Case 3:13-cv-00449-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/02/13 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

JOHN DOE Plaintiff

Civil Action NO.

v. MERIDEN POLICE DEPARTMENT, OFFICER K. EGAN (I/O); OFFICER JOHN SLEZAK) I/O); OFFICER DEXTON PALMER (I/O); OFFICER JOHN CEREGIO (I/O); DETECTIVE MICHAEL MERRIGAN (I/O); DETECTIVE ROBERT PEKRUL; OFFICER EVAN COSSETTE (I/O); OFFICER JOHN DOE (1-5) (I/O) MARCH 31, 2013 COMPLAINT

I.

INTRODUCTION

1.

The Plaintiff, John Doe, brings this civil action for violation of his rights secured and

protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (U.S.C. §1983), which are found in the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. II.

JURISDICTION

2.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §

1332, 1343 (3) of Title 28 and Sections 1983 and 1988 of Title 42 of the United States Code. 3.

The Court also has jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §

1367 of Title 28. III.

VENUE

Case 3:13-cv-00449-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/02/13 Page 2 of 11

4.

Venue is the District of Connecticut and is proper in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

§1391, in that all of the acts and/or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred within this judicial district. IV.

PARTIES

5.

The Plaintiff, John Doe, was at all material times herein a nineteen year old male resident

of the City of Meriden.

6.

Defendant Officer John Slezak, (hereinafter referred to as “Slezak”) was at all times

material herein employed as a police officer by the City of Meriden Police Department and was assigned to street patrol. He is being sued in his individual and official capacity, and at all times material herein was acting under the color of law during the course of and within the scope of his employment by the City of Meriden Police Department. 7.

Defendant Officer Dexton Palmer, (hereinafter referred to as “Palmer”) was at all

times material herein employed as a police officer by the City of Meriden Police Department and was assigned to street patrol. He is being sued in his individual and official capacity, and at all times material herein was acting under the color of law during the course of and within the scope of his employment by the City of Meriden Police Department. 8.

Defendant Officer K. Egan, (hereinafter referred to as “Egan”) was at all times

material herein employed as a police officer by the City of Meriden Police Department and was assigned to street patrol. He is being sued in his individual and official capacity, and at all times material herein was acting under the color of law during the course of and within the scope of his employment by the City of Meriden Police Department.

Case 3:13-cv-00449-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/02/13 Page 3 of 11

9.

Defendant Officer Evan Cossette, (hereinafter referred to as “Cossette”) was at all

times material herein employed as a police officer by the City of Meriden Police Department and was assigned to street patrol. He is being sued in his individual and official capacity, and at all times material herein was acting under the color of law during the course of and within the scope of his employment by the City of Meriden Police Department. 10.

Defendant Officer John Ceregio, (hereinafter referred to as “Ceregio”) was at all

times material herein employed as a police officer by the City of Meriden Police Department and was assigned to street patrol. He is being sued in his individual and official capacity, and at all times material herein was acting under the color of law during the course of and within the scope of his employment by the City of Meriden Police Department. 11.

Defendant Detective Michael Merrigan, (hereinafter referred to as “Merrigan”) was

at all times material herein employed as a police officer by the City of Meriden Police Department and was assigned to street patrol. He is being sued in his individual and official capacity, and at all times material herein was acting under the color of law during the course of and within the scope of his employment by the City of Meriden Police Department. 12.

Defendant Officer John Ceregio, (hereinafter referred to as “Ceregio”) was at all

times material herein employed as a police officer by the City of Meriden Police Department and was assigned to street patrol. He is being sued in his individual and official capacity, and at all times material herein was acting under the color of law during the course of and within the scope of his employment by the City of Meriden Police Department. 13.

Defendant Detective Robert Pekrul, (hereinafter referred to as “Pekrul”) was at all

times material herein employed as a police officer by the City of Meriden Police

Case 3:13-cv-00449-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/02/13 Page 4 of 11

Department and was assigned to street patrol. He is being sued in his individual and official capacity, and at all times material herein was acting under the color of law during the course of and within the scope of his employment by the City of Meriden Police Department. 14.

During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the Defendants Police Officers were

acting under color of law, that is, under color of the constitution, statutes, laws, rules, regulations, customs and usages of the State of Connecticut. 15.

The Meriden Police Department is the primary law-enforcement agency responsible for the

enforcement of law in the City of Meriden, Connecticut.

V.

FACTS

16.

On March 9, 2011 John Doe was taken into custody of the Meriden Police Department

after being arrested. 17.

While in police custody and in a holding cell of the Meriden Police Department located at

50 West Main Street, Meriden, Connecticut, John Doe was sexually assaulted by five Meriden Police Officers. 18.

Defendants Slezak, Palmer, Pekrul, Egan, Cossette, Merrigan, and Ceregio held John

Doe, a nineteen year old male of medium build, while he was handcuffed with his hands in front of him, in the holding cell of the Meriden Police Department, and on multiple occasions used a taser to immobilize him. At a point after the start of the conduct of the Officers, John Doe passed out while they continued their sexual assault. 19.

After Defendants Slezak, Palmer, Pekrul, Egan, Cossette, Merrigan, and Ceregio

immobilized John Doe with the taser, they proceeded to remove his pants and undergarments. 20.

Defendants Slezak, Palmer, Pekrul, Egan, Cossette, Merrigan, and Ceregio then

penetrated John Doe’s anal cavity with their gloved fingers, resulting in a sexual assault.

Case 3:13-cv-00449-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/02/13 Page 5 of 11

21.

At the time of the penetration of John Doe’s anal cavity, the Officers had no lawful

reason for engaging in this conduct. 22.

At no time on March 9, 2011 did Defendants Slezak, Palmer, Pekrul, Egan, Cossette,

Merrigan, and Ceregio obtain a search warrant as required by Connecticut General Statutes § 53-331(b) which reads: “[n]o search of any body cavity other than the mouth shall be conducted without a search warrant. Any warrant authorizing a body cavity search shall specify that the search is required to be performed under sanitary conditions and conducted either by or under the supervision of a person licensed to practice medicine…”

23.

The Meriden Police Department Rules & Regulations regarding Use of Force in

effectuating an arrest similarly require that body cavity searches must be performed, if at all,

in accordance with state statutes. 24.

Defendants Slezak, Palmer, Pekrul, Egan, Cossette, Merrigan, and Ceregio were not

under the supervision of any person licensed to practice medicine when they engaged in the penetration of John Doe’s anal cavity. 25.

Defendants Slezak, Palmer, Pekrul, Egan, Cossette, Merrigan, and Ceregio are not and

were not licensed to practice medicine at the time they penetrated John Doe’s anal cavity. 26.

The March 9, 2011 sexual assault and police brutality against John Doe was not the first

instance of dangerous and illegal misconduct by Meriden Police Officers.

27.

On May 1, 2010, Officer Evan Cossette, without lawful consent, probable cause, or other

legal justification, proceeded to violently hurl 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 Temich unconscious and bleeding.

Case 3:13-cv-00449-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/02/13 Page 6 of 11

28.

An internal affairs investigation began on April 2011 regarding the incident in the

temporary holding cell. 29.

Despite the failure of Defendants Slezak, Palmer, Pekrul, Egan, Cossette, Merrigan,

and Ceregio to obtain a search warrant before engaging in the anal cavity search of John Doe, Lieutenant Caponigro, failed to sustain the complaint made by John Doe. 30.

On or about January 2013 a request was made to the Meriden Police Department to re-

examine the facts of the Internal Affairs Investigation in view of the videotaped incident showing an anal cavity search in violation of state statute and department regulations. The department persists in its failure to find Defendants Slezak, Palmer, Pekrul, Egan, Cossette, Merrigan,

and Ceregio responsible for the sexual assault, excessive enforce and unreasonable search and seizure regarding John Doe.

FIRST COUNT:

42 U.S.C. § 1983-Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (As to Defendant Police Officers)

1-30. Paragraphs 1.– 30. above are hereby incorporated and made paragraphs 1.-30. of this First Count. 31.

The Defendant Police Officers, separately and in concert, engaged in the unlawful

aforementioned conduct, injuring and depriving John Doe of the rights, privileges and immunities secured to him by the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as well as the Connecticut Constitution and statutes. 32.

The Defendant Police Officers violated the Plaintiff John Doe’s rights secured to him

by the 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in one or more of the following ways:

Case 3:13-cv-00449-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/02/13 Page 7 of 11

a.

In stopping and restraining

him without reasonable suspicion, probable

cause, or other exigent circumstances; b.

In using unreasonable, unjustified and excessive force upon him;

c.

In acting jointly and in concert with each other when they had a duty and

opportunity to protect him from the unlawful acts of the other officer; d.

In using cruel and unusual punishment on him;

e.

In causing unjust and unwarranted physical abuse, intimidation and

humiliation to him;

33.

f.

In unjustly depriving him of rights without due process of law;

g.

In acting recklessly toward him.

As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered personal injuries, including

physical injury, severe emotional distress and shock to his entire system. 34.

As a result of the conduct of Defendants Slezak, Palmer, Pekrul, Egan, Cossette,

Merrigan, and Ceregio, John Doe has suffered and in the future will continue to suffer physical and emotional pain and suffering. 35.

In the manner described above, the defendants violated John Doe’s 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.

36.

In the manner described above, the Defendants Police Officers were deliberately

indifferent to John Doe in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United

Case 3:13-cv-00449-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/02/13 Page 8 of 11

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

SECOND COUNT:

42 U.S.C. §1983/Fourth, Eighth and Fourthteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (City of Meriden Police Department)

1-30. Paragraphs 1.–30. are hereby incorporated and made paragraphs 1.-30. of this Second Count. 31.

At all material times mentioned herein, the Town of Meriden, acting through its final

policy maker in the area of law enforcement, had in effect, policies, practices, and customs regarding Police Officers assigned as school resource officers. 32.

These policies, practices, and customs included, but are not .limited to: a.

the failure to properly screen, train, discipline, supervise or otherwise control

police officers engaged as school resource officers in the law as regards the use of excessive unreasonable and unjustified force; and the duty of officers to intervene and protect individuals from the deprivation of their civil rights by other police officers. 33.

These actual and/or de facto policies, practices and customs were the proximate

cause of the conduct of Defendant Police Officers, and the resulting injury to John Doe. 34.

The Defendant, Meriden Police Department, was deliberately indifferent in the

supervision, discipline and investigation of the individual Defendants thus ratifying, promulgating and approving of the unlawful behaviors.

Case 3:13-cv-00449-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/02/13 Page 9 of 11

35.

As a consequence of the policies, practices and customs John Doe has suffered

physical and emotional distress and injury. THIRD COUNT:

Assault and Battery (As to Defendant Officers)

1-30. Paragraphs 1.– 30. are hereby incorporated and made paragraphs 1.-30. of this Third Count. 31.

Defendant Officers’ contact with John Doe was a harmful and offensive contact with

his physical person and, moreover, was carried out in such a manner as to ensure that John Doe experienced offense to his reasonable sense of personal dignity. 32.

Defendants’ contact caused undue physical impairment to John Doe’s body and

caused physical pain and suffering. The contact was the direct and immediate consequence of the force exerted by Defendant Police Officers. 33.

Defendant Police Officers’ conduct in contacting John Doe was intentional, wanton,

malicious and without the exercise of due care. 34.

John Doe was damaged thereby.

FOURTH:

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (As to Defendant Officers)

1-30. Paragraphs 1.– 30. are hereby incorporated and made paragraphs 1.-30. of this Fourth Count. 31.

Defendant Police Officers engaged in the extreme and outrageous conduct of

committing an unprovoked assault and battery upon John Doe which was particularly cruel in nature. 32.

The Defendant Police Officers’ conduct was intended to cause and did cause John

Doe severe emotional distress.

Case 3:13-cv-00449-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/02/13 Page 10 of 11

33.

As a result of Defendant Police Officers’ actions, John Doe has sustained and will in

the future suffer extreme emotional distress. 34.

John Doe has been damaged thereby.

FIFTH COUNT:

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (As to Defendant Officers)

1-30. Paragraphs 1.– 30. are hereby incorporated and made paragraphs 1.-30. of this Fifth Count. 31.

The conduct of Defendant Police Officers was negligent in that they knew, or should

have known that emotional distress was the likely result of their conduct. 32.

As a result of the conduct of Defendant Police Officers, John Doe has suffered

severe emotional distress. He is likely to suffer severe emotional pain and suffering in the future. 33.

John Doe has been damaged thereby sustaining past, present and future pain and

suffering, both physical and emotional; and past, present and future psychological trauma and impairment. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff John Doe prays for the following relief: A.

A trial by jury;

B.

Compensatory damages;

C.

Punitive damages (As to Defendant Officers)

D.

Attorneys fees and costs;

Case 3:13-cv-00449-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/02/13 Page 11 of 11

E.

Such further and equitable relief as the Court may deem appropriate. THE PLAINTIFF BY:_/s/Josephine S. Miller________ Josephine S. Miller, ct27039 914 Main Street, Suite 206 East Hartford, CT 06108 Tel: (203) 512-2795 Fax: (860) 289-8944 Email: [email protected]