Case Document 20 Filed.O7/31/17 Pagelof 23 UNITED STATES cow RT WESTERN DISTRECT OF NEW YORK RIGKEY L.. BRYANT, Piaintii?f, CA: VS. AMENDED COMPLAINT ANDIJURY DEMAND KENNETH J. cchiGLio, JR, RYAN T. HARTLEY, THOMAS A. RODRIGUEZ, JOSE D. RODRIGUEZ. DYLAN. D. MINNECK, CHRESTOPH ER- KALTEN EACH. JAMES C: THUERCK, ROBERT M. JOSHUA P. KELLY, 3mm, KYLE A MATTHEWD LUCERO, MICHAEL J: MURPHY, CITY OF Defendants. Plaintiff RIBKEY L. JR. (hereinafter i?Piiaintiff?), "by and through his atiomeys, Burk-witvLaw Firm, as and feat his Amended Gompiai'nt against Defendants KENNETH J. JR, RYAN T. HARTLEY, THOMAS R. RODRIGUEZ, JOSE DYLAN D. MIZNNICK, GHRISTOPHER . KALTENBACH, RICHARD CASTRICHINI, JRJ, JAMES C. THUERCK, ROBERT M. JOSHUA P. Y. COLON, KYLE A. IEESENHAUER, MATTHEWD. LUCERO, NICHOLAS, MURPHY, GEOFFREY P. ft} WIGHER, EVAN D. LANG, JOHN DOES 1-.1gosand ROCHESIER (herei'?after ?Defendants75l, alleges as follows: Wmmonucmw This is an actipn fordeclaratoryjud?gmentand monetary damages for violations of Plaintiff?s pursuant to 42- UlS-c? 1983, 1-988 and related New York State law claims. Plaintiff allggesi?at fheDefeindants, while aetlng in, their official capagities and undericolor'af State law falsely identifiedpla'int'iff as a suspect, illegally searched-and sell-zed and .usedae?xcessive;fbree agai?'st person in viml?ticm of the 'Forur?h and "FourteenthAm'e?njdme?nfs lathe United States Constitution landfor failed tG? intervene to prevent Violation of ?Pi?lnfci?'s constitutional rights. WURISDIGWN 2. This aetioniariSes in. partunder 42. USC Section 1983 this Claurt has original: subject matter jurisdiction under 28 SC Section 1331. For all remaining claims which do n'otpresent a federal question un_der.28.U.S.C. Section supplemental j?ufiSdi?ctiO? Section 1367. 3. The causeS-ca'f'acti'an alleged hje're?ln ariser?f?rom the, fagtua?I allegations which mourned Emma-judicial district.- All: parties ale-adamicillad within the Wesl?m of; NewYorkand therefme. this. Conrth'a's personal jurisdiction ever the Defendants. VENUE 4. Venue is proper-in the United States DistrictCQurt-far the-Western 2 Case Document 20 Filed 07/31/17 Pag? 3 of 23 District of New Yorkgpursua'rti t0 28 USC. Section 1391 because the events or omissions.givirt_9iise to the claim occurred within. this atall timejslelevant herein, all parties rasidedwithin this District 5. At all times relevant Plaintiff?was andstill. is a the City at Rechester, County of and. State. of :New?YOrk. 6. Defendant 'Kenneth J, C?onfiglic, Jr. (hereinafter ?Defendant Con?iglio?) is and at all times Wat?s-la citizen ofiltiew York $1316 {residing Million-ice Empty and Was? employed as a police ?officer-With the City" Police Department. 71. Pit-all times {elevant-to'this Complaint?? Defendant-Conigiiowas acting under De?andant City- 'of Rech?ester. 8, Defendant Ryan T. Hartley (hereinafter ?Defendant and at all times relevant herein was :a citizen at New York State residing in, Monroe Ceunfy and Wait. employed vas a police officerwith?the City of Rochester Police Department. At all. times relevant to thichimpla-i?nt, ?Defendant Hartley was-acting under color oijlaw and is sued irle?his. indiVidtilal- arid?cffictal s-apaci?tlyesas pQIice officer for the Defendant City of Rochestert - 10. Defendant Thomas R?odrigugzis and: atal-irtimejs relevant herain was a citizen of New York State residing in Marilee {County as a-pc?lice officer With. the City. of Rotihes't'er Pclice Daprarimem. ?At all Defendant Thcmas Rt. Rodriguez-Was acting under color of law and is sued- in his individualjancl official. capacities as a police officer for the Defendant'City of. Rochester; ?J?oae 2E). Rodriguez is and at. all: times relevant herein'was a citizen In Case Document 20 Filed 07/31/17 Page-46f 23 of New York State residing in Monroe rGounty-anjciwasemployed .as a policeo?lcer with the Cityof QR-oahjester Felice Department. 13.7:Altgall: times relevah'tio Defendant Jase Di Rodriguez was acting under .offlaw-anid;issued in his. indiv?idu?ai and official capacities as a; po?l?ibe? of?cer Defendant City Of R'ocheater. 14; Defendant Dylan D. Minnick (hares-ma?a; ?Defendant is; and at. all times relevant herein-was. a citizen inf. Slateresiding in Mannie; Gounty and was employed .as-apolice officer Wifh the City of?oahesler Police Diep'argimen?s; 515.1%? all times. relevant to this Complaint, Was acting under caloroflaw-and is sueai in his individual and Ab?iciai capaeiti'es as a police: Q?iCEr?f-Or the Dafenda'rit Qity elf Regalia-star; . (hereinafter ?DefendantV?Kaitenb?ach'?) is andvat? harem citizen df: New Yicifk- Slate residing in Man?roe County andI'Was employed-as- aipei?ceof?oe'r with'the City of Rochester Depa?ment. tothis Gomplraint, ?Qefendant K?aitenbach-was acting under color of law1and..is sued in his individual and a?icial capaCi?iie-s?as a: pUii?ec??ce-r for the? Defendant City GT '18. DefEndant Richaicf 'G;astrichini.- Jr. (hen?i?nafter ?Defendant Castrichini") isr'anci at aligtimes relevant he?ei?n wasla Citizen?of New York, State res?iding'in Munroe CQanty and was empioyedyas a palms-officer with the City 0.1" Rochester-"Police- Department. 179.1%: all times relevant to this: Campiaint; Defe?dant Castriohi'niWas undercal?r Of .iawand is sued in his- individuai and Q?icial capacitiesas a police: afficeir for thea:Defenciant"Cily 01f nghester; 250. Defendant James-C}. Thue?rsk' (herema?er ?D?efendani Thuerck?) is anda't. all times: relevant harem Was a slime-n; of, NEW York State residing-,in Monroe County-and was employed as a police officer with the Criiyxof'Rnehesie-r Police Department. Case Document 20 Filed 07/31/17 Page 5 of 23 21.Atsall-atimeerelevant-ta this Cempleint. Defendant Thuerck-was acting under ester .of- law and is sued: in. his individ uelxend e?i?cial eepaeities?as apolice-e?ieer for the Defendant City of. Rochester. 22?. Defendant Rebe? M. DiNiiqua (hereinafter "Defendant.- Billie-ole") is and tat-ail times releya'nt' hereinwes eeitizen of New'Yotk State residing in Monroe-County and Was employedast'a' pelice; Officer with the City- 'eftRechie?etet Police Departi?nent. 23. At all times ireievenfte this? Complaint; Deiendam DiN?ic?oia-Wag under color of law (and is sided?ih his indiVidUai: and Q?iCi'al capacities as a police offieer fer the Defend ?ent- Eity eff Rodhester. 24;:DeTErtdiant Joshua .13.. Kelly (hereinafter ?Defend-ant Kelly"). leand emit-time's relevant" herein. was a citizen of New York: State .r'e'eitiihg in Mienree County bated-was 2?5..At all times relevant to this. Complairit?, Defendant Ke?y? Wes acting under eo?ier of law and is sued in his individual and. official, capacitiesas a beiice officer fo?r?the Defendant City ofRoeh?ester. 26. Defendant: tenant. Y. Gelee (hereii?ratter ?Befendant Colon?) is and at all: times relevant herein-Was a eiti?zeh of New Yeti: State residing in Monroe Emmy-end was- as .53? pplice officer'm?th the City-of RdeheSter Ponce Department 27m all: time-sf relevant to this G'omplain't, Dafend?ent Colon was acting Lieder collar of law and is Sued inner indiyiduel arid official capaeit-iee as; a police officer forthe Defendant city ofiReehesterg. A. Eisenhauet (hereinafter ?Defenda?t EisenhaUer") is arid at all times releVanthere-irt Was 'a citizen of New York State residing i'n-Menroe' County and ee-e police officer withthe City oijecheete_r.Police Department. 29. At ell?timeeiirelevant to this; Complaint, Defendant Eisenhauer was acting Under color of law and is. sued in his individ trail and effi'eiel capacities as a police officer for the Defendant Cityof Rochester. Case Document 20 Filed 07/31/17 Page 6 of 23 Baguefsndant Matthew D. Luce-rs (hereinafter "Defendant. Lucem??) is and. at all times relevant herein. was NsinOrk State. .residing in M'smroze?esuniy and was smpisyed' as :p?iice Officer With the City of Felice Department to this Campiaintl- Belf?nicia'nl Luserci W83 acting: under 3(3in- of lawsnd issued: if] histhdi?dual? and? C?iicial Capacities .38 la policsro?icerff?r the Defendant City 01" Rochester, Nishs'lss Thomas (hereinafter "Defendant Thomas") is: and-at all times re'lsiviant- herein was acitizsn. ostws?/brk. ?sts .r?s'idihg iri Messiae- County and was employs-d. as .a psiice s?icer with the. City sf R'oshestsr Police Department. 33.At;all time's relevant f0 :ihi's Complaint, Defendant- i?homss was aofi'ng under calm of law and issuediin his-indivii?iiual and s?isial capabilities-as apaii?ce officer for the Defendant; City. cf Rochester. times relevant herein was a sitizsn-Aof-N?sw Y?rk? Stats residing ii?n-EMsnme' County and was-employed as. a. pelise officer with the (Elly: bf Police Bepa?mest. '35.At-all timss relevant is this Complaint? under colorof lawsnd is sued. in: his-individual and of?cial.- capacitieszas a: police sf?csr .fojir?the Defendant-?Qity. of Rsshestisr. Bagelsndam'Gss?rey PJWiehs?r (hereinafter?Eirefen'danl Wicher") is and at all times releV'ant hereini'Wasa citizen reg-siding ifs-Monroe County. and was employed saga police efficsr with the?iiy sf?Riachestsr Police IEDepartm'snt. .37. At all times relevant to This Complaint Defendaanicher Wa-saiCting under colsmf law andxis sued in hisindivid'usl and sfficisi cap?sCiti?s as spoils-e s?iCer far the, Defendant City of Rashes-fer; 3-8. Defendant Evan D. Lang Lang") is and at an times relevant liife?rei? wan?a Citizen of'NewYork State residirig in. Monrp'e' Oeunty? and was as a pplics officer with the icky-of Rachester Police Department. Ca?e Document 20 I Filed 07/31/17 Page 7 of 23 3:9: At alltimes relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Lang was. ac?ing under solar of law and gis sued in his individualand Of?cial capaaitieslas a police ecf?cer far the Defendant 40. Defend ants: JOHN. DGES 1 4120, Doe whose names are currently. unknown t0 Maintiff. are?itizsens of New'York Stale who were employed/by: and served as police efficers far-Defendant City?of Rache?er. 41-.The Doe. Defendant's rare Who: were in the arrest an?lor use of force an Plaintiff?- andil'ar failed to, intervene- to proteth-P-laintiff's canstit?ti?nal rights. 7 42m afttimes,rel?yanfvto this complaint, The 3669 Deienid-ants were 'ra'ct?ng under color of law and are Suedin? their: individual capacities and official gapacities as pence. officer$ for-the Sefendant City of- 43..At all timeszma?tari'alto ih'e allegatli?o'ns; in this Gomplaim, 'Def?nda?tS-were acting under colt); 0f State law- as police of?cers far 'Ro?h'eSter. - 44:. Defendgant'City of Rochester?ia and atgall times relevant, herein, l-Was: and still is a muni?cipa:scorpora?angduly organized and Ema-ling under the-laws pf ?the; State of New York. with its; .pii-ncipal pleas of business in. the Gauntyjo?f Monroe; State-ref New York". 435. DefendantCity GfRoches'terii-sa pali?cal subdivision of the. State-of New Yark for?iwh'ich aft-all times relevant-tothis; Complaint. Defendants were employed by andiisetvad as police afficers. or adet' Augustl?s, 2016,, Defendant Cay of Rochester with a Verifi?d Claim detailing its culpability and ?Plaintiff?s damages; 470:1 or?abou?t?OCtOber?Z?, 2016, Defendant City-0f Rochester a Verl?edAmended ,Nrcfipeef Claim detailing its eulpabllity and Pia?nti?'scdamages. 48. Defendant City ofRoches?terih?as? failed and refused to make payment ta Plaintiff in. accordance with said Verified Notice of Claim and VerifiedAmended Notice Case Document 20 Filed 07/31/17 Page 8 of 23 of'Ciaim'.? 4?9,At .leastithii'?ty days have elapsed Since theis'ervice of the Veri?ed Natic?e bf Claim upon Defendant City of 'RoCheSter-and adjustment of payment. thereof has been-neglected or rerSed :by Defe?dant?Citjy of?Re?hester. between August 7,..20 1.0300 p';jm. and'Aug?ust 2016 at approximafeiy Plaintiff was riding his- bicycle. on Remingten Street' in the vicinity of 100* Remington Soiree-titling Gitytof Rashester, New York. 5.1.011 August"? and 8, 2016. PlaintiffWaS a seventeen year old African American male. 52.When Plaintiff Was riding his?bieyele on Remingiim ?Street-inthe vicinity of 100 Remington .Str?eet'in Rochester, New York, Plaintiff Waewearingjeanshorts and a blue Ya?keezs telni?rtwith the number 42 on the baak. 5311mm information and belief, an 0r at'aPPrOXima-tely am? PiedmyLuis DeJesus wasstaying at 32 Langham ?Si-reel, ?next'zcloor to 100 Remin?gmn Street, in the City Of-R'oehestefa New-Yam 54.3Upon information and belief, Pedro hula, Dedesus. called 911 s?em?et'ime between August-'7, 2016 at 111-30 pm? and August 8, 201:6 at, 12:15 am. and repertedi that he saw. a-greup? of 'Pueno Risen kids arguing on Remington Street-ancicarl Street and one-of -them,_ Who was; wearing-abiack shirt and blue pants. had agun. 55. OnAugius't 8. 20.16 at aperoximately Plainii'ff was: riding his bicycle northbeund on Remington Street in the vicinity of 100 Remington Street in Rochester, New York when a Rech'ester Police b?p?artment SUV and Cas? Document 20 Filed 07/31/17 Page 9 of 23 three; (333) Whichjwegregheading southbound on Remington Street-suddenly pulled me]: in {rant-of Piainti? forcing him onto. the-sidewalk Eva-When Plaintiff stopped-his bicycle 9n flag. sidewalk-in front. of: thehame: at 300. New-York, Plainti??rem'aihed Still due taf?ght arid he had rib was being: by the- police, Plaintiff Stepped hisjbicycle on the Sidewalk in 1?;th Gfthe-home-at? 100 Remingttan Street in Rochester, Newi?ark; Plaintiff?s-handsiwere a?ti'al'l times visible, he did; not attempt toxflee and he. did not page a .thiraa-tgtaathepolice afficerg th exited their vehicles. '58-;When Plaintiff stepped his Elevate: on the; Sidewalk tux-front of? a Remington Street in {'Rochester, New York", a ti?its?r-gptout of the SUV, ragidlyfapproached Claimant-and ?punchadahimr in his-left an?dgface causing maintitr ft: tall ofhis blameairs-dameillegal-trig.- 5-9,Wheni-Plalntiff the sidewalk, he was shot altimultipl'e timeswith Palm-e: D?irce?rs. 60. After Plaintiff was punah?ed in the left-eye an'dsf?tse, Knocked dawiw the ground, pepper- balled, maced and?fased., approximately {?ve (5), Six Orr-mere Dafendant RachESter Pence of?ce-is jbin?d inigicking and punching Plaintiff while ether Defendant officers Stand there; watching and. failing tosintervene-to protect Plaintiff. 51Upb? i'nttarmatinnsarid: belief Defend-ants. wereprese?nt teak anga'ctive role in uSEng force- against Plaintiff and/er {allied to int?wenaztb pmtect Plaintiff when the afcredescriibed incident occurred. Case Document 20 Filed 07/31/17 Page 10 of 23 62.The Defendantsikicked;Streak and-fer punched Plaintiff in the face and over multiple. areas of hiebody. 63:.The Defendant's. maimed 'a-hdlor pepper-sprayed Plaintiff in hisfaee and eyes andlor tased?zh'im'on the right side-of his-bodyunderfheiarm pitlrib Cageerea. '64.After Plaintiff Was assaulted by. Defendants, Plaintiff was thermal-11y searched and pickedhp off the :groundiby?efendants. hand- cuffed bank of -a RoChe's?ce'r Felice :Depaitmenwenicle; 6-5.. Pi'ainfiff Vita-shaver read {his Miranda rights-when he was apprehended by Defendants .and placed underarm-st, refused to allow Plaintiff in call his mother after he madefhisarequest 67. Following the afOred?s'c?bed incident, a Rochester police yehicle by Defendants to the: City of Rochester policelsfation parking lot atUpper Falls Boulevard and :ClintensAven-ue in .chh?ester, :New'Yefk. 68. When Plaintiff arriized at thepolii'ce station parking-lot! Plaintiff washraught personnel. 89.When Plaintiff wasjbrought over it) an. ambuianee atthe police staticn: parking lot, Plaintiff requested that he be: brought ii: the hospit?alfer merd'iGal?t?reatmeni but was" refused by Defendants. Plaintiff's eye's were, rinsed by ambulance personnel, ?a Defendant Rachael?s}; Police officer grave toid?that he was free-Iii; leave. 10' Case Document 20 Filed 07/31/17 Page 11 of 23 10th Rochester 3361169 'Depa?menf that he wasfin; uniform operating marked pelieez SUV, heatepped and exited. said vehicle, approached and apprehended: Plaintiff; 72;. Dafej?dant. Hartley :ath-tiewledged it?) the Felice was-a pepperba? :Operater who fired SHE-Peppetbell mu eds" at P'lai'ta't'itf?e?ieft thigh "and another-eemunds of Pepperbali. atielainti?isieft thigmputtocks. 73. Defendantcen'igtio acknmedeed ta the Rochester Police Department that. when-he saw the Plaintiff, he angie {parked and exited? hie vehicle and approached the Piaintiff. 74.;Defendfant rte fh?eA-Reehester Ponce.- Department that at 1:00, Remington Street-and he .kneeljed acreseihe: heck of Plat'ntiff?szcalyes. a-Cknowiedged-tethe Roehestet Felice Department that Pleii'ti?ti? weathemughw Seaweed byme Defe?deiritfoffibera was found 'n'O?t it: be in; posseseibin of; a handgumwae handcuffed; and secured. in marked?patrzei vehicle. 76'. Defend aht' iConi'gflie acknewledged to the R'eehesjte'r 'P?oii'c?er?epertment that; he directed offieers to conduct aneighborhood check.- which d?id'netireveal any witnesses to the use of force onPIaintitfaor Plaintiff"passessihg; ages; 77.; Defendant 'Con?iglie; eekn ewledigedrte the 'Reehester Police Department that-he contacted Lieutenant Graham by phone, advised him ef'the pertinent ir?acte?i that Piain??ff? was in custody and that force was use.d.. 781Defendant.Coniigiios acknem?edged to the Rochester Felice. Department that 11? Case Document 20 7 Filed 07/31/17 Page 12 of 23 after relaying. the pertinent facts "to Lieutenant itwas-r'dietermined that E-lainljiff would be releasedifmm custody, a??r recs-Wing at the staging. area. 79:. Defendant Kaltenbach acknowledged twine! Raritiester Polite Department ihat he restrained Plaintiffian; the g-reund by knealing an the legs; 80.?E?efendant -Kaltenba'eh.acknowledged ti?) the Rachaster Police Department that he pushed theffmni end of his baton onta Plaintiff?s-rig hit calf "applying pressurela it. 821. Defendant Minn'ircrk aCknowEedged its the R'oChSS?ter Po'lige that abseming no-gunin Plaintiff's hands, he ran unto-Plaintiff and tackled him to the. ground. 82. Defendant Minnick- ac'kin'qwiedgedita sthE? RdGh?aSle? Police Department thatfhe appliedone knee: strike with his Plaintiff's; laftgmid torso-and pulled. Pi-ainliff?s rl?ft arm but'from undemaath and put?it'b'ehind his back; 83, Defendant' Minnick- acknowledged. to the .Rach?ester Police-Departmem .lhelt he transitiened 'to? a two?mint landing and with grasped Plaintiff?s right wrist and pulled his hands togethen 8.4. Defendant Minnigkg anh'GWlEdggd to the Rochester Police-Department that another offiaer applied ihvandnuffs to Plaintiff ?asDefenda?nt Minnick maintained commi of. Plaintif?s wrists. 851'Defendant Minnick iamknoWledged?to the R?ch'ester Police Depa rtmentzihat he. searched Plaintiffwhile ?hiaswas antheground? handcuffed and hath?En assisted Plaintiff to his feet and asserted him to a patrol Car. Where Plaintiff Was searched again. 86. Defendant. Castriichini acknowledged tatth'e' Rochester Department ?thal 12 Case Document 20 Filed 07/31/17 Page 13 of 23 he approached Plaintiff. reached across; Plaintiffs back and grabbed a right arm .in an place *it'b'eh'ind. Plaintiff?s: batik. I Defendant :G?afstrich?niacknowledged to-?the Rochester Pollee :Depairtmenf'ithat should??arm area and a Strike to Fileiht?i?'iSiifa'Gial area. 88. Defendant (Sasatrishlni ?the Rochester Police-g Degart?ment that after he ,pulled Plaintiff?s right-arm back, handcuffs 'we'r?eapplied- by Officer. RodriQ-Uezand Plaintiff was searched and gal-laced? in. the back 89'. Follawmgiitjhe. afdredescilbw jnc?dent? and; assault on his persom Plaintiff wash-never -charged with anviGEat-lon or crime. 90. Plaintiff ltook-hoaCt?dris and seizure and useof forge. upon his persan. 91. As a result ml the. incident- a'nd'theruse of unlawful, unreasonable:ahdsexceslsive fOrce upon 3PI-aiinti?beyiDl?f?i-?ldant?r Plaintiff suffered an drbl?talifractwefto his. l?ft- eye. blamed 'viglcm .in the left aye, contuaicn, head. ihjury. heada?h?sl concusvsion. right sided r?ihp'aiin, right upper leg pain; mult-i'ple- contusionsland bruising; poatwraumatic stress disorder; tags-either withaqther and The of Plaintiff's {injuries is; unknown. as Plainfiff?rcontinuas treating fQF?hiS injuries.- an??beliefr. :D?feindants ThanfSaS-R; Rbdz?iguejlz? and James Thuerck were eq-uiippeduwith body worn cameras when the alleged lmide?to?curred and failed to properly :uil?lize?thEir; may warn Cameras ammuntings to misconductm misjudgment on the} part Of said officials. .93. Uan information and Defendant?s were never reprimanded. gig?spewed mterminated from their emplaymenf with DefendantCity of Rocha?er 13 Case Document 20 Filed 07/31/17 Page 14 0f 23 officers remain-0n full timetactive dutyipa?tml as?ity of. Rama-star Pallet; officers. .directgand .pmximate? regatta}? the. alleged cat-the Defendants. Plaintiff has; s-utfeted and continues to Suffer serious physi?caiand mental injuries. rpaiinaand suffering and: other damagwih an ammunt' th at-wist heestablisheci?at trial. ?95. Plaintiff isgntitled to" canipe?s?ation far the, Gomtitutional harmsand- State, law vidlatibns that Defendants i'nfli?ted upotz him. musesemcnu CQUNT JR RYAN HARTLEY THOMAS RODRIGUEZ JOSE l3 RODRIGUEZ DYLAN I KALTENBACH RICHARD NICHDLAS THOMAS MICHAEL MURPHY GEOFFREY WICHER EVAN LANG AND. JOHN DDES 1 10 FOR ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE 0F PLAINTIFF ?98_.The. Plaintiff repeats-and raaileges the allegations in paragraphs; Mitt-rough 95' above and incorpOrates themiby reference asif?set-forth in their entirety herein. 9'7. Defendants herein'iJIEQaI'ly searched, and seized Plaintiff?s p?tsonwithout probabie Gal-136 cir'teasortable suspicibn thata? crime has been or was being ?committed: in vi??laiidh Of'the Fan-rib Amendment and F?urtaenth Amendmentstathe-United States ans'tiitutign. 19.13.53; the; agtienssdescribedi in paragraphs 1 Q7 abusive,- Defendants herein, without =3 Cause. and while acting Under color. of?law, wrestled Plaintiff. and dammed hiim ofi'certain canstitutiQnally protected rights to be. fife-e from unreasonable searches andseizures. the right. not?to be deprived of liberty without 14 Case Document 20 Filed 07/31/17 Page 15 of 23 due probess of?law. and the right tojberfrfee? fram false arrest? all in Vi?dla?dh ?ofzti? Fourth ahd Fourteenth Amendment rightsas guaranteed bythe United-LSIates Gangstitutiem, 99. Defgndan?la herein were acting under color. erst'ate law Wham-they, Withmut probable, Cause or rieas?onabl? Suspi?ion ?that a 'G'rime 'hasrbeenaar?was exemlSed; their?authqfity as polite of?cers by falSely arresting, sea'rc?iing, a?daeizging Plain?fi wasatjall times coaperatMe- and acting in Iawml manner; 100. As a direct and proximate cause illegal search andse?izure caf Plaintiff by {he IDgfenda??cs: Plalne?iff?su?eredValid continues-5? to slelildus physical and .merjltalx-FHJUFEQS' and miller damages in be established at trial. 101'. As aedelrec'f and proximate result of?fhe onPlaihgt'iff?s: rights.i Plaln?ff hansuff?redgenEral; a?di aspedial damages ?to? be braved at trial and is entitled t0 r?EIF?ef {Amie-r42 1983;. 102. As a direct and result (if-the 'Dafendamts?iconduat, Plai'rsx't?i?ihas been compelled tO'Ietalng?the seWiQes of. cguns'elilo protect and enforcerhls rights {and thaerQFE._ Plain?ffhas incurred and continues to lmur'attomey?s fees, expert fess; and 66.513 fair which Plaintiff-Es :e?iitlEd tb'rei?mbume'mefn?tln? an amaum toheresta'blished at 1:03. - canduct was ?maliclozjs, Oppressive ?ahdlor reckless-and was 91?: 31.1th a punitive damagessag'a'ihsi each of them in an amcpunt' commensurate withiha wrangfw acts allege-d herein; 15 Case Document 20 Filed 07/31/17 Page 16 of 23 BQUNT II VIOLATION OF 42 S. SECTION 1983 BY DEFENDANTS KENNETH CONIGLII JR RYANT HARTLEY THOMAS ROIRIGUEZ JISE RODRIGUEZ IYLAN I. MINNICK C: ISTIPHER KALTENBACH RICHARD JR JAMESC THU K, GB RTM DINICOLA JGSHUAP KELLY LEILANIY COLGN KYLE NHA ER, MATTHEWI LUCERO NICHGLAS THCMAS GEOFFREY P. WICHER EVAN B. LANG AND JGHN BBES 1-10 FGR USE IF EXCESSIVE FORCE AGAINST PLAINTIFF 104. The Pia?intiff'repeats and-reai?legias the in. paragraphs-1 through- above and insomora?es them by reference as if-Vset forth in their entirety herein. 1015:- Based afareciescribed Conduct, Defendants herein used excesstve' fame under the: circumstances.against Plaintiff in vibration ref hisFQu?rith Amendment 119.11.113.93331121319 in his [36:30:er {?er unreasca'nabie-seizures- 106.. The?efendanis' condudt meter the circumsi?anaeswas tan axeessive-?use :of forceon Plaintiff which-:3 reasonable of?cer i?'their .wauz'd not have used under thegcircumstancas; 107. As a direct: and pmimate causamifhe excessive use of forceiby-Ehe imjuriesand other damageain an a-meunt?i that will be,established::atQtrial. As a direct and proximate-result ofDefe'ndeints? violations of PI?aintiff's constitutional.?rriight?s, Plaintiff has suffered. general and Speciai. damages to be. prayed at trial, and is, entitled tore?ef undeMZ Section 983. 10.9. As adireot and proximatairesult?of?the Defendants? .condUCt, Plaintiff-has been compelled to retain the se?NiiCEs of. gamma-ta! to; protect arid and: thierefore, Plaintiffhas? incurred and pan-times to. imam. attOmey?s fees, ma?a-Which Plaintiff is e?fiti?d ire reimbumement in an amount :0 be ,establiShedv-at the time 9f- trial pumuant t9 42: USC Sectian' 198.8, 16' Case Document 20 Filed 07/31/17 Page 17 of 23 1 10. TheiDete?noants? canduct was WleUl, malicious, oppressive a?ha'lor' them in an ?amount. com mans-mate With-the wrongft? herein. coon-r VIOLATION 0F 42- (3 SECTION 1983 BY THE DEFENDANTS KENNETH i994? ,1 1 1- The: Plaintiff - riZBpeats- and manages the allegations in. paragraphs ?1 through 131-0 above; and incorporates them by reference-as- if set forth in their Entirety hen?n. 1'12. During the afOredfeScribe'd incident,- When certain Qf-the Defendant?s Illegally searched and s?'izegt Plaintiff anciljor. used illegal and excessive?force against himI these-was an affirmative duty on the, part-ofth'e- other Defendants?who were present to intervene: to .ipiro'tectthe infringement other *1 113? The 'Defendant'o herein who failed to? intemone constitutional rights violatele-Z. USCZSeot-i?n?iga?. since. an infringement of Plaintiff?s constitutional rights occurred- within-their meson Be. and they land rights. 1.14. The gDafand-ants herein who-failed to intewene to prevent injury-to Plaintiff observed andi?or had reason to" know that excesysive?force-wass being used on Plaintiff, that Plaintiff had? been unjustifiably constitutional Violation had been 1? Case Document 20 Filed 07/31/17 Page 18 of 23 committed byefaw enforcementeo?idais; prevent the; harm to. Plaintiff .1126. As and p?rQX-imate 631153? 011113. illegal. sieEa?fc?h and seizure of, Plaintiff, the use excessive use of fame against: Plaintiff and-The failure ?Rf-the; Defendants herein t6 inthveEe 1.0 protectthecon?titutianal rights .01 Plaintiff'fmm infringement by the.? Ether Defendan?E law enforcement'df?ceras, Piainti'ffsuf??rec! and contiRLEes' to suffer serious: physiifml and mental injuri?s and other-damages in an amount 't-ihatrwiil- be estabilishgd fat: 11'7". Asaadfiitact and proximate of; constitu?onai rights: Pla'in?Eiff has: .suff?red generai' ands?pecial damajggs to: bR-? primed at trial and 15 entitled to reiief "under- 42 U. Sectian 1983 1181. As a direCE and primmate result of the Defendants conduct Plaintiff has beanicompelled 51c} retain the semices affeounsei to .pfdtect'and enfame his rights and therefore, Plainti? has marred. and. cantinues to. amen:- and cos-ts for which Plaintiff iszemitl?zd 210 reimbursement in an amount-195133 eatabiished RE the time 91? trialgpurs?ant? 10.242 USC 1988:. 119. The?Defendants? .actians inaction was willful, maiiciaus, appres-sive and/or reckless and-was of such, a nature that; Plaintiff Azclaims punitive :d?amages against Raf-311.01? themin an amounticommeg?surate wrongfulaCts alleged herein. COUNTEIV BATTERY RY.- DEFENDANTS KENNETH comeuo JR RYAN T. HARTLEY THOMAS RODRIGUEZ JOSE in RODRIGUEZ BYLAN n. MINNICK CHRISTOPHER KALTENBACH RICHARD JR. JAMESC THUERCK niNicoLA JQSHUAP KELLY LEELANIY comm KYLEA EISERHAUER LUCERG NICHOLAS THOMAS MICHAEL MURPHY GEOFFREY P. EVAN LANG JOHN DOES1- ~10 AND CITY OF ROCHESTER 18 Case Document 20 Filed 07/31/17 Page 19 of 23 $29. The-Plaintiff repeats and manages the allegations set?for?th in. paragraphs ?1 "through reference as if's?et: forth in- fhei'r entirety her?'ih; The aforesdescribed aetion?s? ef?Def??dams herein c?anstitu'te an imers'tiwal battery upon person. 12:2. Befandantshe?rein cammitted {abattery upon Plaintiff?s pe?rscn. by vitoil?entiy p?Unshing Plaintiff "in the causingPlaEn?ff .to-fall. from-his and shooting and striking Plaiinti?'zmulti'p'le time's With ?pap?pefrballsii by anti punching Plaintiffymultipletime-s met rhuitiple-areais of?ihis body white haulaiy?l?femel?ss-dn the: ma?a, gb-y ma?ingg-andicsrpepper spraying Plaintiff R?odhester Police. 123.. H??lgyi .Kaltenibaahi iMinn'inand Gastrichini haye gsi?gthe. fewesi?deisaribed in paragraphs to 18.386above agai?stj?laihti??s paragon. 121E. The-battery commi?ed upon. Plaintiffi?was Withaut provocation by: Plaintiff and without-his cansientt 125;; As a direCt. and proximate; resultjof-ihe battery committed rupan histhpersan by Defendants, Ptaintifif suf?erad severe and pgermanem physical and mental injwies' and damagesiin hi to be de?ermined at atria; ??216. Dafe?dant?siCi-w u?dar the dqetrinenfResponideai Supe?o?r fer of its :andlor agents, the {Jef'enda?nts herein, whowere. actor were apting?i?nthg ccurse employment aspolice officers with: Defendant City of Rochester when the waged 1-9 Case Document 20 Filed 07/31/17 Page 20 of 23 battery wascom'mittecf- upon-Plainti? person. 127; The fljefend'anfs? .actiqns- were: apipresslvai, reckless, 'WantOn and tin wilful! d?lgrega'rsd of Plaintiffls' rights claimspanfi?ve damages-against Defendants rrherein in an amount ill-q beedeffermiislede at??rigal commensurateawiih the Wrongful acts- alleged herein. ASSAULT BY DEFENDANTS KENNETH J. CGNIGLIO JR., RYAN T. HARTLEY THQMAS RODRIGUEZ JQSE D.- RDDRIGUEZ DYLAN MINNICK CHRISTOPHER KALTENBACH RICH RB CASTRICHINI JR JAMESC THUERCK RE BINIC KELLY LEILANIY GOLGN LEA EISENHAUER MATTHEWD LUCERO NICHGLAS THGMA MURPHY GEDFFREYP WICHER EVAN D. LANG JOHN DGES 1-1.6 AND CITY (3F RQCHESTER 12.8, The Plaintiff repeata and. allegations set?'fmriteh Sin paragraphs 1, through 12-7 and incorpelrates them by? referenee?as if set-farm in? thai'r entirety herein. ?1529:, The-raf?itedescribed aCtlons cf Defgndantg herein sagastii'll?te an ln?tentlanal assault u-pc'n Plaintiff?s person; 130'. Defendants ;.piaced {Plaintiff in fear- of' Imminent. harmful offensive contact when Defendanm rapidly :apprqa?hedPlaintiff, viOlgently?punChed Plaintiff-in the [aft and face causing to Plaintiff to fall bicyclevandiento the ground, by shooting and striking Plaintiff times with "pepper- balls?, by kicking, kneelng, striking multiple-time's aver multiple areas Of his body while he lay defenseless on the grounm by mar/cling: andicr pepper Spraying Piaintiff in his face 20 Case Document 20 Filed 07/31/17" Page 21 of 23 and eyes, by {aging Plaintiff an the fight side of his beefygunder the arm pfitffr'ibzcagearea, :byvhaiadcxuffing :Piaixntifftigh?y-and 1:1th the back of a RDQheistet Department-vehicle. 1-31.. Defendants Sunligliot Minnickand ?Casfrichiniihave acknowledged it) the? Rochester .Po'i'i'ce Department in paragraphs 71 120,88 ab?ov?azagainst ?PJa'intifF's' paraf?n and'which planed .Pl?ain?? in fear of imminent, harm} or ofoh-dezeontact byesaid .Defendams. 1132'. The Defendants harem ma?a-an by. violence or threatening-geglturez,iris-do injury to or qomm?it agb?atte?w upon PlaintiWS?gaeirs-cnr 13:3 The: 3336311131 COWmittedf'upon Plaih?ti??by ?etendants; her?in was "without . provaoa?tibn 'byF?EIE?rytiff. 11321. Defandant City ?Qf Rochestams liable Lind?rihe-?doctrine of Respondeaf Superior fcr?the getssand omissiio?s afizit-s agentsr incladj?g ?the Defendants herein who were. ?acxt orwerexacting in the. Course and scope 3f their employment asgpoltce Uf??casts- with DefendantQ-ity. of Rnchesier ?When flie-ra'isleged assau'ltwas- commi??d Upon Pia-M?fi?s .pe?90t}. 135. As result-10f the assaukt committed up?e?n his? gar-sum Palaimiiff: gti?ered severe: and; permanent:injurigs andgdamages in anamountito be determined; git-trial. 136: The Befandan? asthma-ware ma?liciousi W-ilful disregard of Plaintiff?s righ?t?siifth'at P'lai?tiff ckaii'ms punitived'amages against Defen?daat??in 2-1 I Case Document 20 Filed 07/31/17 Page 22 of 23 an amount to trial commensurate. With the wrongful "acts anaged heretn. Plaintiff Rieltey'L. Bryant! Jr. Defendant's, jointly and severally. as foltdwa Compensatary damages the farm" 01? general and special damages Sagaihst at} Defendants jointly and severally In an ameunt that has yet. to be fascertamed and according to the to be determined at trial 2. Punitive damages against all Ihdzvadual Defendants in? an amount to be determined at trial; rights to b? free untawful arrest search seizure and excesswe force under the Fnurth and Fouxteenth Amendments were wolated by. the Defendant of?cers Rackey constitutions-.1 rights by failing to Intervene to protect constitutional rights Reasonahlga casts. 6. Anxawa?rd of. ?reasonable attorney's faas?hursuant ta-dl?z U310. Section 1988; and 7. Such ether and further relief a.$.this.00urt may deemjuatahd' proper. DEMANDFORJURYTRIAL is. hereby demanded. .22 Case Document 20 Filed 07/31/17? Page ?23 of 23 Dafed-z?uly? 31., 201.7 Res-parat?qlly submitted, PLLC. slG-harles BurkiWit Esq Charles Esq Attorneys for Plaintiff Rickey L. Bryant Jr. 16 East Mam-Street Suate 45D - I lew;York14614 (585) 54641588 iburkwatesg@ag1 com. .23.