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
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 |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
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