Ross

C/O Ricky Duncan

5111 N 16th Drive #8
Phoenix, Arizona
85015-3366

 

Plaintiff, In Pro Per

In the United States District Court

In and for the District of the State of Arizona

Ross

            Plaintiff,

      vs.

Steve Corich - Defendant #1

Lynn Bray - Defendant #2

Turner - Defendant #3

MCC Police Aid - Defendant #4

Mesa Officer #1  Defendant #5                  

Mesa Officer #2  Defendant #6

Mesa Officer #3  Defendant #7

 

              Defendants                                        

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.:

 

COMPLAINT

(Jury Trial Demanded)

 

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Ross, and for his complaint alleges and avers as follows.

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.     This action arises the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America and Article II, §§ 4, 8, 10, 32, and 33 of the Constitution for the State of Arizona, and A.R.S. 13 § 1202.1, 2, 3 and A.R.S. 13 § 1204.2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jurisdiction over the state pendant claims is conferred upon the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1337.

2.    Venue is proper in this District Court as the Defendants are believed to reside within this district and all acts alleged occurred within this District

II. PARTIES

3.     The plaintiff is a single man and can be found in Maricopa County, Arizona.

4.     Defendant #1 is Steve Corich a man believed to be a resident of the State of Arizona and are further believed to be a Police Officer and Director of Public Safety in the Mesa Community College Police Department.

5.     Defendant #2 is Lynn Bray a man believed to be a resident of the State of Arizona and is further believed to be a Police Officer in the Mesa Community College Police Department.

6.     Defendant #3 is Turner a man believed to be a resident of the State of Arizona and is further believed to be a Police Officer in the Mesa Community College Police Department.

7.     Defendant #4 is an unknown man believed to be a resident of the State of Arizona and is further believed to be an employee or Police Officer in the Mesa Community College Police Department.

8.     Defendant #5 is an unknown man believed to be a resident of the State of Arizona and is further believed to be a Police Officer in the City of Mesa Police Department.

9.     Defendant #6 is an unknown man believed to be a resident of the State of Arizona and is further believed to be a Police Officer in the City of Mesa Police Department.

10.           Defendant #7 is an unknown man believed to be a resident of the State of Arizona and is further believed to be a Police Officer in the City of Mesa Police Department.

III. GENERAL STATEMENT

11.      On Thursday January 31, 2008 at about 11:45 a.m., the Plaintiff was using a computer on the second floor of the Mesa Community College Library, which is open to the public. The plaintiff was writing a computer program used to generate web pages, something which is a legal and allowed in the library.

12.      Unknown to the plaintiff he was being approached by defendant #2 and defendant #3 who were soon going to attack and then falsely arrest the plaintiff.

13.      Defendant #2 and defendant #3 could have yelled at the plaintiff and said, “We are police officers. You’re under arrest, put your hands up in the air and get away from the computer”. The plaintiff would have complied because he does not want to be killed by the police for not following orders like 15 year-old Mario Madrigal Jr. of Mesa was. But that simple plan wouldn’t be any fun because it would not allow defendants #2 and #3 to engage in “extra curricular activities”. “Extra curricular activities” is police slang for beating up a suspect. It’s a synonym for “Random Recreational Violence” a term coined by the Serial Shooters or Serial Killers who used the term to describe how they killed people they though were the dregs of society. The only difference between “Random Recreational Violence” and “Extra curricular activities” is Samuel Dieteman and Dale Hausner knew what they were doing was wrong, while Lynn Bray, defendant #2 thinks “extra curricular activities” is part of his job description, and a job perk at that, and he enjoys punishing people he considers to be vermin.

14.      Defendant #2 and defendant #3 could have lied to the plaintiff and used a ruse to get him away from the computer. They could have said “We are police officers and there is a bomb scare and you have to leave the building.”, or said “We are police officers, the computer you are using needs to be repaired. Could you step away and use a computer at a different table”, and then arrested the plaintiff when he stepped away from the computer. But again those simple plans wouldn’t be any fun because it would not allow defendants #2 and #3 to engage in “extra curricular activities”. Defendants #2 and #3 didn’t have any qualms about lying to the plaintiff while he was under arrest for almost two hours. They must have lied to the plaintiff at least 20 times when they told the plaintiff that he didn’t have any 5th Amendment rights while in their custody. They could have easily told one more lie and used a lie like one of the above to arrest the plaintiff with out any violence.

15. Defendants #2 and #3 did not tell the plaintiff they were police officers when they attacked him from behind. They plaintiff thinks they were probably hoping the plaintiff would fight back when he was attacked and then the defendants could charge him with felony charges for resisting arrest and attacking a police officer.

16. Defendant #2 snuck up behind the plaintiff and either punched him in the head or used some other martial arts technique to attack the plaintiff and knock his glasses off. The plaintiff thinks defendant #2 did this intentionally to blind the plaintiff by removing his glasses. The plaintiff was in shock during the attack and does not remember exactly what happened, other then not having his glasses, and missing one shoe after the attack was over.

17. At the same time defendant #2 and maybe defendant #3 used physical force to remove the plaintiff’s body away from the computer and the plaintiff out into the open area of the library. The plaintiff remembers that defendant #2 had his arms wrapped around the plaintiff when the attack was over.

18. At the time of the attack and during the entire arrest the plaintiff does not remember being in any pain, although the plaintiff was in shock. For several days after the attack the plaintiff begin to notice a pain in his left arm. The plaintiff thinks that defendant number #2 or #3 may have intentionally used some martial arts technique to cause this injury, which was very painful for several days.

19. The plaintiff did not notice if defendants #2 and #3 were in possession of deadly weapons.  The plaintiff knows that the MCC police were to be armed with .40 caliber Glock handguns by January 1, 2008 from newspaper articles. That would make the assault charges go from simple assault per A.R.S. 13 § 1202.1,2,3 to aggravated assault, a felony, per A.R.S. 13 § 1204.2 if a deadly weapon was involved.

20. The entire attack was probably recorded on video tape as the library has an extensive system of cameras that are monitored by the MCC police in real time. Defendants #2 and #3 mentioned that the plaintiff initially sat at another computer and then move to the computer that he was arrested at. Defendants #2 and #3 said something to the effect that they would lock down both computers so they could grab the data on them. This almost certainly means they were in communication with a 3rd MCC police officer or aid who was watching the plaintiff real time thru the cameras in the MCC library.

21. The plaintiff requested a copy of all the video tapes in an e-mail to defendant #1 and the tapes should give a good indication of what happened. That is if the MCC police department does not destroy the tapes to cover up their crimes.

22. Defendant #2 and defendant #2 then begin to question the plaintiff, they asked him a number of times what his name and address was. Each time the plaintiff said something to the effect that he was refusing to answer any questions, was taking the 5th Amendment and would not answer any questions unless his lawyer was present.

23. Each time defendant #2 and defendant #3 lied and told the plaintiff that the plaintiff did not have any 5th Amendment rights in this context, and that the plaintiff had to answer their questions.

24. The plaintiff started counting how many times defendant #3 told the plaintiff that he did not have any 5th Amendment rights. The plaintiff stopped counting after the count reached 4. The plaintiff suspects that defendant #1, #2, #3 and #5 lied to the plaintiff 20 to 40 times saying that the plaintiff didn't have any 5th Amendment rights and had to answer the defendants questions.

25. At some point in time, which should also be on the video tapes taken in the MCC library defendant #2 illegally searched the plaintiff. Defendant #2 searched all the plaintiffs pant pockets removing almost everything. This was not a pat down search as allowed by "Terry vs. Ohio" for weapons, but a search of everything the plaintiff had in his pants pockets, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

26. Defendant #2, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, illegally removed the plaintiff's wallet and took it somewhere.

27. Defendant #2 later returned the plaintiff's wallet, minus everything except the money in it. Defendant #2 then counted off the money and said something to the effect see we are returning all $24 and we didn't steal any of your money. As is somehow returning the plaintiffs money with out stealing any of it somehow justified the theft of the plaintiffs money and wallet and the illegal search.

28. The plaintiff could not longer see because the defendants had taken his glasses. But it appeared that the police involved were phoning the numbers on the business cards that they illegally took from the plaintiff’s wallet attempting to get the people that answered to identify the plaintiff.

29. The plaintiff didn't and couldn't see it if it did happen but he suspects that defendant #2 and defendant #3 xeroxed everything they took from the plaintiff's wallet.

30. Defendant #2 decided that he was going to punish the plaintiff like a first grade child being punished for some trivial crime. Defendant #2 moved the plaintiff's chair and made him sit with his face towards the wall humiliating the plaintiff in front of all the people in the library.

31. Around the same time period defendant #3 who was guarding the plaintiff called either a MCC Police officer or police aid, who is defendant #4 and had him guard the plaintiff. He guarded the plaintiff for a long time until defendant #3 told defendant #4 that he could leave.

32. The plaintiff thinks the MCC police called in the Mesa police in an attempt to strong arm the plaintiff and make the plaintiff give up his request to take the 5th.

33. Two or more Mesa Police officers did show up on the 2nd floor of the MCC library and talked to defendants #2 and #3. These Mesa police officers are defendants #5, #6, and #7.

34. The Mesa Police Officers were all armed with handguns.

35. The plaintiff could not hear everything defendants #2, 3, #5, #6, and maybe #7 said, but they appeared to be talking about ways they could falsely charge the plaintiff with a crime and use that as an excuse to fingerprint the plaintiff and find out the plaintiff's identity.

36. They may have talked about releasing the plaintiff and then stopping him for a traffic violation when he left the campus in his car. That may have been shot down because one of the MCC police officers or employees who monitors the video surveillance cameras told them that the plaintiff doesn't have a car and rides a bicycle.

37. Eventually one of the Mesa Police officers questioned the plaintiff. That is defendant #5. Defendant #5 did not try to get into the plaintiffs face like defendants #2 and #3. Defendant #5 didn't come closer then 10 feet to the plaintiff. Defendant #5 did not treat the plaintiff in the mean, rude and disrespectful way that the MCC police who are defendants #2 and #3 treated the plaintiff.

38. Defendant #5 asked the plaintiff several different variations of what is your name and address.

39. Each time the plaintiff responded to defendants #5 questions, with something like "I am taking the 5th. I do not want to answer any questions unless my lawyer is present".

40. Each time defendant #5 lied and said something to the effect that the 5th Amendment doesn't apply here and that the plaintiff had to answer defendant #5's questions.

41. After defendant #5 questioned the plaintiff for the 3rd or 4th time he gave up.

42. At about this time defendant #1 showed up. Defendant #1 is Steve Corich, the head of the MCC Department of Public Safety.

43. From this point in time until the plaintiff was released defendant #1 question the plaintiff a number of times. Most of the time the plaintiff responded that he was taking the 5th and refusing to answer any questions. Most of the time defendant #1 would lie and tell the plaintiff that in this context he did not have any 5th Amendment rights and had to answer all his questions.

44. Defendant #1 did not treat the plaintiff in the mean, rude and disrespectful way that defendants #2 and #3 treated the plaintiff.

45. Up to this point in time the plaintiff had not been told why he had been arrested. Defendant #1 mentioned to the plaintiff that the plaintiff was accused of hacking. The plaintiff still did not know what he was accused of because "hacking" is not a specific crime. "Hacking" is just a term that could refer to hundreds of things, some of which are legal, some of which are criminal.

46. The plaintiff was again illegally searched by defendant #2. Defendant #2 was a very angry man and the plaintiff thinks defendant #2 removed the plaintiff’s coat from the plaintiff’s body and begin searching all the pockets. The plaintiff told defendant #2 that he did not have permission to search it. Not because the plaintiff expected him to stop searching it, but to assert that the plaintiff wanted them to honor his 4th Amendment right not to be searched unless they had a search warrant based on probable cause.

47. Defendant #2 seemed to be looking for both drugs and a thumb drive. Defendant #2 also asked the plaintiff if he had a thumb drive, the plaintiff gave his usual answer that he was taking the 5th and refusing to answer the question. Thumb drives are legal and many other MCC students have them, and use them on the computers in the library.  Defendant #2 asked the plaintiff if he had any needles in the coat. The plaintiff responded that he was taking the 5th and refusing to answer any questions.

48. As defendant #2 searched thru the coat he cursed at the plaintiff and said that if he pricked himself on a needle that he would physically harm the plaintiff.

49. In one of the pockets defendant #2 found a 35mm film container. He seemed to smile with glee as if he found some drugs and he would finally have probable cause to charge the plaintiff with a crime. He seemed unhappy when he opened the container and it only contained a set of headphones, not the illegal drugs he was hoping to find.

50. The plaintiff doesn't remember what else defendant #2 found in his coat but he thinks defendant #2 took everything else he found in the coat and took it off to wherever he put the stuff the defendants illegally took from the plaintiff’s wallet.

51. Around this time defendant #2 seemed to behave like a madman. He was probably 20 to 30 feet away from the plaintiff and he screamed at the plaintiff or perhaps nobody in specific "This is my library! You will do what I say! You will answer my questions!”

52. Despite the fact that the plaintiff had taken the Fifth defendant #1 continued to question the plaintiff. Defendant #1 told the plaintiff that the plaintiff was really smart and asked the plaintiff about his educational back ground. The plaintiff told defendant #1 he was taking the Fifth and refusing to answer the questions.

53. Defendant #1 made some statements to the plaintiff that sounded like the MCC police did not have either the probable cause, or the reasonable suspicion needed to arrest the plaintiff. His statements seemed to say that they considered the plaintiff suspicious and stopped him for that reason. The plaintiff wrote in his notes “Steve Corich did tell me that I didn’t do anything wrong, that I wasn’t under arrest, but they were just looking at the computer to see if they could find something I did wrong”.

54. The plaintiff asked defendant #1 “Am I under arrest”? Defendant #1, lied and responded “no”!

55. The plaintiff then told defendant #1 something to the effect “If I am not under arrest then I am free to go, I am leaving. Bye!” Defendant #1 responded with something like “No you are not free to go, your under xxx custody”. The plaintiff does not remember what the words xxx were but they are a term he had never heard before and the plaintiff thinks defendant #1 made it up as part of his lie that the plaintiff was not under arrest, while at the same time the plaintiff was not free to go, which is an oxymoron.

56. During this time frame the plaintiff asked defendant #1 if defendant #1 knew Ray Krone. Defendant #1 said yes.

57. Defendant #1, defendant #2, and defendant #3 told the plaintiff a number of times, that because the plaintiff was taking the Fifth, that the plaintiff 1) must have something to hide 2) is a criminal, 3) is parole violator 4) is a felon who has done time in prison 5) has warrants out for his arrest and probably a few other nasty things the plaintiff forgot to write down, and that the defendants had every right to arrest the plaintiff for that reason. Not once did the defendants say they had a legal reason based on either “probable cause” or “reasonable suspicion” that they could use to arrest the plaintiff for. Plaintiff stupidly forgot to take his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and said “Well maybe I am just a civil rights activist who wants you to honor my 5th Amendment right to remain silent”.

58. Defendant #1, defendant #2, and defendant #3 told the plaintiff at different times that if the plaintiff continued to demand his right to take the Fifth and refuse to answer the questions of the MCC police that he would be banned from all the Maricopa Community College Campuses and would be arrested for trespassing if he ever set foot again on one of them.

59. Towards the end of the almost two hours the plaintiff was under arrest someone brought defendant #2 a camera so the MCC police could photograph the plaintiff against the plaintiffs wishes.

60. The plaintiff moved his face toward the wall so he could not be photographed.

61. Defendant #2 grabbed the plaintiff and forced the plaintiff to stand up, like a Nazi thug leading a Jew off to a gas chamber.

62. Defendant #2 then slammed the plaintiff’s body against the wall as if to punish him for taking his Fifth Amendment right and to punish and humiliate the plaintiff and say look you filthy criminal I am a police officer with a badge and gun, you will respect my authority, you don’t have any rights when you’re around me, I am God and you will do what I say or you will be severely punished.

63. Defendant #2 then said something to the plaintiff that sounded like defendant #2 was going to beat up the plaintiff. The plaintiff was terrified because he thought defendant #2 was going to punch him in the face and break all his teeth.

64. Defendant #2 then took a photo of the terrified plaintiff.

65. Defendant #2 then yanked the stocking cap off of the plaintiff’s head and took a another photo of the plaintiff. The plaintiff felt like he was a Jew being abused by a Nazi thug and was very angry. The plaintiff thinks defendant #2 did this as to punish and humiliate the plaintiff and say look you filthy criminal I am a police officer with a badge and gun, you will respect my authority, you don’t have any rights when your around me, I am God and you will do what I say or you will be severely punished.

66. The plaintiff thinks that defendant #2 slammed the plaintiff up against the wall and yanked off the plaintiff hat hoping to anger, insult and incite the plaintiff and make the plaintiff defend himself, giving defendant #2 a reason to falsely arrest the plaintiff on charges of attacking a police officer.

67. Sometime after this defendant #2 returned to the plaintiff all the stuff defendants #2 and #3 had stolen from the plaintiff. It was mostly bus tickets, notes and business cards. The plaintiff shoved it in his coat pocket instead of putting it back in his wallet and putting in the places it belonged.

68. Sometime in this time frame both defendant #2 and defendant #1 told the plaintiff that they didn’t think he had done anything wrong. In fact defendant #2 told the plaintiff several times that he didn’t think the plaintiff had done anything wrong and that the plaintiff was going to be released.

69. Defendant #2 then told the plaintiff to shut up and listen to defendant #2 and that defendant #2 was going to give the plaintiff two options.

70. Defendant #2 told the plaintiff that the first option was that the plaintiff could leave the campus and that if the plaintiff ever returned to any Maricopa Community College he would be arrested for trespassing. The plaintiff said “OK I will take that option and I am going to leave now”.

71. Defendant #2 rudely told the plaintiff that he could not take the first option with out listing to the 2nd option. Defendant #2 then told the plaintiff that if the plaintiff stopped taking his Fifth Amendment right and told the MCC police his name that the plaintiff could continue using the library that day as if nothing had happened, and that the plaintiff could continue to use all the Maricopa Community College Campuses with out being arrested for trespassing. This single sentence makes it clear that the MCC police are punishing the plaintiff for taking the Fifth Amendment.

72. The plaintiff told defendant #2 that he would continue to take his Fifth Amendment right would leave the campus as soon as possible.

73. The plaintiff knew he would be filing a civil rights suit in Federal Court against all the police officers involved so he asked defendant #2 for the names of all the officers. Defendant #2 again became very angry and mean spirited and said that he was refusing to tell the plaintiff the his name or the names of any of the other officers involved because the plaintiff took the Fifth and refused to answer the police questions.

74. The plaintiff was not given the opportunity to save or backup the computer program he was editing when he was falsely arrested almost two hours ago.

75. Before defendant #2 escorted the plaintiff off the campus defendant #1 got near the plaintiff. The plaintiff asked defendant #1 if he could have the names of all the police officers involved. Defendant #1 gave the plaintiff his card and wrote the last name of the two MCC police officers that had falsely arrested the plaintiff on the card. Defendant #1 said he didn’t know the names of the Mesa Police officers who were part of the arrest.

76. Defendant #2 escorted the plaintiff out of the library and to his bicycle. The plaintiff then rode his bicycle to a bus stop across the street from the campus where he sat for two hours writing notes of what happened on the MCC campus and how the MCC police and Mesa police violated his civil rights.

IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Rights

77. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 73 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.

78. As is more fully described the Plaintiff was detained, arrested, restrained of his liberty without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and without due process of law, and the plaintiff was prevented from using the Mesa Community College Library which is open to the public, all in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America.

V. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

False Arrest

79. The Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 73 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.

80.  As is more fully described the Plaintiff was falsely detained, arrested, and restrained of his liberty by the Defendants who knew full at the time that they did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to arrest the plaintiff for any offense.

VI. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Assault or Aggravated Assault

81.      The Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 73 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.

82. If the defendants had guns then the assault would be an aggravated assault, a felony per A.R.S. 13 § 1204.2, instead of simple misdemeanor assault per A.R.S. 13 § 1202.1,2,3.

83. The defendant #2 and defendant #3 intentionally intended to injure, insult and provoke the plaintiff in paragraphs 15 thru 19.

84. The defendant #2 intentionally intended to injure, insult and provoke the plaintiff in paragraphs 29, 30 and 61 thru 65.

 

WHEREFORE the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

A.    Proceed with a trial by jury upon issues so triable; and,

B.    Award the Plaintiff’s damages of no less than $1,000,000; and

C.    Award the Plaintiff’s costs and fees incurred for the prosecution of this action;

D.          Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 22_day of February, 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ross

                                    C/O Ricky Duncan

                                        5111 N 16th Drive #8
                                        Phoenix, Arizona
                                        85015-3366

Plaintiff, In Pro Per

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 VERIFICATION

 

     

      I, Ross verify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, that I am the Plaintiff herein, that I have read the foregoing Complaint, and that the same is true and correct that, based upon my knowledge, information, and belief, it is well-grounded as fact, is warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and is not interposed for any improper purpose.

 

 

Dated February 22, 2008____________ ______________________________                                    Ross