4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT The chaos that ensured involved the presence of 46 police officers, unrestrained, gratuitous violence by numerous police officers, and a failure by veteran officers to deescalate the unconstitutional actions of officers under their supervision. JOSE ALVARADO Plaintiff, 3:19 CV 103 ( ) v. MAYOR JOSEPH GANIM, POLICE CHIEF ARMANDO PEREZ, ROBERT SAPIRO, PAUL SCILLIA, AND THOMAS LATTANZIO, BY AND THROUGH THE ESTATE OF THOMAS LATTANZIO. 5. Jose Alvarado was arrested and taken into custody. 6. The plaintiff did resist arrest. 7. The plaintiff was handcuffed and while he was handcuffed Bridgeport Police Officer Thomas Lattanzio struck the plaintiff several times. 8. Defendants. January 22, 2019 COMPLAINT Supervisory Defendants Sergeant Paul Scillia and Lieutenant Robert Sapiro did not intervene to prevent Thomas Lattanzia from assaulting the plaintiff. 9. As a result of the assault, Jose Alvarado sustained contusions and pain. 10. The intentional actions of the defendants were unjustified and unlawful. 11. The defendants knew or should have known that severe emotional distress was the likely result of such conduct. FACTS 1. 12. On October 21, 2017, the plaintiff, Jose Alvarado, attended a party at a private residence, located at 316 Colorado Avenue, Bridgeport, CT. 2. Bridgeport Officers responded to 316 Colorado Avenue for a noise complaint. 3. As direct and proximate result of the actions of the defendants, Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress including great humiliation, embarrassment, trauma, anxiety, stress, emotional and mental upset. 13. Plaintiff’s distress was foreseeable and severe enough to cause mental and/or physical illness or bodily harm. Within minutes of the officers’ arrival they signaled a 10-32 distress call, which dispatches every available officer to that location. 14. The Defendants’ conduct was extreme, outrageous and beyond the bounds of decency. 15. As a result of the conduct of the defendants, the plaintiff received mental health treatment. Code, the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments to the United States 16. Constitution, and the laws of the State of Connecticut. In the manner described above, the injuries to the Plaintiff were the direct and proximate result of the intentional actions of the defendants. 17. The intentional acts of the defendants were reckless, wanton, sadistic, willful and malicious and outside the scope of their employment. 18. After thorough review of the case information Bridgeport Police Chief PARTIES Armando Perez characterized this event as a “nothing incident, and Chief Perez further 22. concluded that “the supervisors should have been more aware of what was going on and still is, an adult citizen of the United States, residing in Bridgeport, CT. and should have pulled back.” 23. 19. color of law of the United States Constitution, the laws, charter, ordinances, policies, The defendants did not employ de-escalation procedures. During all times mentioned in this action, the plaintiff, Jose Alvarado was, The defendants, during all times mentioned in this action, acted under rules, regulations, customs and usages, of the State of Connecticut. 24 JURISDICTION 25. 20. This is an action for money damages to redress the deprivation by the During all times mentioned in this action, Defendant Joseph Ganim, was, and still is, the Mayor of the City of Bridgeport, and employed by the City of Bridgeport. Defendant Ganim is the chief policy maker and decision maker of the City of Bridgeport, and Mayor Ganim is also the ex officio chairman of the Board of Police defendants of rights secured to the plaintiff afforded by the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Commissioners. Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the laws of the United States 26. and the laws and Constitution of the State of Connecticut. Commissioners is responsible for the general management and controls the of affairs of 21. the Bridgeport Police Department. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under the provisions of Sections 1331, 1343 and 1367(a) of Title 28 and Section 1983 and 1988 of Title 42 of the United States 27. The charter of the City of Bridgeport provides that the Board of Police During all times mentioned in this action, Defendant Armando Perez was Chief of the Police Department, employed by the City of Bridgeport. He is the policy maker and decision maker of the Bridgeport Police Department, and responsible for the 34. control and management of his subordinates. was a police officer, employed by the City of Bridgeport. His estate is being sued. 28. 35. Defendant City of Bridgeport was and is a municipal corporation duly During all times mentioned in this action, Defendant Thomas Lattanzio, During all times mentioned in this action, Defendant Paul Scillia, is a organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Connecticut. police sergeant, employed by the City of Bridgeport. 29. 36. Defendant City of Bridgeport maintains the Bridgeport Police Department, a duly authorized public authority and/or police department, authorized to perform all During all times mentioned in this action, Defendant Robert Sapiro, was a police lieutenant, employed by the City of Bridgeport. functions of a police department as per applicable sections of the Connecticut General Statutes and charter provisions of the City of Bridgeport, acting under the direction and COUNT ONE DEPRIVATION OF FEDERAL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 supervision of the aforementioned municipal corporation, City of Bridgeport. 30. The acts of the individual Defendants alleged herein performed by the Excessive Force 1- 36. Paragraphs one through thirty-six are hereby incorporated as paragraphs Defendants while acting within the scope of their employment with the Defendant City of one through thirty-six of Count One. Bridgeport and acted jointly and in concert with each other. 37. 31 Fourth Amendment constitutional rights not to have excessive force imposed upon him. The Defendants acted in furtherance of their employment with the Defendants Scillia, Lattanzio, Delgado and Faroni deprived Plaintiff of his Defendant City of Bridgeport. 38 32. unreasonable and in violation of the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Each individual Defendant had the duty and opportunity to protect the The level of force employed by the Defendants was excessive, objectively Plaintiff from the unlawful actions of the other individual Defendants, but each individual 39 Defendant failed, refused, and neglected to perform such duty, to Plaintiff’s detriment, in good faith, was malicious, sadistic and done to cause harm. thereby proximately causing the Plaintiff’s injuries. 40. 33. emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation, and deprivation of his constitutional Accordingly, the individual Defendants are sued in their individual As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff sustained bodily injuries, rights. capacities. COUNT TWO EXCESSIVE FORCE UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 FAILURE TO INTERVENE 1- 40. The force utilized was unnecessary, the injury was significant, and was not Paragraphs one through forty of Count One are hereby incorporated as COUNT THREE 1- 40. ASSAULT Paragraphs one through forty of Count One are hereby incorporated as paragraphs one through forty of Count three. paragraphs one through forty of Count Two. 41. 41. plaintiff immediate apprehension of harmful bodily contact and had the apparent ability Defendants Scillia, and Delgado observed the assault of Plaintiff, had As alleged hereinabove, Defendant Lattanzio intended to cause the opportunities to intervene but failed to intervene. to complete the act. 42. 42. As supervisors, Defendants Scillia and Sapiro had a duty as supervisory As a result of the assault, Plaintiff sustained injuries. law enforcement officers to intervene to protect the constitutional rights of Plaintiff from infringement by the assaultive Defendants. COUNT FOUR 43. 1- 40. Defendants Scillia and Sapiro had reason to know that the hostility of the BATTERY Paragraphs one through forty of Count One are hereby officers was escalating and failed to take steps to deescalate incorporated as paragraphs one through forty of Count Four. 44. 41 In observing the assault on Plaintiff, Defendants Scillia and Sapiro knew or As alleged hereinabove, Defendant Lattanzio intentionally, willfully and should have known that a constitutional violation was being committed by their fellow maliciously beat the Plaintiff, causing Plaintiff to suffer injuries. officers. 42. 45. Defendants Scillia and Sapiro deliberately chose not to make reasonable attempts to stop Defendant Lattanzio from assaulting Plaintiff. 46. By failing to intervene, Defendants Scillia and Sapiro are liable for the preventable harm. Defendant Lattanzio willfully and maliciously committed harmful and offensive contact with the plaintiff without consent. COUNT FIVE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 49. 1- 46. Paragraphs one through forty-six of Count Two are hereby to prevent the repeated misconduct of Defendant Lattanzio, other defendants, and The supervisory defendants failed to have adequate procedures in place incorporated as paragraphs one through forty of Count Five. officers of the department. 47. 50. As alleged hereinabove, Defendant Lattanzio intended to inflict emotional Defendants Mayor Ganim, Chief Perez, Sapiro and Scillia had actual distress upon the Plaintiff and/or they knew or should have known that emotional knowledge of Defendant Lattanzio’s prior misconduct and failed to take adequate distress was the likely result of their conduct. measures to ensure that Delgado did not deprive the plaintiff of his constitutional rights. 48 51. By virtue of the foregoing facts, the Defendants deprived the Plaintiff of his If the supervisory defendants, identified above, had not acted with right to be free of the intentional infliction of severe emotional distress by means of deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the plaintiff and the public at large; if outrageous conduct. they had, instead, properly trained, supervised, monitored, disciplined, investigated, and reviewed the conduct of Defendants in a timely and effective manner, there is a COUNT SIX 42 U.S.C. 1983 MONELL CLAIMS FOR FAILURE TO TRAIN, substantial likelihood that plaintiff would not have been assaulted. SUPERVISE AND DISCIPLINE 52. 1- 46. Bridgeport Police Department stated on May 17, 2019, and other dates, that this Paragraphs one through forty-six of Count Two are hereby Chief Armando Perez, the highest policy and decision maker of the incorporated as paragraphs one through forty of Count Five. incident resulted from a lack of “strong supervision” and adequate training. 47. 53. The supervisory defendants knew or should have known that their failure The Bridgeport Police Department has a custom of protecting officers who to act, adequately train, supervise and/or discipline the Defendant Officers would result utilize excessive force. These offending officers are frequently taken to the hospital for in harm to the plaintiff. “medical evaluation” to circumvent the timely gathering of evidence or statements. 48. The Bridgeport Police Department has a policy practice or custom of condoning excessive force and police misconduct. COUNT SEVEN DEPRIVATION OF FEDERAL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983 DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO MEDICAL NEEDS 1- 46. Paragraphs one through forty-six of Count Two are hereby WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests a jury trial and prays for judgment against the Defendants and each of them as follows: incorporated as paragraphs one through forty of Count Five. A. Compensatory damages; 47. B. Punitive damages; Defendants Delgado and Scillia were supervisors in booking on the night of the plaintiff’s arrest. C. Attorneys’ fees and costs; and 48. D. Such other and further relief as this Court shall deem appropriate. Despite Mr. Alvarado’s numerous requests for medical attention Defendants Delgado, Scillia, Lattanzio and Sapiro failed to attend to the medical needs of the plaintiff. 49. The acts complained of deprived Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee, of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights to have his medical needs adequately Robert Berke By his Attorney /s/ Robert Berke __________________________ addressed. 640 Clinton Avenue Bridgeport, CT 06605 203 332-6000 203 332-0661 fax Bar No. 22117 robertberke@optonline.net