Federal lawsuits against Meriden Police

Case 3:11-cv-00958-MRK Document 6

Filed 06/16/11

Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

PEDRO TEMICH VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-cv-958

EVAN COSSETTE, JEFFRY W. COSSETTE, TIMOTHY TOPULOS, LEONARD CAPONIGRO, GLEN MISLSAGLE, MARVIN RICHARDS, LEIGHTEN GIBBS, and CITY OF MERIDEN.

JUNE 16,2011

SUBSTITUTED COMPLAINT

1.

This is an action to redress the deprivation of rights secured to the plaintiff by the

Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Connecticut.

2.

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under the provisions of Sections 1331,

1343(3) and 1367(a) of Title 28 and Sections 1983 and 1988 of Title 42 of the United States Code.

3.

The plaintiff is an adult citizen of the United States who resides in Meriden,

Connecticut.

4.

During all times mentioned in this action, the defendants were officers in the

Police Department of Meriden, Connecticut. They are sued only in their individual capacities.

5.

During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendants were acting under

color oflaw, that is, under color of the constitution, statutes, laws, rules, regulations, customs and usages of the State of Connecticut.

1

Case 3:11-cv-00958-MRK Document 6

6.

Filed 06/16/11

Page 2 of 5

At all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendants acted jointly and in

concert with each other. Each defendant had the duty and the opportunity to protect the plaintiff from the unlawful actions of the other defendant but each defendant failed and refused to perform such duty, thereby proximately causing the injuries herein complained of.

7.

Shortly before 11 p.m. on May 1,2010, Officer Evan Cossette, without lawful

consent, probable cause, or other legal justification, proceeded to violently hurl Plaintiff Pedro Temich, a handcuffed prisoner, backwards into the holding cell at the Meriden Police Department, causing him to fall and strike the back of his head against a concrete bench, rendering Plaintiff unconscious and bleeding.

8.

Defendant Evan Cossette thereafter entered the holding cell, moving the plaintiff,

who was visibly bleeding from his head, approximately six or seven times, propping him up against the bench, and moving plaintiff into other positions as well, without regard to the plaintiff s critical need or emergency medical care, and thereby placing plaintiff at risk for even greater injury.

9.

Defendant Evan Cossette, despite being certified at the time by the State of

Connecticut as an Emergency Medical Responder, license number 8922, did not attempt to use his medical training to assist the plaintiff but continued in his reckless fashion of moving the plaintiff about into various positions, despite the obvious critical head injury which meant the plaintiff should have been immobilized.

10.

Defendant Marvin Richards was on duty as shift commander on the evening of

the incident, viewed defendant Even Cossette hurl plaintiff backwards against the cement bench, yet did not report the incident to his superiors or attempt to stop defendant Evan Cossette from

2

Case 3:11-cv-00958-MRK Document 6

Filed 06/16/11

Page 3 of 5

continuing to move the plaintiff while blood was oozing from his head onto the cement floor of the holding cell.

11.

Plaintiff was subsequently transported to MidState Medical Center, where he was

treated for a fractured skull, and received 12 staples in his head.

12.

As a result, the plaintiff suffered serious physical injuries, pain, fear, emotional

distress and anxiety, and was required to undergo medical care and treatment to his economic loss.

13.

An internal affairs investigation began on June 21, 2010 regarding the incident in

the temporary holding cell, and assigned as Number LA. 10-32.

14.

After reviewing the video, defendant Caponigro stated that "I watched the video

several more times. I did not see any furtive movements from this handcuffed male that would have caused Officer Cossette to push him."

15.

During the course in the investigation of Internal Affairs No. 10-32, defendant

Evan Cossette was interviewed, after first having been given his Garrity Warnings, which advise the officer being questioned as part of an official investigation, and that making a false statement under oath is a Class A misdemeanor, and that if a false statement is made the questioners certification as a police officer may be revoked by the Police Officer Standards & Training Council under Public Act 05-200.

16.

During the recorded interview, defendant Evan Cossette stated to defendant

Caponigro that "the male was very combative during the entire incident. He told me that when they arrived at HQ, the male would not exit the cruiser in the Sally Port and had to be escorted out. He told me that the male was resisting being placed in the holding cell and at one point he

3

Case 3:11-cv-00958-MRK Document 6

Filed 06/16/11

Page 4 of 5

thought that the male was going to head butt him and he pushed him. He felt that due to the intoxicated state of the male he lost his balance and fell."

17.

Defendant Caponigro states that after the recorded interview with defendant Evan

Cossette "I again watched the video. I ran it forwards, backwards and frame by frame by frame.

I could not detect any furtive movements by this male towards Officer Cossette."

18.

Defendant Caponigro further states: "The video shows Officer Cossette push the

man backwards with both hands. The male lost his balance, falling backwards and striking his head on the cement seat. It appears from the video that the male was unconscious. A short time later the video shows emergency personnel from fire and ambulance tending to this male. The male was transported to Mid-State and treated for his head injury."

19.

Defendant Caponigro concluded on July 14,2010 that Officer Evan Cossette had

violated Meriden Police Department Rules & Regulations regarding Use of Force in effectuating an arrest.

20.

On August 31,2010, defendant Timothy Topulos, Deputy Chief of Police, issued

defendant Evan Cossette a written letter of reprimand, sustaining a lesser charge than originally found by defendant Caponigro.

21.

Defendant Evan Cossette's actions with plaintiff in the holding cell were also

violations of departmental rules that require he provide medical attention, and another called "duty to act" yet neither defendant Caponigro nor defendant Topulos charged defendant Evan Cossette with those violations either.

22.

In the manner described above, the defendants violated the plaintiffs right to be

free from unreasonable force in the course of an arrest all of which rights are guaranteed by the

4

Case 3:11-cv-00958-MRK Document 6

Filed 06/16/11

Page 5 of 5

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution as enforced through Sections 1983 and 1988 of Title 42 of the United States Code.

23.

In the manner described above, the defendants were deliberately indifferent to the

plaintiffs serious medical needs, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteen Amendment to the United States Constitution as enforced through Sections 1983 and 1988 of Title 42 of the United States Code.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff claims judgment against the defendants for compensatory

damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs, all as provided by Sections 1983 and 1988 of Title 42 of the United States Code.

The plaintiff claims trial by jury.

The Plaintiff

lsI

By:

Sally A. Roberts (ct24828) Law Office of Peter Upton & Associates 1 Liberty Square, Suite 208 New Britain, CT 06051 Tel: 860.893.0500 Fax: 860.893.0550 sallyroberts@uptonlegal.com His Attorney

5

Case 3: 11-cv-00959-JBA Document 7

Filed 06/16/11

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ROBERT A. METHVIN VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3: ll-cv-959

EVAN COSSETTE, JEFFRY W. COSSETTE, TIMOTHY TOPULOS, LEONARD CAPONIGRO, GLEN MISLSAGLE, and CITY OF MERIDEN.

JUNE 16,2011

SUBSTITUTED COMPLAINT

1.

This is an action to redress the deprivation of rights secured to the plaintiff by the

Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Connecticut.

2.

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under the provisions of Sections 1331,

1343(3) and 1367(a) of Title 28 and Sections 1983 and 1988 of Title 42 of the United States Code.

3.

The plaintiff is an adult citizen of the United States who resides in Meriden,

Connecticut.

4.

During all times mentioned in this action, the defendants were officers in the

Police Department of Meriden, Connecticut. They are sued only in their individual capacities.

5.

During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendants were acting under

color oflaw, that is, under color of the constitution, statutes, laws, rules, regulations, customs and usages of the State of Connecticut.

6.

At all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendants acted jointly and in

concert with each other. Each defendant had the duty and the opportunity to protect the plaintiff

1

Case 3: 11-cv-00959-JBA Document 7

Filed 06/16/11

Page 2 of 4

from the unlawful actions of the other defendant but each defendant failed and refused to perform such duty, thereby proximately causing the injuries herein complained of.

7.

Shortly before 10:00 p.m. on October 5, 2010, the Meriden police were

summoned to a family dispute on three Pasco Street, Meriden, Connecticut.

8.

In the course of arresting the plaintiff, after the assisting officer on the scene

Detective Cerejo had the plaintiff under control with hands cuffed behind his back, defendant Evan Cossette, without lawful consent, probable cause, or other legal justification, proceeded to deliver knee strikes to the head of the plaintiff while the plaintiff was lying defenseless face down on the ground with his hands cuffed behind his back.

9.

At the time of the incident, defendant Evan Cossette was wearing his body

microphone to his cruiser camcorder, which he had accidentally left on and which recorded the incident.

10.

On the audio recording Detective Cerejo can be heard asking how the plaintiff

sustained his injuries to which defendant Evan Cossette can be heard making a mockery of the incident, explaining that he dropped a knee on him.

11.

The knee strike by defendant Evan Cossette was not necessary, and by defendant

Evan Cossette's own admittance was clearly delivered for the sole purpose of causing serious physical injury to the plaintiff.

12.

Defendant Evan Cossette's knee strikes severely injured the plaintiff, as his teeth

were pushed through his lower lip and he sustained facial injuries. The lacerations caused by his teeth had to be stapled closed.

2

Case 3: 11-cv-00959-JBA Document 7

13.

Filed 06/16/11

Page 3 of 4

The plaintiffs facial injuries caused him to lose a large amount of blood, all of

which caused the plaintiff great pain as he had to endure the pain in the swollen lip and facial area of his body, all of which required treatment at MidState Medical Center, and follow up care.

14.

As a result, the plaintiff suffered serious physical injuries, pain, fear, emotional

distress and anxiety, and was required to undergo medical care and treatment to his economic loss.

15.

On October 7, 2010, two days after the incident, the plaintiff went to the Meriden

Police Report to file a formal complaint alleging excessive force by the officers.

16.

The plaintiffs Employee Complaint was assigned Internal Affairs No.. 10-51 on

October 12,2010 by the Meriden Police Department.

17.

Over the next several weeks, the plaintiff went to the Meriden Police Department

numerous times for the purpose of giving a formal statement to accompany his complaint.

18.

On each occasion he was refused access to Defendant Caponigro, the Sergeant in

charge ofIntemal Affairs No. 10-51.

19.

During the investigation ofIntemal Affairs No. 10-51, defendant Caponigro

interviewed defendant Evan Cossette, after first giving defendant Evan Cossette his Garrity Warnings, which advise the officer being questioned as part of an official investigation, and that making a false statement under oath is a Class A misdemeanor, and that if a false statement is made the questioners certification as a police officer may be revoked by the Police Officer Standards & Training Council under Public Act 05-200.

20.

During the recorded interview, defendant Caponigro can be heard stating "don't

worry, we are just going through the motions."

3

Case 3: 11-cv-00959-JBA Document 7

21.

Filed 06/16/11

Page 4 of 4

On October 28, 2010, defendant Caponigro concluded the Internal Affairs

Investigation, and stated in the Findings that based on his recorded interviews "and the lack of a statement from Mr. Methvin, it is my opinion that the allegation of "Excessive Force: is not sustained."

22.

In the manner described above, the defendants violated the plaintiffs right to be

free from unreasonable force in the course of an arrest all of which rights are guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution as enforced through Sections 1983 and 1988 of Title 42 of the United States Code.

23.

In the manner described above, the defendants were deliberately indifferent to the

plaintiffs serious medical needs, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteen Amendment to the United States Constitution as enforced through Sections 1983 and 1988 of Title 42 of the United States Code.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff claims judgment against the defendants for compensatory

damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs, all as provided by Sections 1983 and 1988 of Title 42 ofthe United States Code.

The plaintiff claims trial by jury.

The Plaintiff

By:

lsi Sally A. Roberts (ct24828) Law Office of Peter Upton & Associates 1 Liberty Square, Suite 208 New Britain, CT 06051 Tel: 860.893.0500 Fax: 860.893.0550 sallyroberts@uptonlegal.com His Attorney

4