Ross

C/O CopWatch

PO Box 27421
Tempe, Arizona
85285

 

Plaintiff, In Pro Per

In the United States District Court

In and for the District of the State of Arizona

Ross

            Plaintiff,

      vs.

Randall Carney - Defendant #1

Maricopa County, Arizona Defendant #2

Unknown Maricopa County Deputy - Defendant #3

Unknown Maricopa County Deputy - Defendant #4

Unknown Maricopa County Deputy - Defendant #5

Unknown Maricopa County Guard - Defendant #6

Unknown Maricopa County Guard - Defendant #7

Unknown Library Manager - Defendant #8

Unknown Library Employee - Defendant #9

Unknown Library Employee - Defendant #10

 

 

 

              Defendants                                        

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: CV ’09 ???? PHX ???

 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Jury Trial Demanded)

 

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Ross, and for his complaint alleges and avers as follows.

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.     This action arises the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America and Article II, §§ 4, 8, 10, 32, and 33 of the Constitution for the State of Arizona, and A.R.S. 13 § 1202.1, 2, 3 and A.R.S. 13 § 1204.2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jurisdiction over the state pendant claims is conferred upon the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1337.

2.    Venue is proper in this District Court as the Defendants are believed to reside within this district and all acts alleged occurred within this District

II. PARTIES

3.     The plaintiff is a single man and can be found in Maricopa County, Arizona.

4.     Defendant #1 is Randall Carney a man believed to be a resident of the State of Arizona and are further believed to be a Police Officer with the Maricopa County Sheriff.

5.     Defendant #2 is the government of Maricopa County, Arizona a government entity that runs the county of Maricopa in Arizona.

6.     Defendant #3 is an unknown man who is believed to be a police officer with the Maricopa County Sheriff.

7.     Defendant #4 is an unknown man who is believed to be a police officer with the Maricopa County Sheriff.

8.     Defendant #5 is an unknown man who is believed to be a police officer with the Maricopa County Sheriff. The plaintiff does not know if this person exists.

9.     Defendant #6 is an unknown man believed to be a guard of some capacity in the Maricopa County Court complex.

10. Defendant #7 is an unknown man believed to be a guard of some capacity in the Maricopa County Court complex. The plaintiff does not know if this person exists.

11. Defendant #8 is the unknown manager of the Maricopa County Law Library.

12. Defendant #9 is the unknown employee of the Maricopa County Law Library.

13. Defendant #10 is the unknown employee of the Maricopa County Law Library.

III. GENERAL STATEMENT

14.      On Friday April 18, 2008 at about 1:00 p.m., the Plaintiff was working on a lawsuit on the second floor of the Maricopa County Law Library which is on Jefferson and First Avenue in Phoenix in the Maricopa County Government complex. The law library and it’s computers are open to the public, including homeless people and people who sue police officers. The law library is also open to county employees who often use the computers to play games or view e-mail on their breaks.

15.      The Plaintiff was working on a computer and he noticed thru the corner of his eye four to six police officers and guards approaching him wearing green or blue surgical or medical gloves. They were Randall Carney, Defendant #1, and up to three other Maricopa County Sheriff’s officers who are defendants #3 thru #5, and one or two guards who didn’t not appear to be Sheriff’s deputies but appeared to work as guards for the security at the Maricopa County Court House, they are defendants #6 and possibly #7.

16.      Although the Plaintiff did not look terrorized the Plaintiff was terrorized when he saw these police officers approach him wearing medical gloves. The Plaintiff thought that they were going to beat him up or kill him for lawsuits he filed in the past against police officers.

17.  The Plaintiff doesn’t remember exactly what this group of four to six police officers said to him except that it was something like “they were going to trespass him from the Maricopa County Government complex, and he would be arrested if he ever returned”.

18.  Defendant #1, Randall Carney lied to the Plaintiff and told the Plaintiff that he was not under arrest. That was a lie because the Plaintiff was no longer free to use the law library and in fact Defendants #1, #3, #4, #6, and possibility defendants #5 and #7 escorted the Plaintiff to the elevator, down to the first floor of the building and out to the street.

19.  Defendant #1 and one or two of the other Defendants escorted the Plaintiff down the elevator, while it seemed that the other Defendants guarded the stairways in case the Plaintiff decided to “escape”.

20. The Plaintiff assumed that he would be charged with trespassing if he refused to leave the building, even though the Plaintiff had every legal right to use the law library like any other citizen of Maricopa County.

21.  While in the law library Defendant #1, Randall Carney asked the Plaintiff his name, and the Plaintiff refused to give it as the Plaintiff always does when he is questioned by police officers.

22.  When the Plaintiff was out side Defendant #1, Randall Carney told the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff was being trespassed and if he ever came back into the building again he would be arrested. Defendant #1, Randall Carney did not tell the Plaintiff why the Plaintiff had been arrested and “trespassed”. Nor did Defendant #1, Randall Carney tell the Plaintiff what building or buildings the Plaintiff had been “trespassed” from. The Plaintiff assumed that he had been trespassed from all building in the Maricopa County Government Legal Complex. Defendant #1, Randall Carney did not tell the Plaintiff how long the Plaintiff had been “trespassed” from the buildings. The Plaintiff assumed it was for the rest of his life, or more realistically as long as the police officers who arrested the Plaintiff remembered his face.

23.  The Plaintiff asked Defendant #1 how he could get a police report which explained why the Plaintiff had been arrested and removed from the Law Library, and ordered never to return to the law library.

24.  Defendant #1, Randall Carney said it had something to do with hygiene, but didn’t give any details.

25.  Defendant #1, Randall Carney then told the Plaintiff that unless he gave up his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and tell Defendant #1 his name and address he would never be told the reason he was arrested and removed from the building.

26.  In the Plaintiff’s notes the Plaintiff wrote that from the way Defendant #1 said that the Plaintiff had to have an “address” before he would be told why he was arrested, that it seemed like the Plaintiff was arrested and removed from the building because the Plaintiff appeared to be a “homeless person”.

 

IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Rights

27. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 26 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.

28. As is more fully described the Plaintiff was detained, arrested and restrained of his liberty and removed from the law library without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and without due process of law, and the plaintiff was prevented from using the Maricopa County Law Library which is open to the public, all in violation of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America.

V. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

False Arrest

29. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 26 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.

30.  As is more fully described the Plaintiff was falsely detained, arrested, and restrained of his liberty by the Defendants who knew full at the time that they did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to arrest the plaintiff for any offense.

 

WHEREFORE the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

A.    Proceed with a trial by jury upon issues so triable; and,

B.    Award the Plaintiff’s damages of no less than $1,000,000; and

C.    Award the Plaintiff’s costs and fees incurred for the prosecution of this action;

D.          Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this ?_day of April, 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ross

                                    C/O CopWatch

                                        PO Box 27421
                                        Tempe, Arizona
                                        85285

Plaintiff, In Pro Per

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 VERIFICATION

 

     

      I, Ross verify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, that I am the Plaintiff herein, that I have read the foregoing Complaint, and that the same is true and correct that, based upon my knowledge, information, and belief, it is well-grounded as fact, is warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and is not interposed for any improper purpose.

 

 

Dated April ?, 2009____________     ______________________________                                          Ross