As a result of the Defendant Officers unreasonable and aggressive

conduct Plaintiff Rojas suffered the following serious and painful injuries: lacerations, contusions and abrasions to the arms, wrists and hands; soreness in the arms and shoulders; and severe and painful headaches. 33. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant Officers,

Plaintiff Rojas has endured physical pain, emotional distress, mental anguish and anxiety, and an overall loss of life's enjoyment. C. 34. Additional Facts as to Plaintiff Irma Rivera

Plaintiff Irma Rivera returned to the first floor of the Residence to protect

her two children, Plaintiffs A.V. and H.V., who were with their Aunt and Cousin. 35. Plaintiff Irma Rivera observed a man dressed in normal street clothes in

the apartment who identified himself as a Defendant Officer and presented a police badge. 36. Plaintiff Irma Rivera was informed by her Aunt and Cousin that six to 6

Case 3:10-cv-02011-WWE Document 1

Filed 12/21/10 Page 7 of 20

seven police officers had entered the apartment, without notice and without seeking permission. 37. The Defendant Officers forcibly entered a bedroom where Plaintiffs A.V.

and H.V. were watching television. 38. The Defendant Officers continued to search every room in Plaintiff

Riveras apartment, including the closets and the basement. 39. Plaintiff A.V. and H.V. were so terrified by the events that they began

crying and Plaintiff H.V. urinated on himself. 40. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant Officers,

Plaintiffs Rivera, A.V. and H.V. have endured physical pain, emotional distress, mental anguish and anxiety, and an overall loss of life's enjoyment. 41. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant Officers,

Plaintiffs A.V. and H.V. have suffered and will continue to suffer emotional and psychological trauma resulting in loss of sleep, lack of appetite, and general fear of police officers. IV. ALLEGATIONS

COUNT I:

ROJAS and AZANA v. DEFENDANT OFFICERS: Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 (False Arrest). Paragraphs 1 through 41, inclusive of the foregoing are hereby

42.

incorporated as if recited in full herein. 43. 44. 45. The Defendant Officers intentionally arrested Plaintiffs Azana and Rojas. Plaintiffs Azana and Rojas did not consent to arrest. The Defendant Officers did not have probable cause to arrest or detain

Plaintiffs Azana or Rojas. 7

Case 3:10-cv-02011-WWE Document 1

Filed 12/21/10 Page 8 of 20

46.

The Defendant Officers deprived Plaintiffs Azana and Rojas of their right

to be free of false arrest as enforced through 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. COUNT II: ROJAS and AZANA v. DEFENDANT OFFICERS: Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 (Excessive Force). Paragraphs 1 through 46, inclusive of the foregoing are hereby

47.

incorporated as if recited in full herein. 48. The Defendant Officers used excessive force in the arrest of Plaintiffs

Azana and Rojas in that: A. The Defendant Officers forcibly grabbed Plaintiffs Azana and Rojas

such that they sustained abrasions and contusions to the arms, wrists and hands; B. The Defendant Officers intentionally utilized a Taser, or other

electric shock device, two times to the chest of Plaintiff Azana; C. The Defendant Officers pushed Plaintiff Rojas onto a couch and

used three officers to secure her arrest when the Plaintiff is a small individual and was not resisting arrest; D. The Defendant Officers shoved and pushed Plaintiff Rojas down

the stairs while she was handcuffed and could not retain her balance; E. The Defendant Officers pulled Plaintiff Rojas from the police vehicle

without warning and with such force as to cause her to fall to the ground while she was still handcuffed and could not break her fall. 49. The Defendant Officers deprived Plaintiffs Azana and Rojas of their right

to be free of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution as enforced through 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. COUNT III: ROJAS v. DEFENDANT OFFICERS: Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 (Malicious Prosecution). 8

Case 3:10-cv-02011-WWE Document 1

Filed 12/21/10 Page 9 of 20

50.

Paragraphs 1 through 41, inclusive of the foregoing are hereby

incorporated as if recited in full herein. 51. The Defendant Officers arrested Plaintiff Rojas and initiated criminal

proceedings against her. 52. The Defendant Officers did not have probable cause to arrest or detain

Plaintiff Rojas. 53. The Defendant Officers acted with malice in arresting Plaintiff Rojas in that

she was arrested because she was videotaping their actions in the Residence, and other than for the purpose of bringing an offender to justice. 54. Criminal proceedings terminated in favor of Plaintiff Rojas on or about

December 22, 2009. 55. The Defendant Officers deprived Plaintiff Rojas of her right to be free of

malicious prosecution as enforced by 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. COUNT IV: RIVERA, A.V., and H.V. v. DEFENDANT OFFICERS: Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 (Unlawful Entry). 56. Paragraphs 1 through 41, inclusive of the foregoing are hereby

incorporated as if recited in full herein. 57. Plaintiffs Rivera, A.V. and H.V. have a reasonable expectation of privacy

in the First Floor of the Residence because it is a private home where they reside. 58. The Defendant Officers, acting under the color of state law, entered the

Plaintiffs private Residence without a warrant, without warning and without obtaining consent from the Plaintiffs. 59. There were not any exigent circumstances that justified the warrantless

entry of the Plaintiffs home.

Case 3:10-cv-02011-WWE Document 1

Filed 12/21/10 Page 10 of 20

60.

The Defendants violated the Plaintiffs rights secured under the Fourth

Amendment to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, because the warrantless entry was not justified by any probable cause or exigent circumstances. COUNT V: AS TO DEFENDANT OFFICERS: VIOLATION OF CONNECTICUT STATE CONSTITUTION . Paragraphs 1 through 60, inclusive of the foregoing are hereby

61.

incorporated as if recited in full herein. 62. The Defendant Officers unlawfully deprived the Plaintiffs of rights secured

by the Connecticut Constitution as a result of the false arrest, excessive force, malicious prosecution and unlawful entry. 63. The conduct of the Defendant Officers was unlawful and in violation of

Article First, sections 7, 8 and 9, of the Connecticut Constitution. COUNT VI: ROJAS and AZANA v. DEFENDANT OFFICERS: ASSAULT AND BATTERY. 64. Paragraphs 1 through 63, inclusive of the foregoing are hereby

incorporated as if recited in full herein. 65. The Defendant Officers intended to place and did place the Plaintiffs in

apprehension of imminent serious bodily harm or death in one or more of the following ways; A. The Defendant Officers forcibly grabbed Plaintiffs Azana and Rojas

such that they sustained abrasions and contusions to the arms, wrists and hands; B. The Defendant Officers intentionally utilized a Taser, or other

electric shock device, two times to the chest of Plaintiff Azana;

10

Case 3:10-cv-02011-WWE Document 1

Filed 12/21/10 Page 11 of 20

C.

The Defendant Officers pushed Plaintiff Rojas onto a couch and

used three officers to secure her arrest when the Plaintiff is a small individual and was not resisting arrest; D. The Defendant Officers shoved and pushed Plaintiff Rojas down

the stairs while she was handcuffed and could not retain her balance; E. The Defendant Officers pulled Plaintiff Rojas from the police vehicle

without warning and with such force as to cause her to fall to the ground while she was still handcuffed and could not break her fall. 66. The Defendant Officers intended to touch and did in fact touch Plaintiff

Azana and Rojas person in an offensive and harmful manner. 67. The conduct of the Defendant Officers constituted an assault upon all

Plaintiffs and battery upon Plaintiffs Azana and Rojas. 68. The personal injuries and losses complained of were the direct and

proximate result of said assault and battery. COUNT VII: ROJAS and AZANA v. DEFENDANT OFFICERS: RECKLESSNESS AND MALICIOUSNESS 69. Paragraphs 1 through 68, inclusive of the foregoing are hereby

incorporated as if recited in full herein. 70. The conduct of the Defendant Officers was not ordinary and customary for

the arrest and detention of a criminal suspect and was an extreme departure from the standard of care. 71. The Defendant Officers were reckless and malicious in one or more of the

following ways: A. In that they maliciously pushed Plaintiff Rojas onto a couch and

used three Officers to secure her arrest when the Plaintiff is a small individual and was 11

Case 3:10-cv-02011-WWE Document 1

Filed 12/21/10 Page 12 of 20

not resisting arrest, thus jeopardizing her health and safety and otherwise creating an unreasonable risk of harm; B. In that they maliciously shoved and pushed Plaintiff Rojas down the

stairs while she was handcuffed and could not retain her balance, thus jeopardizing her health and safety and otherwise creating an unreasonable risk of harm. C. In that they pulled Plaintiff Rojas from the police vehicle without

warning and with such force as to cause her to fall to the ground while she was still handcuffed and could not break her fall. D. In that they maliciously used an unreasonable amount of force in

deploying a Taser, or other electrical shock device, to Plaintiff Azana when it was not necessary and which jeopardized his health and safety and otherwise created an unreasonable risk of harm. E. In that they each used excessive and unreasonable force against

Plaintiffs Azana and Rojas and failed or refused to act to prevent each other defendant from using excessive and unreasonable force against Plaintiffs Azana and Rojas; 72. The conduct of the Defendant Officers was done with the intent of inflicting

bodily injury and without any useful purpose for the arrest and detention of a criminal suspect. 73. The personal injuries and losses complained of by Plaintiffs Azana and

Rojas were the direct and proximate result of said recklessness or maliciousness. COUNT VIII: AS TO DEFENDANT OFFICERS: NEGLIGENCE. 74. Paragraphs 1 through 73, inclusive of the foregoing are hereby

incorporated as if recited in full herein.

12

Case 3:10-cv-02011-WWE Document 1

Filed 12/21/10 Page 13 of 20

75.

The Defendant Officers failed to observe the ordinary and usual standard

of care in the apprehension and detention of a criminal suspect. 76. The Defendant Officers failed to observe the customary and ordinary use

of force proportional to the resistance of a criminal suspect. 77. ways: A. B. They arrested Plaintiffs Azana and Rojas without probable cause; They restrained and assaulted Plaintiffs Azana and Rojas without The Defendant Officers were negligent in one or more of the following

justification or provocation; C. They each used excessive and unreasonable force against

Plaintiffs Azana and Rojas and failed or refused to act to prevent each other from using excessive and unreasonable force; D. They made an unlawful entry and conducted an unlawful search of

Plaintiff Riveras home; 78. The personal injuries and losses of which Mr. Azana complains were the

direct and proximate result of said negligence. COUNT IX: AS TO DEFENDANT OFFICERS: EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 79. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF

Paragraphs 1 through 78, inclusive of the foregoing are hereby

incorporated as if recited in full herein. 80. The Defendant Officers each knew or should have known that their acts

and omissions as alleged herein involved an unreasonable risk of causing emotional distress to the Plaintiffs. 81. ways: 13 The Plaintiffs distress was foreseeable in one or more of the following

Case 3:10-cv-02011-WWE Document 1

Filed 12/21/10 Page 14 of 20

A.

The Defendant Officers knew, or reasonably should have known,

that Plaintiffs A.V. and H.V., as minor children, would suffer emotional distress from the sudden and forcible search of their home by six to seven police officers; B. The Defendant Officers knew that Plaintiff Rojass hands and arms

were restrained by handcuffs when they pushed her down the stairs and when they forcibly removed her from the police vehicle; C. The Defendant Officers knew, or reasonably should have known,

that the unexpected and unannounced use of a Taser or other electric shock device will cause emotional and psychological distress; D. The Defendant Officers knew that they were arresting Plaintiffs

Azana and Rojas in front of a large group of persons such that Plaintiffs Azana and Rojas would thereafter be subject to the stigma or reputation of a criminal; E. The Defendant Officers knew, or reasonably should have known,

that the Plaintiffs were not engaged in any criminal conduct; F. The Defendant Officers knew, or reasonably should have known,

that the Plaintiffs did not speak the English language and did not comprehend the circumstances; G. The Defendant Officers knew, or reasonably should have known

that the use of racial slurs would cause emotional and psychological distress; H. The Defendant Officers knew, or reasonably should have known,

that the Plaintiffs were at a family gathering and that the entrance of a large group of police officers into a family home late in the evening would be unexpected and unnerving.

14

Case 3:10-cv-02011-WWE Document 1

Filed 12/21/10 Page 15 of 20

82.

The Defendants conduct was severe enough such that it was apparent

that it could lead to illness or bodily harm. 83. As a direct and proximate result of said acts or omissions, the Plaintiffs

suffered and will continue to suffer emotional distress. COUNT X: AS TO DEFENDANT OFFICERS: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS Paragraphs 1 through 83, inclusive of the foregoing are hereby

84.

incorporated as if recited in full herein. 85. The Defendant Officers intended to inflict severe emotional distress to the

Plaintiffs and each acted with an intentional disregard of known facts such that their acts would result in severe emotional distress to the Plaintiffs, including: A. The Defendant Officers knew, or reasonably should have known,

that Plaintiffs A.V. and H.V., as minor children, would suffer emotional distress from the sudden and forcible search of their home by six to seven police officers; B. The Defendant Officers knew that Plaintiff Rojass hands and arms

were restrained by handcuffs when they pushed her down the stairs and when they forcibly removed her from the police vehicle; C. The Defendant Officers knew, or reasonably should have known,

that the unexpected and unannounced use of a Taser or other electric shock device will cause emotional and psychological distress; D. The Defendant Officers knew that they were arresting Plaintiffs

Azana and Rojas in front of a large group of persons that they would thereafter be subject to the stigma or reputation of a criminal; E. The Defendant Officers knew, or reasonably should have known,

that the Plaintiffs were not engaged in any criminal conduct; 15

Case 3:10-cv-02011-WWE Document 1

Filed 12/21/10 Page 16 of 20

F.

The Defendant Officers knew, or reasonably should have known,

that the Plaintiffs did not speak the English language and did not comprehend the circumstances; G. The Defendant Officers knew, or reasonably should have known

that the use of racial slurs would cause emotional and psychological distress; H. The Defendant Officers knew, or reasonably should have known,

that the Plaintiffs were at a family gathering and that the entrance of a large group of police officers into a family home late in the evening would be unexpected and unnerving. 86. The actions of the Defendant Officers were extreme and outrageous in

light of the facts herein previously alleged. 87. As a direct and proximate result of said acts or omissions, the Plaintiffs

suffered emotional distress. COUNT XI: AS TO THE CITY OF WEST HAVEN CHIEF OF POLICE JOHN KARAJANIS 88. Paragraphs 1 through 87, inclusive of the foregoing are hereby

incorporated as if recited in full herein. 89. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant Officers were under the

command, control, and direction of the City of West Haven Police Department and its Chief, John Karajanis. 90. Chief Karajanis failed to secure to the Plaintiffs and unlawfully deprived, or

caused to be unlawfully deprived, the Plaintiffs of their rights secured to them by the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988 in one or more of the following ways:

16

Case 3:10-cv-02011-WWE Document 1

Filed 12/21/10 Page 17 of 20

A.

He failed or refused to promulgate and enforce appropriate

guidelines, regulations, policies, practices, procedures or customs regarding the arrests of person by the Defendant Officers; B. He failed or refused to promulgate and enforce appropriate

guidelines, regulations, policies, practices, procedures or customs regarding the use of force against persons by the Defendant Officers; C. He failed or refused to promulgate and enforce guidelines,

regulations, policies, practices, procedures or customs regarding the training of the Defendant Officers in the performance of their duties and conduct toward non-English speaking persons; D. He failed or refused to recognize the dangerous and violent

propensities of the Defendant Officers and to take corrective disciplinary or educational actions regarding such dangerous and violent propensities; E. He failed or refused to recognize the emotional fatigue and stress

of the Defendant Officers and to adequately address such fatigue and stress when he knew or should have known such a condition was likely to lead to the excessive use of force against individuals. 91. The personal injuries and losses complained of by Plaintiffs were the

direct and proximate result of such failure by the Chief Karajanis. COUNT XII: AS TO THE CITY OF WEST HAVEN AS FOR NEGLIGENCE OF ITS AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO CONN. GEN. STAT. 52557n 92. Paragraphs 1 through 91 inclusive of the foregoing are hereby

incorporated as if recited in full herein.

17

Case 3:10-cv-02011-WWE Document 1

Filed 12/21/10 Page 18 of 20

93.

At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant Officers were acting as agents

and employees of the City of West Haven in the performance of ministerial acts and duties. 94. The Defendant Officers were negligent in the performance of their

ministerial acts and duties in one or more of the following ways: A. B. They arrested Plaintiffs Azana and Rojas without probable cause; They restrained and assaulted Plaintiffs Azana and Rojas without

justification or provocation; C. They each used excessive and unreasonable force against

Plaintiffs Azana and Rojas and failed or refused to act to prevent each other from using excessive and unreasonable force against Plaintiffs Azana and Rojas; D. They made an unlawful entry and conducted an unlawful search of

Plaintiff Riveras home; 95. At all times relevant hereto Chief of Police Karajanis was acting as an

agent and employee of the City of West Haven in the performance of ministerial acts and duties. 96. Chief Karajanis was negligent in the performance of his ministerial acts or

duties in any one or more of the following ways: A. He failed or refused to promulgate and enforce appropriate

guidelines, regulations, policies, practices, procedures or customs regarding the arrests of person by the Defendant Officers; B. He failed or refused to promulgate and enforce appropriate

guidelines, regulations, policies, practices, procedures or customs regarding the use of force against persons by the Defendant Officers; 18

Case 3:10-cv-02011-WWE Document 1

Filed 12/21/10 Page 19 of 20

C.

He failed or refused to promulgate and enforce guidelines,

regulations, policies, practices, procedures or customs regarding the training of the Defendant Officers in the performance of their duties and conduct toward non-English speaking persons; D. He failed or refused to recognize the dangerous and violent

propensities of the Defendant Officers and to take corrective disciplinary or educational actions regarding such dangerous and violent propensities; E. He failed or refused to recognize the emotional fatigue and stress

of the Defendant Officers and to adequately address such fatigue and stress when he knew or should have known such a condition was likely to lead to the excessive use of force against individuals. 97. The personal injuries and losses of which Plaintiffs complain were the

direct and proximate result of said negligence. 98. The City of West Haven is liable for the actions and conduct pursuant to

Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-557n.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs claim: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Monetary damages of not less than Two Million Dollars; Punitive damages; Attorney fees and costs provided by 42 U.S.C. 1988; Prejudgment interest; Such other relief in law or equity as the Court may deem appropriate.

19

Case 3:10-cv-02011-WWE Document 1

Filed 12/21/10 Page 20 of 20

Dated at New Haven, Connecticut on this 17th Day of December 2010. HELEN ROJAS, IRMA RIVERA, A.V. and H.V. by their next of friend IRMA RIVERA, and ALEJANDRO AZANA.

/s/ct21053 By: Glenn L. Formica, Ct21053 Elyssa N. Williams, Ct28292 Formica, P.C. 900 Chapel Street, Suite 1200 New Haven, Connecticut 06510 Telephone: (203) 789-8456 Facsimile: (203) 787-6766 E-Mail: courts@formicalaw.com

JURY DEMAND The plaintiffs, HELEN ROJAS, IRMA RIVERA, A.V. and H.V. by their next of friend IRMA RIVERA, and ALEJANDRO AZANA, hereby demand a jury trial on all Counts of this Complaint.

20