Cops Lawsuit

J
Case 2:15-cv-01974-JP Document 1 Filed 04/15/15 Page 1 of 21

JS44 (Rev.12112)
15 -c.11-{ q1y
CIVIL COVER SHEET
io contained herein.neither replace nor supplement the fil.ing and service of pleadings or .other papers asfquired,b,law,... except as
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the infor
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Jud1c1al Conference of the Umted States m September 1974, 1s requlijdif the use oft
/6!Jo6f
the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
cl,
Q
:.,.
IJ
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
Philadelphia, Officer William Redanauer, and John Doe Officers
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
(JN US. PLAINTIFF CASFJ
(EXCEPT IN US. PLAINTIF CASES)

NOTE:
( c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Attorneys (If Known)
Philadelphia Law Dept
Brian F. Humble; 1500 JFK Blvd. Suite 1313

Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 501 6356
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "X" in One Box for Plaintiff
II. BASIS OF JURIS IC'(ION (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

0 I
0 2
(For Diversity Cases Only)

PTF
Citizen of This State
0 I
Federal Question
(US. Government Not a Party)
U.S. Government
Plaintiff
0 4
U.S. Government
Defendant
Citizen of Another State
Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship ofParties in Item fl!)
DEF
and One Box for Defendant)

PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
0 4
0 4
of Business In TI1is State
0 2
Incorporated and Principal Place

of Business In Another State
0 5
0 3
Foreign Nation
0 6
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

SFRFEIJ:lJllE/PJl:NA'ETY . ti4"?BANKROETG;'V:i'ffi[;t.; Af:'\:.>OTER1ST.A"WUT!ES'..%t: ."I
'-li1Jk'.'0.. -"41\CNU::RA;r,;,;;;;.1ilt?.
0
0
0
0
0
110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
I50 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement ofJudgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
ofVeteran's Benefits
160 Stockholders' Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise
r,
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
I'f>:t01 :REA"Ll'ROnERT!Y'.\ %%.'
0
0
0
0
0
0
210 Land Condenmation

\
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property
"'I:\
v.
PERSONAL INJURY
0 310 Airplane
0 315 Airplane Product
Liability
0 320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
0 330 Federal Employers'
Liability
0 340 Marine
0 345 Marine Product
Liability
0 350 Motor Vehicle
0 355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
0 3 60 Other Personal
Injury
I 1'.\362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
'>
PERSONAL INJURY
0 365 Personal Injury Product Liability
0 367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
0 368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
0 370 Other Fraud
0 371 Truth in Lending
0 380 Other Personal
Property Danrnge
0 385 Property Damage
Product Liability
0 625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21USC881
690 Other
t"'
0 710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
0 720 Labor/Management
Relations
0 740 Railway Labor Act

0 7 51 F arnily and Medical
Other Civil Rights
Leave Act
Income Security Act
Habeas Corpus:
0 463 Alien Detainee

0 510 Motions to Vacate
0 '41 Voting
42 Employment
44 3 Housing/
Sentence
0 530 General
0 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 0 535 Death Penalty
422 Appeal 28 use 158
0
0
28 use 157
0
0
, , iRJC:RJlS%.fiil!t 0
Liil!tl'
0 820 Copyrights
0
0 830 Patent
0
0 840 Trademark
0
:nSOG r.:
0
0 861 HIA (1395ff)
0
0 862 Black Lung (923)
0 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
0
0 864 SSID Title XVI
0
0 865 RSI (405(g))
0
0
0 790 Other Labor Litigation

tJVTL1RIGHTS#fe':M'f),?: 'ERISONER'IIL'tlifJONS,33. 0 791 Employee Retirement
lll
375 False Claims Act

400 State Reapportiournent
41 O 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 oflnformation
Act
0 896 Arbitration
''<.fFElDE:IU:i:ETAXSUITS.ft' Z 0 899 Administrative Procedure
0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
Act/Review or Appeal of
or Defendant)
Agency Decision
0 871 IRS-ThirdParty
0 950 Constitutionality of
26 use 7609
State Statutes
0 423 Withdrawal
Accommodations
.-t".'"f"::fll\IM.(GFX'l11P!Si1\;&::;;
Employment
Other:
0 446 Amer. w/Disabilities 0 540 Mandamus & Other
Other
0 550 Civil Rights
0 448 Education
0 555 Prison Condition
0 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement
0 462 Naturalization Application

0 465 Other Immigration
Actions
)RIG IN (Place an "X" in One Box Only)
)!( 1 Original
Proceeding
02 Removed from
State Court
Remanded from
Appellate Court
0 4 Reinstated or
Reopened
0 5 Transferred from
Another District
(specify)
0 6 Multidistrict
Litigation
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
42 USC 1983 et seq., and Pendant Jurisdiction under 28 USC 1367
Brief description of cause:
Excessive Force, Unlawful Search and Seizure, retaliation against the First Amemendment
0
VII. REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

UNDER RULE 23, F.RCv.P.
DEMAND$
150,000,00...I-
JURY DEMAND:
DOCKET NUMBER
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

AMOUNT
Y,
'-'
(See instructions):
DATE
RECEIPT#
r::_
CHECK YES only if
APPL YING IFP
JUDGE
MAG.JUDGE
in complaint:
0 No
JP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRJ:CT OF PENNSYLVANIA assignment to appropriate calendar.
DESIGNATION FORM to be used by counsel to indicate the
o2_6_6_
__e_---_.__
__
__
-!IJ ttll
__
(Use Reverse Side For Additional Space)
Does this civil action involve a nongovernmental corporate party with any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 1
(Attach two copies of the Disclosure Statement Form in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 7. l(a))
't1 /ll
__
_S_/,.
Place of Accident, Incident or Transaction:_..?
__O_b_.$
__--'-t//_/-'-(!_fe
__r_1,4
__S_-/-_-___,_/'
__t_1_/._...,.___
Address
case for th,!iPUJQose of
__
Address ofPlaintiff: _ _
""V
of its stock?
YesD
Yeso
Does this case involve multidistrict litigation possibilities?
RELATED CASE, IF ANY:

Case Number:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date T e r m i n a t e d : - - - - - - - = - - - - - - - - - - - -
Civil cases are deemed related when yes is answered to any of the following questions:
1. Is this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court?
YesD
N;ii(
2. Does this case involve the same issue of fact or grow out of the same transaction as a prior suit pending or within one year previously terminated
action in this court?
YesD
3. Does this case involve the validity or infringement of a patent already in suit or any earlier numbered case pending or within one year previously
YesD
terminated action in this court?
4. Is this case a second or successive habeas corpus, social security appeal, or pro se civil rights case filed by the same individual?
YesD
CIVIL: (Place
t/ in ONE CATEGORY ONLY)
A Federal Question Cases:
B. Diversity Jurisdiction Cases:
I. o Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts
1. 0 Insurance Contract and Other Contr
2. o FELA
2.
Airplane Personal Injury
3. o Jones Act-Personal Injury
3.
Assault, Defamation
4. o Antitrust
4.
5.
abor-Management Relations
6.
ivil Rights
7.
abeas Corpus
8.
9.
I 0. o Social Security Review Cases
ts
?t(/f
All other Diversity Cases

(Please specify)
11. o All other Federal Question Cases

(Please s p e c i f y ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A.
V /'IAN
I,
$
IA &
/-' /-It< rt-( IO I L
C
//
ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION
(Check Appropriate Category)
, counsel ofrecord do hereby certify:
rsuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, Section 3(c)(2), that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the damages recoverable in this civil action case exceed the sum of
0,00 .00 exclusive of interest and costs;
fo'
DATI<o
r;f &
Attorney-at-Law
Attorney I.D.#
NOTE: A trial de novo will be a trial by jury only if there has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38.
APR 15 2015
I certify that, to my knowledge, the within case is not related to any case now pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court
::,"":(J,;;,_s-
Attorney-at-Law
CIV. 609 (5/2012)
Attorney I.D.#

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM
CIVIL ACTION
v.
19
In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel for
plaintiff shall complete a Case Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time of
filing the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See 1:03 of the plan set forth on the reverse
side of this form.) In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said
designation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on
the plaintiff and all other parties, a Case Management Track Designation Form specifying the track
to which that defendant believes the case should be assigned.
SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS:
(a) Habeas Corpus - Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. 2241 through 2255.
( )
(b) Social Security - Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Health
and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits.
( )
(c) Arbitration - Cases required to be designated for arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53 .2.
( )
(d) Asbestos - Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage from
exposure to asbestos.
( )
(e) Special Management- Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through (d) that are
commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by
the court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of special
management cases.)
(f) Standard Management- Cases that do not fall into any one of the other tracks.
F lkM,6/.e
Date
Attorney-at-law
;2. 15
Telephone
5"'.;LS- ,. I .3 <('0
FAX Number
Loe< r,:;,
Attorney for
h fee< A-<
C'a"1A.
E-Mail Address
(Civ. 660) 10/02
APR 15 2015
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LUIS GELPI
2063 E. Victoria Street
Philadelphia, PA
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION No.
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA
Clo City of Philadelphia Law Dept.
One Parkway, 15th Floor
1515 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
POLICE OFFICER
William Redanauer (Badge No. 5833)
Individually and in his official capacity
1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor
POLICE OFFICER
John Doe 2 (Badge No. unknown)
POLICE OFFICER
John Doe 3 (Badge No. unknown)
POLICE OFFICER
JOHN & JANE DOES 4-X (Badge Nos. unknown)
Defendants
1
CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT
AND NOW, here comes the Plaintiff, Luis Gelpi, by and through his Attorney, in this
Civil Action seeking damages arising out of violations of his Constitutional Rights and to his
person and property under Pennsylvania Tort Law, and in support thereof, sets forth the
following allegations and claims:
I.
JURISDICTION
1 This is a civil action seeking damages against the Defendants for acts constituting the
deprivation of the Plaintiff's rights secured under Federal Law and the United States
Constitution pursuant 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983, 1985, 1988 and under Pennsylvania Tort
Laws.
2
Federal Jurisdiction is established under 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1341, 42 U.S.C. 1983,

1985, 1988 and supplemental jurisdiction over State law claims under 28 U.S.C. 1367.
3 Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391 because all claims herein arose within the
jurisdiction of the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and
all parties reside or maintain their principle place of business is within the same
jurisdictional boundaries. '
II.
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 -3 of this complaint as fully set forth

herein
5. Plaintiff, Luis Gelpi, is an adult individual whose domicile and residence is within the
city and municipality of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
6. Defendant, City and County of Philadelphia (hereinafter "Philadelphia") is a municipality
organized by and through the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that directs, manages and
2
controls the Philadelphia Police Department ("PPD") and its customs, policies and
practices, which employs all of named individual Defendants. At all relevant times the
City of Philadelphia was the acting under the Color of State Law.
7. Defendant, Philadelphia Police Officer William Redanauer (Badge no. 5833), of East
Warrant Division, is a Philadelphia Police Officer employed by the Defendant
Philadelphia, and at all times relevant hereto, was acting under the Color of State Law.
Defendant Redanauer is being sued in his individual, supervisory, and all other official
capacities as a Philadelphia Police Officer.
8. Defendant, Philadelphia Police Officer John Doe 2 (Badge No. unknown), believed to be
of East Warrant Division, is Male Philadelphia Police Officer employed by the
Defendant Philadelphia, and at all times relevant hereto, acted under the Color of State
law. Defendant John Doe 2 is being sued in his individual, supervisory, and all other
official capacities as a Philadelphia Police Officer.
9. Defendant, Philadelphia Police Officer John Doe 3 (Badge No. unknown), believed to be
of East Warrant Division, is Male Philadelphia Police Officer employed by the
Defendant Philadelphia, and at all times relevant hereto, acted under the Color of State
law. Defendant John Doe3 is being sued in his individual, supervisory, and all other
official capacities as a Philadelphia Police Officer.
10. Defendant, Philadelphia Police Officers John & Jane Does 4-X (Badge Nos. unknown)
(Hereinafter "Does 4 -X"), believed to be of or acting in concert with East Warrant
Division, are Philadelphia Police Officers employed by the Defendant Philadelphia, and
at all times relevant hereto, acted under the Color of State law. Defendant Does 4-X are
being sued in his individual, supervisory, and all other official capacities as a
Philadelphia Police Officers.
III.
FACTS
herein.
12. The incident alleged in this complaint occurred on/or about May 8, 2013 at the home of
Luis Gelpi and his family, located at 2063 Victoria Street in Philadelphia, PA. (The
Gelpi Home).
13. At the time of the incident, Mr. Gel pi was relaxing in his home with his wife, Bonnie
Gelpi, and their three (3) minor daughters.
14. At the time of the incident, Mr. Gelpi had an injured right arm, which was in a full cast.
15. Mr. Gelpi supported his family, and was gainfully employed as a mover for "Hammer
Moving and Storage".
16. At the time of the incident, the PPD was looking for Mr. Gelpi's brother, Juan Gelpi
(Hereinafter "Juan"). It is reasonably believed that East Warrant Division was assigned to
executing an arrest warrant.
17. Philadelphia Police Officers, repeatedly harassed Mr. Gelpi and members of his family at
the Gelpi home. It is reasonable believed that the PPD was attempting to apprehend Juan,
Mr. Gelpi's brother.
18. Prior to the incident, the PPD were repeatedly advised by Mr. and Mrs. Gelpi that Juan
did not reside at the Gelpi home.
19. There was absolutely no evidence that the Gelpi family was harboring a fugitive.
20. Despite previous, unwarranted harassment, days prior to the incident, Mrs. Gelpi
cooperated and allowed members of the PPD to enter and search her and Mr. Gelpi's
home without a warrant.
21. The PPD recovered absolutely no evidence to infer that Juan ever resided at the Gelpi
home, or that further investigation and harassment of the Gelpi' s would lead to more
information and/or the location of Juan.
22. Approximately a day or two later, on May 8, 2013, the Individual Defendant Officers
came looking for Juan , again at the Gelpi home, as part of a police investigation.
23. On this occasion, Mr. Gelpi, demanded that the Police Officers named herein produce a
warrant, or go away and stop harassing his family and disrupting his life.
24. In response, one of the Defendant Officers, ordered Mr. Gelpi to "open the fucking door".
25. Mr. Gelpijustifiably demanded that the individually-named defendants produce a
warrant.
26. Rather than obtaining and/or showing a warrant, the Defendant Officers broke the front
door and forcibly entered the Gelpi home.
27. Thereafter, Defendant Redanauer and John Doe 2 forcibly grabbed Mr. Gelpi off the
family couch, and forcefully threw him to the floor in front of his wife and children.
28. Defendant Redanauer repeatedly punched Mr. Gelpi in the head, face and back and
twisted Mr. Gelpi's injured and casted arm, while John Doe 2 forcibly drove his knee into
Mr. Gelpi's back.
29. During the physical beating and restraint of Mr. Gelpi, Mrs. Gelpi was pleading with the
Defendants Redanauer and John Doe 2 to stop beating her husband
30. Mrs. Gelpi tried to explain that Mr. Gelpi was not Juan and tried to show any Defendant
Police Officer Mr. Gelpi's driver's license in order to verify his identity.
31. Defendants John Doe 3, and Does 4-X, stood by and did nothing to intervene or prevent
the unlawful entry and search of the Gelpi home, or the unlawful use of force and beating
of Mr. Gelpi's body.
32. During this time, the Individually-named defendants searched the Gelpi home.
33. The whole time Mr. Gelpi was being physical beaten and restrained; Mr. Gelpi was
demanding or asking to see a warrant.
34. Mr. Gelpi was also repeatedly warning the Defendant Officers that he intended to report
the incident to Internal Affairs.
35. At some point after Mr. Gelpi was beaten, and the illegal search of the Gelpi home, John
Doe 3 announced "oh it's not him."
36. After being released, Mr. Gelpi, once again, warned that he was going to report the
incident.
37. In response, John Doe 3 smiled and stated to Mr. Gelpi: "that's why you got your ass
beat".
38. Mr. Gelpi reported the incident under Citizen Complaint Number 27107.
39. Neither Internal Affairs nor the PPD has contacted Mr. Gelpi or his family with regard to
his prompt complaint and the underlying incident alleging police misconduct.
40. The Individual Defendant Officers acted on a custom, policy and/or practice of
unchecked and unmonitored discretion, and impunity with regard to use of police power
and tactics involving warrants, searches, seizures arrests and investigations.
41. The individual Defendant Police Officers have a history of violating the Constitutional
Rights of citizens in a specifically similar manner and pattern, specifically with regard to
the execution of warrants.
42. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant City of Philadelphia, was charged with the
responsibility and duty of testing, hiring, training, monitoring, supervising and
disciplining the individually named defendant Police Officers and all other employees of
the PPD.
IV.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT 1
DUE PROCESS UNDER THE 4TH AND 14 AMENDMENT

42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1988; as to Defendant Philadelphia
43. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 - 42 of this complaint as fully set forth
herein.
44. By a history of complaints and Internal Affairs files regarding the Defendant Police
Officers, Defendant Philadelphia knew or should have known that the Individual
Defendant Police Officers were routinely and systematically violating the Constitutional
Rights of Philadelphia Citizens, by use of warrantless searches, searches and seizures
without probable cause and/or reasonable suspicion, searches without any justifiable
exigent circumstance, and use of unlawful and excessive force.
45. Defendant Philadelphia failed to properly monitor Internal Affairs with deliberate
indifference, and knew or should have known that the Internal Affairs routinely and
systematically facilitates the violation of Constitutional Rights and police misconduct by
failing to properly investigate allegations similar to as alleged herein, and the Defendant
Police Officers.
46. Defendants Philadelphia continued to tacitly approve, permit, and/or treat with deliberate
indifference custom, policy and practice of the herein alleged illegal conduct of Police
Officers.
47. Defendant Philadelphia continues to fail with deliberate indifference to its obligation to
supervise, monitor and/or implement a policy of meaningful discipline and/or
investigation regarding Constitutional violations, and unlawful conduct by Police
Officers.
48. Insufficient independent and objective oversight, auditing monitoring, training
supervising , disciplining and training by the Defendants Philadelphia and Ramsey in
what constitutes a sufficient basis for a warrantless entry and search, a lawful search and
seizure, exigent circumstances, and a lawful use of force proximately caused and
facilitated the abuse of police power, and thus was the proximate cause of the hereinalleged violations Mr. Gelpi's Constitutional Rights protected under the 4th and 14th
Amendments.
49. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned, and /or deliberate indifference
thereto, Mr. Gelpi was deprived of his rights to be secure in his, house, person, property,
effects, bodily integrity, privacy, to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures,
unlawful detention, warrantless searches except on probable cause all protected under
Due Process of Law by the 4th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution
through 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983, 1985, 1988.
50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Philadelphia's conduct, Mr. Gelpi was
deprived of his Constitutional rights and sustained pain, injury, emotional distress,
financial loss, all to the Mr. Gelpi's detriment, some of which may be permanent.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against the Defendants for compensatory

'damages in an amount in excess of $150,000.00, and punitive damages in an amount in excess
of $150,000.00, plus interest, costs, attorney's fees, and any such other relief as this Honorable
Court may deem just.
COUNT2
RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT
42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983, 1985, 1988; as to Philadelphia
herein.
52. The ability of citizens to freely protest the violation of their Constitutional Rights and
freely seek redress without fear of retaliation is a serious matter and of substantial public
concern.
53. Defendant Philadelphia knew or should have known that the Individual Defendant Police
Officers were routinely and systematically violating the Constitutional Rights of
individuals by retaliating against citizens for voicing their Constitutional Rights,
expressing their opinion, and complaining to the public and Internal Affairs about police
misconduct.
54. The Defendant Philadelphia is deliberately indifferent to a custom of warrantless
searches, excessive force, and continued harassment of citizens in execution of body
warrants.
55. Defendant Philadelphia knew or should have known that Internal Affairs routinely and
systematically violates the Constitutional Rights of individuals by deliberately failing to
investigate allegations of retaliation against citizens who voice their Constitutional
Rights.
56. Defendant Philadelphia continues to tacitly approve, permit, and/or treat with deliberate
indifference the herein alleged illegal conduct of the Individual Defendant Police
Officers.
57. As a direct and proximate result of all the aforementioned conduct, custom, policy and/or
practice, Mr. Gelpi was deprived of his Right to Freedom Speech protected by the First
Amendment through 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983, 1985, 1988
58. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Philadelphia's conduct, Mr. Gelpi was
deprived of his Constitutional rights and sustained pain, injury, emotional distress,
financial loss, all to the Mr. Gelpi's detriment, some of which may be permanent.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against the Defendant for compensatory

damages in an amount in excess of $150,000.00, and punitive damages in an amount in excess of
$150,000.00, plus interest, costs, attorney's fees, and such other relief as this Honorable Court
may deem just
10
COUNT 3.
DUE PROCESS
42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983, 1985, 1988; Defendants Redanaur, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, and
Does 4-X
herein.
60. Defendants Redanauer, John Does 2, 3 and Does 4-X violated Mr. Gelpi's 4th and 14th
Amendment Rights to be secure in his home, and to be free of unreasonable Search and
Seizure without a valid warrant and without probable cause, by forcibly entering and
searching the Gelpi home as described herein.
61. Defendants Redanauer and John Doe 2 violated Mr. Gelpi's 4th and 14th Amendment
Right to Liberty, to be secure in his house, property, person, effects, bodily integrity, and
to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, by deliberately entering Mr. Gelpi's
home without a valid warrant and/or probable cause, or exigent circumstances, and
thereafter physical restraining, and applying unjustified and excessive physical force to
Mr. Gelpi's body.
62. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Mr. Gelpi was deprived of his
Constitutional rights and sustained pain, injury, emotional distress, financial loss, all to
the Mr. Gelpi' s detriment, some of which may be permanent.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests judgment against the defendant for compensatory

damages in an amount in excess of $150,000.00, and punitive damages in an amount in
excess of $150,000.00, plus interest, costs, attorney's fees, and such other relief as this
Honorable Court may deem just.
11
COUNT4.
FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOM OF SPEECH
42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1988; Defendants Redanauer, John Doe 2, John Doe 3
herein.
64. Defendants Redanauer and John Doe 2 deliberately retaliated, assaulted, battered, and
restrained Mr. Gelpi in retaliation to Mr. Gelpi verbally invoking his Constitutional
Rights, complaing that the Defendant Police Officers violated his Constitutional Rights
and that he intended to report the incident to Internal Affairs.
65. Defendant John Doe 3 stated that Mr. Gelpi's beating was a consequence of protesting
the unlawful entry and search of his home and expressing his intent to report the incident.
the Mr. Gelpi's detriment, some of which may be permanent.

12
COUNT 5.
ASSAULT AND BATTERY
Pendant State Law Claim as to Redanauer and 2
herein.
68. Defendants Redanauer and John Doe 2 committed battery in violation of the laws of
Pennsylvania by using unjustified and excessive force in the form of forcibly shoving,
restraining, and punching Mr. Gel pi, all of which conduct constitutes malicious, willful,
intentional, harmful and offensive contact that caused severe physical and mental injury.
69. Defendants Redanauer and John Doe 2 committed assault through the herein-described
acts in this complaint which caused the Mr. Gelpi apprehension of malicious, intentional,
willful and harmful offensive contact.
the Mr. Gel pi' s detriment, some of which may be permanent.
damages in an amount in excess of $150,000.00, and punitive damages in an amount in excess
of $150,000.00, plus interest, costs, attorney's fees, and such other relief as this Honorable
Court may deem just.
13
COUNT6.
FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT
Pendant State Law Claim as to Redanauer and John Doe 2
herein.
72. By the acts and conduct incorporated herein, defendants Redanauer and John Doe 2
committed false arrest and/or false imprisonment in violation of the laws of Pennsylvania
by maliciously, and willfully detaining and restraining the plaintiffs body from
movement in all directions without the plaintiffs consent or under authority of law.
the Mr. Gelpi' s detriment, some of which may be permanent.
14
COUNT7.
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Pendant State Law Claim as to Redanauer, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, and Does 4-X
herein.
75. The acts and conduct all individually named Defendapt Police Officers, individually and
in furtherance, concert and conspiracy, incorporated herein constitutes extreme and
outrageous conduct that is beyond the bounds of conduct tolerated by civilized society
such that they violate basic concepts of human decency and shock the conscience of
society.
the Mr. Gelpi's detriment, some of which may be permanent.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against the defendant for compensatory

15
COUNTS
CIVIL CONSPIRACY
Pendant State Law Claim as to Defendants Redanauer, John Does 2, 3 and Does 4-X
herein.
78. Based on the aforementioned acts, omissions and conduct, Defendants Redanauer, John
Doe 2, John Doe 3, and Does 4-X committed Civil Conspiracy in violation of
Pennsylvania State Law.
79. The herein-alleged Civil Conspiracy is based in Civil Cause of action(s) under 42 U.S.C.
1981, 1983 et seq., and the aforementioned Counts alleging substantive violations of
Tort Law recognized by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
80. The Defendant Police Officers combined and/or agreed to intentionally commit the
aforementioned violations of the Constitution, unlawful acts and or omissions used the
aforementioned unlawful means in order to facilitate the aforementioned unlawful
purpose(s), and or with knowledge that the harm herein would be the likely result.
the Mr. Gel pi' s detriment, some of which may be permanent.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against the Defendant for compensatory
16
II.
DAMAGES RELIEF
herein.
83. As the proximate result of the acts committed by all of the defendants under the color of
state law in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983, 1985, 1988, and in violation of
Pennsylvania Tort Law the plaintiffs suffered damages, not limited to the deprivation of
his Constitutional Rights, substantial pain, humiliation, physical and psychological
injury, economic loss, and deprivation of the plaintiffs civil rights, some of which may
be permanent.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff respectfully requests judgment in favor of the plaintiff as to

all counts and award the plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages against all defendants,
attorney's fees and costs, all applicable interest, and any suck other relief that the Court
deems appropriate.
III.
JURY DEMAND
herein.
85. On all the counts, facts and claims herein asserted, the plaintiff hereby demands a trial by
JUry.
17
Respectfully Submitted,
Brian F. Humble
Brian F. Humble, Esquire
Bar ID: 88887
1500 JFK Blvd, suite 1313
(215) 501-6356
Fx: 2
525-1340
18

Cops Lawsuit

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

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

Cops Lawsuit

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

J

Case 2:15-cv-01974-JP Document 1 Filed 04/15/15 Page 1 of 21

CIVIL COVER SHEET

Philadelphia, Officer William Redanauer, and John Doe Officers

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

(JN US. PLAINTIFF CASFJ

(EXCEPT IN US. PLAINTIF CASES)

( c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

Attorneys (If Known)

Philadelphia Law Dept

Brian F. Humble; 1500 JFK Blvd. Suite 1313

II. BASIS OF JURIS IC'(ION (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

(For Diversity Cases Only)

Citizen of Another State

and One Box for Defendant)

Incorporated and Principal Place

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

I'f>:t01 :REA"Ll'ROnERT!Y'.\ %%.'

210 Land Condenmation

0 625 Drug Related Seizure

0 740 Railway Labor Act

Other Civil Rights

Income Security Act

0 463 Alien Detainee

422 Appeal 28 use 158

0 790 Other Labor Litigation

375 False Claims Act

0 462 Naturalization Application

)RIG IN (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

42 USC 1983 et seq., and Pendant Jurisdiction under 28 USC 1367

Brief description of cause:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

CHECK YES only if

APPL YING IFP

Case 2:15-cv-01974-JP Document 1 Filed 04/15/15 Page 2 of 21

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRJ:CT OF PENNSYLVANIA assignment to appropriate calendar.

DESIGNATION FORM to be used by counsel to indicate the

(Use Reverse Side For Additional Space)

case for th,!iPUJQose of

Does this case involve multidistrict litigation possibilities?

RELATED CASE, IF ANY:

terminated action in this court?

t/ in ONE CATEGORY ONLY)

A Federal Question Cases:

B. Diversity Jurisdiction Cases:

I. o Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts

1. 0 Insurance Contract and Other Contr

Airplane Personal Injury

3. o Jones Act-Personal Injury

I 0. o Social Security Review Cases

All other Diversity Cases

11. o All other Federal Question Cases

, counsel ofrecord do hereby certify:

Case 2:15-cv-01974-JP Document 1 Filed 04/15/15 Page 3 of 21

(Civ. 660) 10/02

Case 2:15-cv-01974-JP Document 1 Filed 04/15/15 Page 4 of 21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 2:15-cv-01974-JP Document 1 Filed 04/15/15 Page 5 of 21

CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT

Federal Jurisdiction is established under 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1341, 42 U.S.C. 1983,