law offices of robert l. tarver, jr. (732) 341 …...cynthia mcdougall on behalf of j.m., a minor,...

-1-

LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. TARVER, JR.66 South Main StreetToms River, New Jersey 08757(732) 341-2152 Telephone(732) 341-2153 FacsimileRobert L. Tarver, Jr.Attorney for PlaintiffRT (0472)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

CYNTHIA MCDOUGALL O/B/O/J.M., a Minor,

Plaintiff,v.

THE TOWNSHIP OF MAPLEWOOD;,ROBERT CIMINO, Chief Of Police of theMaplewood Police Department, Individuallyand under color of State law; CAPTAINJOSHUA CUMMIS, Individually and undercolor of State law; BRIAN RODRIGUES,Individually and under color of State law;JOSEPH CIRAULO, Individually and undercolor of State law, MICHAEL JOHNSON,Individually and under color of State law; ABCMUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS 1-5; JOHNand JANE DOES 1-20 (fictitious names);

Defendants

Hon. _________________________

Civil Action No. ________________

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Cynthia McDougall on behalf of J.M., a minor, by way of Complaint against Defendants

says:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action for damages sustained by a J.M., a citizen of the United States,

against police officers of the Maplewood, Irvington and/or South Orange Police Department(s),

Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 of 30 PageID: 1

-2-

who unlawfully arrested, assaulted, harassed and otherwise injured J.M. Herein J.M. is also

referred to as “Plaintiff” as he is plaintiff in fact.

2. The action is against the Chief of Police of Maplewood as the supervisory officer

responsible for the conduct of the defendants and for the Chief's failure to take corrective action

with respect to police personnel whose vicious propensities were notorious, to assure proper

training and supervision of the personnel, or to implement meaningful procedures to discourage

lawless official conduct, and against the Township of Maplewood as the employer of the police

personnel, which is sued as a person under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the

supplemental jurisdiction of this Court over state claims. Venue is proper within this District

because the unlawful practices complained of in this complaint all occurred within the District of

New Jersey.

4. The causes of action alleged, seek to redress the deprivation, under the color of state

law, policy and custom, of rights secured by the United States Constitution, the New Jersey

Constitution, and the statutory and common laws of the state of New Jersey, and to recover

damages, costs, and attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985(3) and 1988.

5. The acts, omissions and conspiracies alleged in this complaint were engaged in and

carried out by all defendants individually and under color of state law and/or agents, employees

and co-conspirators and the police departments of the Township of Maplewood, Township of


-3-

Irvington and Village of South Orange by and through their employees, agents, officials and co-

conspirators pursuant to governmental policy, practice, and custom and under color of law.

THE PARTIES

6. Cynthia McDougall was at all times relevant herein, a resident of the State of New

Jersey and the Township of Maplewood. Ms. McDougall is the biological mother of J.M. and

brings this action on his behalf.

7. Plaintiff J.M.. was at all times relevant herein a resident of the State of New Jersey

and the Township of Maplewood. J.M. was a student at Maplewood’s Columbia High School.

He is an African American male. At the time of this incident, he was sixteen (16) years old and a

minor.

8. Defendant Robert Cimino was at all times relevant herein, the Chief of Police of the

Township of Maplewood and upon information and belief is a resident of the State of New

Jersey. In this capacity, the Chief of Police was:

a. The commanding officer of Maplewood Police Department, and Maplewood

Police Department officers “John and Jane Doe” as well as officers from other

jurisdictions acting under his supervision and was responsible for their training,

supervision and conduct.

b. Responsible by law for enforcing the regulations of the Maplewood Police

Department and for ensuring that Maplewood Police Personnel and other

officers under his supervisory control, obey the laws of the State of New Jersey.


-4-

c. Acting as the agent, servant, and employee of the defendant Township of

Maplewood. This defendant is sued individually and in his official capacity.

9. Defendant Township of Maplewood is a governmental municipal corporation of the

State of New Jersey operating under its laws and at all relevant times, it employed members of

the Maplewood Police Department.

10. Defendant Captain Joshua Cummis was at all times relevant hereto a police officer

with the Township of Maplewood operating in a supervisory capacity. Upon information and

belief, he is a resident of the State of New Jersey. He is sued individually and in his official

capacity as a Maplewood Police Officer.

11. Defendant Detective Joseph Ciraulo was at all times relevant hereto a police officer

with the Township of Maplewood and upon information and belief is a resident of the State of

New Jersey. He is sued individually and in his official capacity as a Maplewood Police Officer.

12. Defendant Patrolman Brian Rodrigues, was at all times relevant hereto a police

officer with the Township of Maplewood and upon information and belief is a resident of the

State of New Jersey. He is sued individually and in his official capacity as a Maplewood Police

Officer.

13. Defendant Patrolman Michael Johnson was at all times relevant hereto a police

officer with the Township of Irvington and upon information and belief is a resident of the State

of New Jersey. He is sued individually and in his official capacity as an Irvington Police Officer.


-5-

14. Defendants John and Jane Does 1-20 are past and present employees, past and present

supervisory employees and/or past and present agents of the Township of Maplewood, the

Township of Irvington and the Village of South Orange and/or any subdivision of each who

acted individually and under color of State law, to wit, under color of statutes, regulations,

policies, customs and usages of the State of New Jersey at all times relevant hereto. This group

also includes policymakers.

15. Defendants ABC Municipal Corporations 1-5 are governmental municipal

corporations of the State of New Jersey operating under its laws and who may have employed

any of the defendant John and Jane Does as set forth in paragraph eleven.

16. This action has been commenced within 2 years of the date of the incident.

17. At all relevant times and in all their actions, the defendants acted under color of state

law and pursuant to their authority as police personnel.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

18. The Township of Maplewood is a suburban community in Essex County, New Jersey.

The Township is closely related, geographically and governmentally, to the neighboring Village

of South Orange. Maplewood is bordered on one side by the Township of Irvington which has a

substantially larger population. According to the most recent United States Census, the African

American population of the Township of Irvington is substantially higher than that of

Maplewood.


-6-

19. The Township of Maplewood conducts an annual fourth of July event in which they

have music, a circus, and refreshments culminating in an evening fireworks display. Although

tickets are sold for enclosed seating for the musical entertainment, the event is open to everyone.

The event is held at Memorial Park and attracts not only Maplewood residents but people from

the surrounding communities as described above.

20. On July 5, 2016, J.M. was attending the Annual July 4th event in Memorial Park.

McDougall was in the company of young people of all races and ages. J.M. was at the time of

this incident, only sixteen years old.

21. At the conclusion of the fireworks display, all of the attendees began to disburse from

the area where the event was held. Both black and white children began to leave the area. There

were groups of white children as well as groups of black children who left the festival area

walking to their homes.

22. The McDougall family has resided in the town of Maplewood for twenty-one (21)

years. J.M. and his sister were raised in Maplewood and attended primary and secondary schools

in that town. After the July 5, 2016 fireworks display ended, J.M. began to walk toward his home

in Maplewood. He, along with other youths left the area in front of Town Hall and began

walking down Valley Street. J.M. had not been involved in any arguments, altercations or

improper behavior while at the display or immediately thereafter.

23. Police Chief Robert Cimino was the officer in charge providing direction for police

officers at the time the fireworks display ended. At some point, Maplewood Chief of Police


-7-

Robert Cimino determined that he was going to direct his officers to send black children who

were leaving the fireworks display in mass, out of the town of Maplewood and into neighboring

Irvington. He told his subordinate officers to “send them east” toward Irvington.

24. Although there were reports of isolated incidents of disruption the crowd of children

was generally orderly. An officer who was on the scene on Elmwood Avenue observing the

crowd of children reported on audio that the “Crowd [was] pretty much quiet, we’re just

maintaining.”

25. Despite the orderly nature of the young people, Captain Joshua Cummis was captured

on audio recordings saying, “Notify Irvington they’re coming down Elmwood…toward their

town.” This was done without regard for the fact that many of the children in that crowd lived in

Maplewood. Cummis repeatedly directed officers “Turn down Elmwood. Turn down

Elmwood…Notify Irvington they are coming down Elmwood toward their town.”

26. Unlike Maplewood, the Township of Irvington has imposed a Curfew wherein

juveniles sixteen (16) years old or younger are not permitted to “loiter” or “stroll” in the City. It

was the clear intent of the Maplewood Police Department to herd the youths out of Maplewood

and into Irvington without regard for their right to return to their homes and without regard for

their safety. At no time did officers attempt to determine if any of the children lived in

Maplewood nor did they make provisions for those who did.

27. It was the conscious intent of the Maplewood Police Department to keep the children

who lived in Maplewood from returning to their homes. This determination to herd black


-8-

children out of Maplewood without regard to where they lived was racially based. Captain

Cummis, another supervisory Maplewood officer, told subordinate officers, “Once they reach

the Irvington border and enter Irvington, I want you to maintain our border on Franklin.”

Cummis’ belief that the children he ordered out of Maplewood did not belong there was made

clear by his statement captured on audio where he said, “I want them to maintain our border

once they leave OUR town.”

28. After walking down Valley Street on his way home, J.M. and other black children

were confronted by police officers who diverted them to Parker Avenue. Many of the youths

began to tell the police officers that they were attempting to get to their homes in Maplewood.

The officers began to get agitated with the youths. The officers began to physically push children

onto the sidewalk and to use their vehicles to move children out of the street.

29. The youths were then directed by police officers to head down Elmwood Avenue

toward Irvington. As J.M. walked down Elmwood Avenue he left the sidewalk to go toward

Boyden Avenue in an effort to go to his house. The officers, however, would not let him go

home and told him to get on the sidewalk and walk up Elmwood Avenue.

30. J.M. tried to explain to the police officer that he lived in that direction. When J.M.

hesitated in getting onto the sidewalk, the police officer approached him visibly agitated and said

“get your nigger ass on the sidewalk.” J.M. was obviously upset at hearing the racial statement

and advised that he was going to report the officer.


-9-

31. J.M. complied with the officer’s request and began walking up Elmwood Avenue. As

he was walking he continued to tell the officer that he was going to report him and that what he

was doing in preventing him from home was illegal.

32. As he was walking up Elmwood Avenue, J.M. heard a commotion in the crowd. He

turned and saw other people moving quickly toward the intersection of Elmwood and Boyden

Avenues. He began to walk back toward the intersection to see what was happening. The police

officer he had been speaking to also ran toward the intersection.

33. As J.M. approached the intersection, the crowd began walking away from the Boyden

Avenue intersection. J.M. turned and began walking up Elmwood Avenue on the sidewalk. As he

walked, he was talking to an individual standing next to him.

34. Suddenly and without warning, another police officer ran toward J.M. and struck him

forcefully in the chest causing him to fall backward. As he fell to the ground, he was

immediately surrounded by at least eight police officers. He was kicked repeatedly by the police

officers and sprayed with a chemical capsicum type spray directly in his eyes, nose, mouth and

ears.

35. The effects of a chemical agent spray include “(1) dilation of the capillaries and

instant closing of the eyes through swelling of the eyelids, (2) immediate respiratory

inflammation, including uncontrollable coughing, retching, shortness of breath and gasping for

air with a gagging sensation in the throat, and (3) immediate burning sensations to the mucous

membranes, skin and inside the nose and mouth.” Park v. Shiflett, 250 F. 3d 843. The chemical


-10-

capsicum spray had the instant effect of causing an intense burning sensation which prevented

J.M. from being able to see. J.M. experienced all of these effects after being sprayed.

36. The Attorney General’s Office for the State of New Jersey has promulgated directives

on the Use of Force by Police Officers and specifically as to the use of mechanical force which

includes the discharge of chemical spray agents. Pursuant to the Attorney General’s Use of Force

Policy, mechanical force is only to be used: a) to overcome resistance directed at the officer or

others; or b) to protect the officer, or a third party, from unlawful force; or c) to protect property; or

d) to effect other lawful objectives, such as to make an arrest. At the time he was viciously attacked,

assaulted and sprayed with a chemical agent, J.M. had broken no laws nor was he placed under

arrest.

37. While on the ground, the officer who struck J.M. shouted, “What now, Bitch?” They

then picked him up and an officer violently shoved him in his back and told him to “Get the fuck

out of here.” When he asked for water to flush his eyes, nose and mouth, the officers refused to

give it to him.

38. With his eyes, nose and mouth still burning from the capsicum spray, J.M.was lifted

to his feet by police officers and told to continue walking up Elmwood Avenue. Still nearly

blinded and disoriented, he began walking up Elmwood Avenue with the assistance of a friend.

39. As he walked up Elwood Avenue, J.M.was screaming from the burning in his eyes,

nose and throat. He was unable to see due to the fact that the capsicum had not been washed

from his face. Approximately 20 police officers followed behind him along with a police vehicle


-11-

that recorded the actions on camera. The officers laughed and taunted J.M.as he walked down

Elmwood Avenue.

40. Because of the irritation to his mucus membranes, J.M. was continuously spitting out

the capsicum while walking. While he was spitting out capsicum, one of the police officers

walked near him. Suddenly and without warning, defendants Rodrigues, Johnson and John and

Jane Doe police officers converged on J.M., taking him to the ground and slamming his face into

the pavement. One of the officers yelled, “You just spit on a cop, you dirty ass nigge.r”

41. While he lay face down on the street with police officers on his back, defendants

Rodrigues, Johnson, Ciraulo and John and Jane Doe 1-20 police officers punched J.M.

repeatedly in the head, face and jaw. One officer approached J.M.while on the ground and kicked

him in the head.

42. J.M. was handcuffed, picked up off the ground and brought to a police car. At the

police car, an officer slammed his head onto the hood of the police vehicle and pushed his elbow

into the side of J.M.’s neck by his ear.

43. As stated above, chemical capsicum spray inhibits breathing. As a result of the

officer’s elbow resting against his neck and the capsicum spray in his mouth, nose and lungs,

J.M. was having trouble breathing. He told the police officer, “I can’t breathe.” The officer

replied, “if you’re telling me that, you can breathe.” As a result of the force applied to his neck,

J.M. lost consciousness immediately thereafter and he was taken to another police car.


-12-

44. At no time prior to his arrest did Maplewood Police offer to provide medical

assistance to J.M. after having applied chemical capsicum spray to his eyes, nose and mouth,

forcing him to suffer the effects specified in paragraph thirty-five (35) although he requested

assistance and aid.

45. Thereafter, Officers Rodrigues, Ciraulo, Johnson and John and Jane Does, members

of the Maplewood, Irvington and South Orange Police Department, conspired together and

caused false reports to be generated and false complaints to be issued against J.M. in order to

protect themselves from criminal and civil liability for the unprovoked and unjustified assault

and beating of J.M..

46. As a result of the misconduct described above, J.M. experienced humiliation,

emotional distress, physical pain and suffering, psychological trauma, loss of assets and other

incurred expenses.

47. After the incident, members of the Maplewood Police Department further created

false reports which suggested that the children they encountered were “extremely disruptive” in

order to support the narrative that they were justified in herding black children out of

Maplewood and into Irvington even though contemporaneous reports from officers on the scene

indicated that the crowd was “quiet”.

48. The conduct of defendants Chief Robert Cimino, Captain Joseph Cummis, Officer

Joseph Ciraulo, Officer Brian Rodrigues, Officer Michael Johnson and John and Jane Does 1-20,

amounted to the excessive and unwarranted use of force against J.M..


-13-

49. The abuse to which J.M. was subjected to was consistent with an institutionalized

practice of the Maplewood Police Department, which was known and ratified by defendants

Robert Cimino and the Township of Maplewood.

50. Despite knowledge of these institutionalized practices, the defendants Robert Cimino

and the Township of Maplewood have not taken any effective action to prevent Maplewood

police personnel from continuing to engage in this type of misconduct.

51. Defendants Chief of Police and Township of Maplewood had prior notice of the

vicious propensities of defendants Officer Brian Rodrigues, Joseph Ciraulo and John and Jane

Does 1-20, but took no steps to train them, correct their abuse of authority, or to discourage their

unlawful use of authority.

52. The failure of defendants Robert Cimino and the Township of Maplewood to properly

train defendants Brian Rodrigues, Joseph Ciraulo and John and Jane Does 1-20, including the

failure to instruct them in applicable provisions of the State Penal Law of the State of New

Jersey and the proper and prudent use of force.

53. Defendant Township of Maplewood authorized, tolerated as institutionalized

practices, and ratified the misconduct detailed above by:


-14-

a. Failing to properly discipline, restrict, and control employees,

including defendants Chief Robert Cimino, Captain Joshua Cummis,

Detective Joseph Ciraulo, Officer Brian Rodrigues and John and Jane

Does 1-20, known to be irresponsible in their dealings with citizens of

the community;

b. Failing to take adequate precautions in the hiring, promotion, and

retention of police personnel, including specifically defendants Chief

Robert Cimino, Captain Joshua Cummis, Detective Joseph Ciraulo,

Officer Brian Rodrigues and John and Jane Does 1-20,;

c. Failing to complete reports as required and forward to the Office of

the Essex County Prosecutor evidence of criminal acts committed by

police personnel;

d. Failing to establish or assure the functioning of a bona fide and

meaningful departmental system for dealing with complaints of police

misconduct, but instead responding to these types of complaints with

bureaucratic power and official denials calculated to mislead the public.

54. As a consequence of the abuse of authority detailed above, J.M. sustained the

damages alleged above.


-15-

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Excessive Force in violation of the

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments(Against Defendants Rodrigues, Ciraulo, Johnson and John and Jane Does 1-20)

55. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set

forth herein.

56. J.M. in this action is a citizen of the United States and all of the individual police

officer Defendants to this claim are persons for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

57. All individual Defendants to this claim, at all times relevant hereto, were acting under

the color of state law in their capacity as municipal police officers and their acts or omissions

were conducted within the scope of their official duties or employment.

58. At the time of the complained of events, J.M. had a clearly established constitutional

right under the Fourth Amendment to be secure in his person from unreasonable seizure through

excessive force.

59. J.M. also had the clearly established Constitutional right under the Fourteenth

Amendment to bodily integrity and to be free from excessive force by law enforcement.

60. Any reasonable police officer knew or should have known of these rights at the time

of the complained of conduct as they were clearly established at that time.


-16-

61. Defendants actions and use of force, as described herein, were objectively

unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them and violated these Fourth

Amendment rights of Plaintiff.

62. Defendants Rodrigues, Ciraulo, Johnson and John and Jane Does 1-20’s actions and

use of force, as described herein, were also malicious and/or involved reckless, callous, and

deliberate indifference to J.M’s federally protected rights. The force used by these Defendant

officers shocks the conscience and violated these Fourteenth Amendment rights of Plaintiff.

63. Defendants Rodrigues, Ciraulo, Johnson and John and Jane Does 1-20 unlawfully

seized J.M. by means of objectively unreasonable, excessive and conscious shocking physical

force, thereby unreasonably restraining J.M. of his freedom.

64. The force used constituted mechanical and physical force and such force caused

serious bodily injury to J.M..

65. None of the Defendant officers took reasonable steps to protect Plaintiff from the

objectively unreasonable and conscience shocking excessive force of other Defendant officers or

from the excessive force of later responding officers despite being in a position to do so. They

are each therefore liable for the injuries and damages resulting from the objectively unreasonable

and conscience shocking force of each other officer.


-17-

66. Defendants engaged in the conduct described by this Complaint willfully,

maliciously, in bad faith, and in reckless disregard of J.M.’s federally protected constitutional

rights.

67. The Police Officers did so with shocking and willful indifference to Plaintiff’s rights

and with their conscious awareness that they would cause Plaintiff severe physical and emotional

injuries.

68. The acts or omissions of all individual Defendants were moving forces behind

J.M.’s injuries.

69. These individual Defendants acted in concert and joint action with each other.

70. The acts or omissions of Defendants as described herein intentionally deprived

Plaintiff of his constitutional rights and caused him other damages.

71. These individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the

complained of conduct.

72. The Defendants to this claim at all times relevant hereto were acting pursuant to

municipal/county custom, policy, decision, ordinance, regulation, widespread habit, usage, or

practice in their actions pertaining to Plaintiff.

73. As a proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered actual


-18-

physical and emotional injuries, and other damages and losses as described herein entitling him

to compensatory and special damages, in amounts to be determined at trial. As a further result of

the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has incurred special damages, including medically

related expenses and may continue to incur further medically and other special damages related

expenses, in amounts to be established at trial.

74. Plaintiff has suffered injuries both physical and emotional in amounts to be

ascertained in trial. Plaintiff is further entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§1988, pre-judgment interest and costs as allowable by federal law. There may also be special

damages for lien interests.

75. In addition to compensatory, economic, consequential and special damages, Plaintiff

is entitled to punitive damages against each of the individually named Defendants under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, in that the actions of each of these individual Defendants have been taken

maliciously, willfully or with a reckless or wanton disregard of the constitutional rights of

Plaintiff.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Racial Discrimination in Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981(Against Defendants Cimino, Cummis, Ciraulo, Rodrigues,

Johnson and John and Jane Does 1-20)


forth herein.

77. At the time of the complained of events, Plaintiff had the clearly established

constitutional right to be free from racial discrimination in law enforcement by police officers


-19-

and to enjoy the equal protection of the laws.

78. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1981("Section 1981") provides, in pertinent part:

(a) All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right inevery State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence,and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons andproperty as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains,penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

79. Plaintiff, as an African American is a member of a protected class, and thus also had

the clearly established statutory right under this provision of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 to be free from

racially motivated beatings, arrests, searches, and the filing of false charges.

80. Any reasonable police officer knew or should have known of these rights at the time

of the complained of conduct as they were clearly established at that time.

81. Plaintiff’s race was a motivating factor in the decisions to infringe upon his liberty

and to deny him access to his home where no legitimate state interest existed justifying that

denial. Race was a motivating factor in the decision to herd black children from Maplewood to

Irvington without regard to their actual residence. Race was a motivating factor in the officers’

decision to use unnecessary and excessive force and then maliciously prosecute Plaintiff with

false charges. Defendants’ conduct was undertaken with the purpose of depriving Plaintiff of the

equal protection and benefits of the law, equal privileges and immunities under the law, and due

process in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and § 1981.


maliciously, in bad faith, and in reckless disregard of J.M.’s federally protected rights.


-20-

83. The Defendants to this claim at all times relevant hereto were acting pursuant to

municipal/county custom, policy, decision, ordinance, regulation, widespread habit, usage, or

practice in their actions pertaining to Plaintiff.







85. Plaintiff is further entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988,

pre-judgment interest and costs as allowable by federal law. There may also be special damages

for lien interests.




maliciously, willfully or with a reckless or wanton disregard of the constitutional and statutory

rights of Plaintiff.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Retaliation in Violation of the First Amendment

(Against Defendants Rodrigues, Ciraulo, Johnson and John and Jane Does 1-20)

87. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully setforth herein.


-21-

88. At the time of the complained of events, Plaintiff had the clearly established

Constitutional right to be free from retaliation for the exercise of protected speech.

89. Any reasonable police officer knew or should have known of this right at the time of

the complained of conduct as it was clearly established at that time.

90. J.M. exercised his constitutionally protected right to question law enforcement and/or

engaged in protected speech related to the constitutional rights of citizens with respect to

decisions to restrict residents from lawful access to their homes and to question objectionable

police conduct.

91. Retaliatory animus for J.M..’s exercise of his constitutionally protected right to

question Police Officers regarding the scope of their legal authority to restrict him from access to

his home was a substantially motivating factor in the unnecessary, unprovoked and excessive

force used by individual Defendants.

92. The excessive force used against J.M. in retaliation for his protected conduct would

deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the protected conduct.

93. Defendant officers participated in this use of force as a means of retaliation for his

protected speech and none of the Defendant officers took reasonable steps to protect Plaintiff

from this retaliation for the protected speech. They are each therefore liable for the injuries and


-22-

damages resulting from the objectively unreasonable and conscience shocking force of each

other officer.


maliciously, in bad faith, and in reckless disregard of J.M.’s federally protected constitutional

rights.

95. The acts or omissions of all individual Defendants were moving forces behind

Plaintiff’s injuries.

96. These individual Defendants acted in concert and joint action with each other.

97. The acts or omissions of Defendants as described herein intentionally deprived

Plaintiff of his constitutional and statutory rights and caused him other damages.








-23-

99. Plaintiff is further entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988,

pre-judgment interest and costs as allowable by federal law. There may also be special damages

for lien interests.





Plaintiff.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEFViolation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Deliberately Indifferent Policies, Practices, Customs,

Training, and Supervision in violation of the Fourth, Fourteenth, and First Amendmentsand in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981

(Against Township of Maplewood and Defendant Cimino)


forth herein.

102. At all relevant times herein, Defendant Township of Maplewood, acting through its

Police Department, developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged and sanctioned de facto

policies, practices, and/or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs'

constitutional rights which caused the violation of such rights.


-24-

103. Defendants' unlawful actions were done willfully, knowingly and with the specific

intent to deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution.

104. The constitutional abuses and violations by Township of Maplewood, through the

actions of its Police Department, Chief Robert Cimino, Captain Joshua Cummis, Officers Brian

Rodrigues, Joseph Ciraulo, Michael Johnson and John and Jane Does 1-20, were and are directly

and proximately caused by policies, practices and/or customs developed, implemented, enforced,

encouraged and sanctioned by Defendant Township of Maplewood, including the failure: (a) to

adequately supervise and train its officers and agents, including the Defendants, thereby failing

to adequately discourage further constitutional violations on the part of its police officers; (b) to

properly and adequately monitor and discipline its officers, including Defendants; and (c) to

adequately and properly investigate citizen complaints of police misconduct, and, instead, acts of

misconduct were tolerated by the Township of Maplewood.

105. The deliberately indifferent training and supervision provided by Defendant

Township of Maplewood and Defendant Cimino resulted from a conscious or deliberate choice

to follow a course of action from among various alternatives available to Defendant Maplewood

and Defendant Cimino and were moving forces in the constitutional and federal violation

injuries complained of by J.M..

106. Upon information and belief, Defendant Township of Maplewood has, acting through

its police department, developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged and sanctioned a de facto


-25-

policy, practice, and/or custom of unlawfully interfering with and/or arresting, without

reasonable suspicion or probable cause, harassing and using excessive force against individuals

in violation of the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the State of New Jersey.

107. Defendants' unlawful actions were done willfully, knowingly and with the specific

intent to deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Thirteenth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

108. Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of J.M..

As a direct and proximate result of the acts as stated herein by each of the Defendants, J.M.’s

constitutional rights have been violated which has caused him to suffer physical, mental and

emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, suffering, humiliation and embarrassment.



to compensatory and special damages, in amounts to be determined at trial. Plaintiff is further

entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, pre-judgment interest and costs

as allowable by federal law. There may also be special damages for lien interests.

110. Finally, Plaintiff seeks appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 to redress Defendants’ above described ongoing deliberate indifference in

policies, practices, habits, customs, usages, training and supervision with respect to the rights

described herein, and with respect to the ongoing policy and/or practice of the Internal Affairs


-26-

Bureau of failing to investigate or appropriately handle complaints of the same, which

Defendants have no intention for voluntarily correcting despite obvious need and requests for

such correction.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) – Conspiracy to Deprive, Prevent or Hinder Equal Protection in

Violation of the United States Constitution(Against All Defendants)


forth herein.

112. The individual defendants, under color of law, conspired with each other to undertake

a course of conduct to harass, threaten, intimidate and injure J.M. in the free exercise and

enjoyment of the rights and privileges and equal protection of the law secured to him by the

Constitution.

113. The conduct of defendants was motivated by racial animus and by their desire to

harass, threaten, intimidate and injure J.M. because of his race.

114. Defendants racial animus was expressed in racially insulting remarks specifically

directed at J.M..

115. Defendants racial animus was expressed in racially insulting remarks directed at other

individuals of African descent who interacted with defendants on the evening of July 5, 2016.


-27-

116. Defendants racial animus was expressed in discriminatory practices of herding black

children out of the town of Maplewood and into the town of Irvington without regard to where

those children lived or without regard to their individual safety being on the streets of a foreign

town in the waning hours of the evening of July 5, 2016 and being subjected to a juvenile

curfew.

117. Defendants racial animus was expressed in the language used by superior officers in

failing to differentiate individuals by their residence and instead subjecting them to police action

as according to their race.

118. It was part of the conspiracy that defendant police officers physically attacked J.M.,

striking and knocking him to the ground and using capsicum spray when he had committed no

offense and was not arrested for or charged with any offense.

119. It was part of the conspiracy that officers Rodrigues, Ciraulo, Johnson and John and

Janes Does 1-20 viciously and savagely attacked J.M. and beat him, repeatedly punching him,

kicking him and applying unnecessary and excessive force.

120. It was part of and in furtherance of the conspiracy and to conceal the crimes and

misconduct of officers Rodrigues, Ciraulo, Johnson and John and Jane Does 1-20 that these

defendants and others engaged in activities which can be characterized as a cover-up.


-28-

121. It was part of and in furtherance of the conspiracy that members of the Maplewood

Police Department, John and Jane Does 1-20, acted to deter Cynthia McDougall numerous times

from filing complaints against the officers who injured her son, J.M..







122. Plaintiff is further entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988

and 1985, pre-judgment interest and costs as allowable by federal law. There may also be

special damages for lien interests.





Plaintiff.


-29-

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment for the Plaintiff and against each of the

Defendants and grant:

A. compensatory and consequential damages, including damages for emotional distress,humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and other pain and suffering on all claimsallowed by law in an amount to be determined at trial;

B. economic losses on all claims allowed by law;

C. special damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

D. punitive damages on all claims allowed by law against individual Defendants and in anamount to be determined at trial;

E. attorneys’ fees and the costs associated with this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1988,including expert witness fees, on all claims allowed by law;

F. pre- and post-judgment interest at the lawful rate; and,

G. any further relief that this court deems just and proper, and any other appropriate reliefat law and equity.

LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. TARVER, JR.

By: s/Robert L. Tarver, Jr._______________Robert L. Tarver, Jr., Esq.Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: August 29, 2017


-30-

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. TARVER, JR.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

By: s/Robert L. Tarver, Jr.

Robert L. Tarver, Jr. Esq. (RLT 0472)


CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that the matter in controversy is not the subject of any

other court, arbitration or administrative hearing.

LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. TARVER, JR.

By:__s/Robert L. Tarver, Jr.______________Robert L. Tarver, Jr., Esq.



law offices of robert l. tarver, jr. (732) 341 …...cynthia mcdougall on behalf of j.m., a minor,...

Documents