Cops Lawsuit

JS44 (Rev.12112) J· i CIVIL COVER SHEET 15 -c.11-{ q1y provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Jud1c1al Conference of the Umted States m September 1974, 1s requlijdif the use oft /6!Jo6f the The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the infor io ·contained herein.neither replace nor supplement the fil.ing and service of pleadings or .other papers asfquired,b,law, ... except as

purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) cl, IJ Q :.,. I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

Philadelphia, Officer William Redanauer, and John Doe Officers

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff (EXCEPT IN US. PLAINTIF • CASES)

( c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

Brian F. Humble; 1500 JFK Blvd. Suite 1313 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 501 6356

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (JN US. PLAINTIFF CASFJ

NOTE:

Attorneys (If Known) Philadelphia Law Dept

II. BASIS OF JURIS IC'(ION (Place an "X" in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "X" in One Box for Plaintiff

0 I U.S. Government Plaintiff

0 2 U.S. Government Defendant

Federal Question (US. Government Not a Party)

0 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item fl!)

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X" in One Box Only) '-li1Jk'.'0 .. -"41\C©NU::RA€;r,;,;;;; •. ·1ilt?·. 0 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 0 120 Marine 0 310 Airplane 0 365 Personal Injury -0 130 Miller Act 0 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 0 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 0 367 Health Care/ 0 I50 Recovery of Overpayment 0 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical

& Enforcement ofJudgment Slander Personal Injury 0 151 Medicare Act 0 330 Federal Employers' Product Liability 0 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 0 368 Asbestos Personal

Student Loans 0 340 Marine Injury Product (Excludes Veterans) 0 345 Marine Product Liability

O 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY ofVeteran's Benefits 0 350 Motor Vehicle 0 370 Other Fraud

O 160 Stockholders' Suits 0 355 Motor Vehicle 0 371 Truth in Lending 0 190 Other Contract Product Liability 0 380 Other Personal 0 195 Contract Product Liability 0 3 60 Other Personal Property Danrnge 0 196 Franchise r, Injury 0 385 Property Damage

I 1'.\362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Medical Malpractice

I'f>:t01 :REA"Ll'ROnERT!Y'.\ %%.' ·'> tJVTL1RIGHTS#fe':M'f),?: 'ERISONER'IIL'tlifJONS,33. 0 210 Land Condenmation \ lll Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 0 220 Foreclosure 0 '41 Voting 0 463 Alien Detainee 0 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 42 Employment 0 510 Motions to Vacate 0 240 Torts to Land 44 3 Housing/ Sentence 0 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 0 530 General 0 290 All Other Real Property 0 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 0 535 Death Penalty

Employment Other: 0 446 Amer. w/Disabilities • 0 540 Mandamus & Other

Other 0 550 Civil Rights 0 448 Education 0 555 Prison Condition

0 560 Civil Detainee -Conditions of

"'I:\ Confinement

v. ) RIG IN (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

(For Diversity Cases Only) PTF

and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF

Citizen of This State 0 I DEF 0 I Incorporated or Principal Place 0 4 0 4

of Business In TI1is State

Citizen of Another State 0 2 0 2 Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State

0 5 0 5

0 3 0 3 Foreign Nation 0 6 0 6

SF©RFEIJ:lJllE/PJl:NA'ETY . ·»·ti4"·?BANKROETG¥;'V:i'ffi[;t.; Af:'\:.>OT£ER1ST.A"WUT!ES'..%t: ."I 0 625 Drug Related Seizure o 422 Appeal 28 use 158 0 375 False Claims Act

of Property 21USC881 0 423 Withdrawal 0 400 State Reapportiournent 0 690 Other 28 use 157 0 41 O Antitrust

0 430 Banks and Banking Liil!tl' , ,·• iRJC:RJlS%.fiil!t 0 450 Commerce 0 820 Copyrights 0 460 Deportation 0 830 Patent 0 470 Racketeer Influenced and 0 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations

0 480 Consumer Credit t"' • :n·SOG r.: 0 490 Cable/Sat TV 0 710 Fair Labor Standards 0 861 HIA (1395ff) 0 850 Securities/Commodities/

Act 0 862 Black Lung (923) Exchange 0 720 Labor/Management 0 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 0 890 Other Statutory Actions

Relations 0 864 SSID Title XVI 0 891 Agricultural Acts 0 740 Railway Labor Act 0 865 RSI (405(g)) 0 893 Environmental Matters 0 7 51 F arnily and Medical 0 895 Freedom oflnformation

Leave Act Act 0 790 Other Labor Litigation 0 896 Arbitration 0 791 Employee Retirement ''<.fFElDE:IU:i:ETAXSUITS.ft' ·Z 0 899 Administrative Procedure

Income Security Act 0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act/Review or Appeal of or Defendant) Agency Decision

0 871 IRS-ThirdParty 0 950 Constitutionality of 26 use 7609 State Statutes

.-t".'"f"::fll\IM.(GFX'l11P!Si£·1\;&::;; 0 462 Naturalization Application 0 465 Other Immigration

Actions

)!( 1 Original 02 Removed from 0 3 Remanded from 0 4 Reinstated or 0 5 Transferred from 0 6 Multidistrict Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation

(specify)

v Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): 42 USC 1983 et seq., and Pendant Jurisdiction under 28 USC 1367 VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause: Excessive Force, Unlawful Search and Seizure, retaliation against the First Amemendment r::_

VII. REQUESTED IN 0 CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND$ CHECK YES only if in complaint: UNDER RULE 23, F.RCv.P. 150,000,00...I-COMPLAINT:

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY

DATE

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT# AMOUNT

(See instructions):

JURY DEMAND: Y, s 0 No '-'

DOCKET NUMBER

APPL YING IFP JUDGE MAG.JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-01974-JP Document 1 Filed 04/15/15 of 21

JP UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRJ:CT OF PENNSYLVANIA - DESIGNATION FORM to be used by counsel to indicate the case for th,!iPUJQose of assignment to appropriate calendar. t ""V -!IJ ttll 't1 /ll Address ofPlaintiff: __ o2_6_6_§ __ e_---_. __ __ _ Address __ __ __ _S_/,. __ Place of Accident, Incident or Transaction:_..? __ O_b_.$ __ --'-t//_/-'-(!_fe __ r_1,4 __ S_-/-_-__ _,_/' __ t_1_/._...,. ___

(Use Reverse Side For Additional Space) 1

Does this civil action involve a nongovernmental corporate party with any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 1 of its stock? (Attach two copies of the Disclosure Statement Form in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 7. l(a)) YesD

Does this case involve multidistrict litigation possibilities? Yeso

RELATED CASE, IF ANY: b Case Number: ______________ Date Terminated:-------=------------

Civil cases are deemed related when yes is answered to any of the following questions:

1. Is this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court?

YesD N;ii( 2. Does this case involve the same issue of fact or grow out of the same transaction as a prior suit pending or within one year previously terminated

action in this court? YesD

3. Does this case involve the validity or infringement of a patent already in suit or any earlier numbered case pending or within one year previously

terminated action in this court? YesD

4. Is this case a second or successive habeas corpus, social security appeal, or pro se civil rights case filed by the same individual?

YesD

CIVIL: (Place t/ in ONE CATEGORY ONLY)

A Federal Question Cases: B. Diversity Jurisdiction Cases:

I. o Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts 1. 0 Insurance Contract and Other Contr

2. o FELA 2. 0 Airplane Personal Injury

ts

3. 0 Assault, Defamation ·?t(/f 4. 0

3. o Jones Act-Personal Injury

4. o Antitrust

abor-Management Relations

ivil Rights

abeas Corpus

I 0. o Social Security Review Cases

11. o All other Federal Question Cases

(Please specify)-------------------

5. 0

6. 0

7. 0

8. 0

9. 0 All other Diversity Cases

(Please specify)

ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION A. C // IA & (Check Appropriate Category)

I, V /'I AN /-' /-It< rt-( IO IL , counsel ofrecord do hereby certify: rsuant to Local Civil Rule 53.2, Section 3(c)(2), that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the damages recoverable in this civil action case exceed the sum of

$ 0,00 .00 exclusive of interest and costs;

DATI<o fo' r;f &£ 7 Attorney-at-Law Attorney I.D.#

NOTE: A trial de novo will be a trial by jury only if there has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38. APR 15 2015 I certify that, to my knowledge, the within case is not related to any case now pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court

::,"":(J,;;,_s-Attorney-at-Law Attorney I.D.#

CIV. 609 (5/2012)


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM

v.

CIVIL ACTION

19 In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel for plaintiff shall complete a Case Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time of filing the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See § 1 :03 of the plan set forth on the reverse side of this form.) In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said designation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on the plaintiff and all other parties, a Case Management Track Designation Form specifying the track to which that defendant believes the case should be assigned.

SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS:

(a) Habeas Corpus - Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 through§ 2255.

(b) Social Security - Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits.

( c) Arbitration - Cases required to be designated for arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53 .2.

( d) Asbestos - Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage from exposure to asbestos.

(e) Special Management- Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through (d) that are commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by the court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of special management cases.)

(f) Standard Management- Cases that do not fall into any one of the other tracks.

( )

( ) ( )

( )

@ F lkM,6/.e Loe< r,:;,

Date Attorney-at-law Attorney for

;2. 15 5"' .;LS- ,. I .3 <(' 0 h fee< A-< C'a"1A.

Telephone FAX Number E-Mail Address

(Civ. 660) 10/02

APR 15 2015


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LUIS GELPI 2063 E. Victoria Street Philadelphia, PA

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA Clo City of Philadelphia Law Dept. One Parkway, 15th Floor 1515 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103

POLICE OFFICER William Redanauer (Badge No. 5833) Individually and in his official capacity Clo City of Philadelphia Law Dept. 1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102

POLICE OFFICER John Doe 2 (Badge No. unknown) Individually and in his official capacity Clo City of Philadelphia Law Dept. 1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102

POLICE OFFICER John Doe 3 (Badge No. unknown) Individually and in his official capacity Clo City of Philadelphia Law Dept. 1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102

POLICE OFFICER JOHN & JANE DOES 4-X (Badge Nos. unknown) Individually and in his official capacity Clo City of Philadelphia Law Dept. 1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102

Defendants

1

CIVIL ACTION No.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED


CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT

AND NOW, here comes the Plaintiff, Luis Gelpi, by and through his Attorney, in this

Civil Action seeking damages arising out of violations of his Constitutional Rights and to his

person and property under Pennsylvania Tort Law, and in support thereof, sets forth the

following allegations and claims:

I. JURISDICTION

1 This is a civil action seeking damages against the Defendants for acts constituting the

deprivation of the Plaintiff's rights secured under Federal Law and the United States

Constitution pursuant 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1988 and under Pennsylvania Tort

Laws.

2 Federal Jurisdiction is established under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1341, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,

1985, 1988 and supplemental jurisdiction over State law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

3 Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because all claims herein arose within the

jurisdiction of the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and

all parties reside or maintain their principle place of business is within the same

jurisdictional boundaries. '

II. PARTIES

4. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 -3 of this complaint as fully set forth

herein

5. Plaintiff, Luis Gelpi, is an adult individual whose domicile and residence is within the

city and municipality of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

6. Defendant, City and County of Philadelphia (hereinafter "Philadelphia") is a municipality

organized by and through the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that directs, manages and

2


controls the Philadelphia Police Department ("PPD") and its customs, policies and

practices, which employs all of named individual Defendants. At all relevant times the

City of Philadelphia was the acting under the Color of State Law.

7. Defendant, Philadelphia Police Officer William Redanauer (Badge no. 5833), of East

Warrant Division, is a Philadelphia Police Officer employed by the Defendant

Philadelphia, and at all times relevant hereto, was acting under the Color of State Law.

Defendant Redanauer is being sued in his individual, supervisory, and all other official

capacities as a Philadelphia Police Officer.

8. Defendant, Philadelphia Police Officer John Doe 2 (Badge No. unknown), believed to be

of East Warrant Division, is Male Philadelphia Police Officer employed by the

Defendant Philadelphia, and at all times relevant hereto, acted under the Color of State

law. Defendant John Doe 2 is being sued in his individual, supervisory, and all other

official capacities as a Philadelphia Police Officer.

9. Defendant, Philadelphia Police Officer John Doe 3 (Badge No. unknown), believed to be

of East Warrant Division, is Male Philadelphia Police Officer employed by the

Defendant Philadelphia, and at all times relevant hereto, acted under the Color of State

law. Defendant John Doe3 is being sued in his individual, supervisory, and all other

official capacities as a Philadelphia Police Officer.

10. Defendant, Philadelphia Police Officers John & Jane Does 4-X (Badge Nos. unknown)

(Hereinafter "Does 4 -X"), believed to be of or acting in concert with East Warrant

Division, are Philadelphia Police Officers employed by the Defendant Philadelphia, and

at all times relevant hereto, acted under the Color of State law. Defendant Does 4-X are

3


being sued in his individual, supervisory, and all other official capacities as a

Philadelphia Police Officers.

III. FACTS


herein.

12. The incident alleged in this complaint occurred on/or about May 8, 2013 at the home of

Luis Gel pi and his family, located at 2063 Victoria Street in Philadelphia, PA. (The

Gelpi Home).

13. At the time of the incident, Mr. Gel pi was relaxing in his home with his wife, Bonnie

Gelpi, and their three (3) minor daughters.

14. At the time of the incident, Mr. Gelpi had an injured right arm, which was in a full cast.

15. Mr. Gelpi supported his family, and was gainfully employed as a mover for "Hammer

Moving and Storage".

16. At the time of the incident, the PPD was looking for Mr. Gelpi's brother, Juan Gelpi

(Hereinafter "Juan"). It is reasonably believed that East Warrant Division was assigned to

executing an arrest warrant.

17. Philadelphia Police Officers, repeatedly harassed Mr. Gelpi and members of his family at

the Gelpi home. It is reasonable believed that the PPD was attempting to apprehend Juan,

Mr. Gelpi's brother.

18. Prior to the incident, the PPD were repeatedly advised by Mr. and Mrs. Gelpi that Juan

did not reside at the Gelpi home.

19. There was absolutely no evidence that the Gelpi family was harboring a fugitive.

4


20. Despite previous, unwarranted harassment, days prior to the incident, Mrs. Gelpi

cooperated and allowed members of the PPD to enter and search her and Mr. Gelpi's

home without a warrant.

21. The PPD recovered absolutely no evidence to infer that Juan ever resided at the Gelpi

home, or that further investigation and harassment of the Gel pi' s would lead to more

information and/or the location of Juan.

22. Approximately a day or two later, on May 8, 2013, the Individual Defendant Officers

came looking for Juan , again at the Gelpi home, as part of a police investigation.

23. On this occasion, Mr. Gelpi, demanded that the Police Officers named herein produce a

warrant, or go away and stop harassing his family and disrupting his life.

24. In response, one of the Defendant Officers, ordered Mr. Gelpi to "open the fucking door".

25. Mr. Gelpijustifiably demanded that the individually-named defendants produce a

warrant.

26. Rather than obtaining and/or showing a warrant, the Defendant Officers broke the front

door and forcibly entered the Gelpi home.

27. Thereafter, Defendant Redanauer and John Doe 2 forcibly grabbed Mr. Gelpi off the

family couch, and forcefully threw him to the floor in front of his wife and children.

28. Defendant Redanauer repeatedly punched Mr. Gelpi in the head, face and back and

twisted Mr. Gelpi's injured and casted arm, while John Doe 2 forcibly drove his knee into

Mr. Gelpi's back.

29. During the physical beating and restraint of Mr. Gelpi, Mrs. Gelpi was pleading with the

Defendants Redanauer and John Doe 2 to stop beating her husband

5


30. Mrs. Gelpi tried to explain that Mr. Gelpi was not Juan and tried to show any Defendant

Police Officer Mr. Gelpi's driver's license in order to verify his identity.

31. Defendants John Doe 3, and Does 4-X, stood by and did nothing to intervene or prevent

the unlawful entry and search of the Gel pi home, or the unlawful use of force and beating

of Mr. Gelpi's body.

32. During this time, the Individually-named defendants searched the Gelpi home.

33. The whole time Mr. Gelpi was being physical beaten and restrained; Mr. Gelpi was

demanding or asking to see a warrant.

34. Mr. Gelpi was also repeatedly warning the Defendant Officers that he intended to report

the incident to Internal Affairs.

35. At some point after Mr. Gelpi was beaten, and the illegal search of the Gelpi home, John

Doe 3 announced "oh it's not him."

36. After being released, Mr. Gelpi, once again, warned that he was going to report the

incident.

37. In response, John Doe 3 smiled and stated to Mr. Gelpi: "that's why you got your ass

beat".

38. Mr. Gelpi reported the incident under Citizen Complaint Number 27107.

39. Neither Internal Affairs nor the PPD has contacted Mr. Gelpi or his family with regard to

his prompt complaint and the underlying incident alleging police misconduct.

40. The Individual Defendant Officers acted on a custom, policy and/or practice of

unchecked and unmonitored discretion, and impunity with regard to use of police power

and tactics involving warrants, searches, seizures arrests and investigations.

6


41. The individual Defendant Police Officers have a history of violating the Constitutional

Rights of citizens in a specifically similar manner and pattern, specifically with regard to

the execution of warrants.

42. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant City of Philadelphia, was charged with the

responsibility and duty of testing, hiring, training, monitoring, supervising and

disciplining the individually named defendant Police Officers and all other employees of

the PPD.

IV. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT 1

DUE PROCESS UNDER THE 4TH AND 14™ AMENDMENT

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988; as to Defendant Philadelphia

43. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 - 42 of this complaint as fully set forth

herein.

44. By a history of complaints and Internal Affairs files regarding the Defendant Police

Officers, Defendant Philadelphia knew or should have known that the Individual

Defendant Police Officers were routinely and systematically violating the Constitutional

Rights of Philadelphia Citizens, by use of warrantless searches, searches and seizures

without probable cause and/or reasonable suspicion, searches without any justifiable

exigent circumstance, and use of unlawful and excessive force.

45. Defendant Philadelphia failed to properly monitor Internal Affairs with deliberate

indifference, and knew or should have known that the Internal Affairs routinely and

systematically facilitates the violation of Constitutional Rights and police misconduct by

7


failing to properly investigate allegations similar to as alleged herein, and the Defendant

Police Officers.

46. Defendants Philadelphia continued to tacitly approve, permit, and/or treat with deliberate

indifference custom, policy and practice of the herein alleged illegal conduct of Police

Officers.

47. Defendant Philadelphia continues to fail with deliberate indifference to its obligation to

supervise, monitor and/or implement a policy of meaningful discipline and/or

investigation regarding Constitutional violations, and unlawful conduct by Police

Officers.

48. Insufficient independent and objective oversight, auditing monitoring, training

supervising , disciplining and training by the Defendants Philadelphia and Ramsey in

what constitutes a sufficient basis for a warrantless entry and search, a lawful search and

seizure, exigent circumstances, and a lawful use of force proximately caused and

facilitated the abuse of police power, and thus was the proximate cause of the herein-

alleged violations Mr. Gelpi's Constitutional Rights protected under the 4th and 14th

Amendments.

49. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned, and /or deliberate indifference

thereto, Mr. Gelpi was deprived of his rights to be secure in his, house, person, property,

effects, bodily integrity, privacy, to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures,

unlawful detention, warrantless searches except on probable cause all protected under

Due Process of Law by the 4th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution

through 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1988.

8


50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Philadelphia's conduct, Mr. Gelpi was

deprived of his Constitutional rights and sustained pain, injury, emotional distress,

financial loss, all to the Mr. Gelpi's detriment, some of which may be permanent.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against the Defendants for compensatory

'damages in an amount in excess of $150,000.00, and punitive damages in an amount in excess

of $150,000.00, plus interest, costs, attorney's fees, and any such other relief as this Honorable

Court may deem just.

COUNT2

RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT

42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1988; as to Philadelphia


herein.

52. The ability of citizens to freely protest the violation of their Constitutional Rights and

freely seek redress without fear of retaliation is a serious matter and of substantial public

concern.

53. Defendant Philadelphia knew or should have known that the Individual Defendant Police

Officers were routinely and systematically violating the Constitutional Rights of

individuals by retaliating against citizens for voicing their Constitutional Rights,

expressing their opinion, and complaining to the public and Internal Affairs about police

misconduct.

54. The Defendant Philadelphia is deliberately indifferent to a custom of warrantless

searches, excessive force, and continued harassment of citizens in execution of body

warrants.

9


55. Defendant Philadelphia knew or should have known that Internal Affairs routinely and

systematically violates the Constitutional Rights of individuals by deliberately failing to

investigate allegations of retaliation against citizens who voice their Constitutional

Rights.

56. Defendant Philadelphia continues to tacitly approve, permit, and/or treat with deliberate

indifference the herein alleged illegal conduct of the Individual Defendant Police

Officers.

57. As a direct and proximate result of all the aforementioned conduct, custom, policy and/or

practice, Mr. Gelpi was deprived of his Right to Freedom Speech protected by the First

Amendment through 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1988

58. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Philadelphia's conduct, Mr. Gelpi was

deprived of his Constitutional rights and sustained pain, injury, emotional distress,

financial loss, all to the Mr. Gelpi's detriment, some of which may be permanent.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against the Defendant for compensatory

damages in an amount in excess of $150,000.00, and punitive damages in an amount in excess of

$150,000.00, plus interest, costs, attorney's fees, and such other relief as this Honorable Court

may deem just

10


COUNT 3.

DUE PROCESS

42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1988; Defendants Redanaur, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, and Does 4-X


herein.

60. Defendants Redanauer, John Does 2, 3 and Does 4-X violated Mr. Gelpi's 4th and 14th

Amendment Rights to be secure in his home, and to be free of unreasonable Search and

Seizure without a valid warrant and without probable cause, by forcibly entering and

searching the Gelpi home as described herein.

61. Defendants Redanauer and John Doe 2 violated Mr. Gelpi's 4th and 14th Amendment

Right to Liberty, to be secure in his house, property, person, effects, bodily integrity, and

to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, by deliberately entering Mr. Gelpi's

home without a valid warrant and/or probable cause, or exigent circumstances, and

thereafter physical restraining, and applying unjustified and excessive physical force to

Mr. Gelpi's body.

62. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Mr. Gelpi was deprived of his

Constitutional rights and sustained pain, injury, emotional distress, financial loss, all to

the Mr. Gel pi' s detriment, some of which may be permanent.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests judgment against the defendant for compensatory

damages in an amount in excess of $150,000.00, and punitive damages in an amount in

excess of $150,000.00, plus interest, costs, attorney's fees, and such other relief as this

Honorable Court may deem just.

11


COUNT4.

FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOM OF SPEECH

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988; Defendants Redanauer, John Doe 2, John Doe 3


herein.

64. Defendants Redanauer and John Doe 2 deliberately retaliated, assaulted, battered, and

restrained Mr. Gelpi in retaliation to Mr. Gelpi verbally invoking his Constitutional

Rights, complaing that the Defendant Police Officers violated his Constitutional Rights

and that he intended to report the incident to Internal Affairs.

65. Defendant John Doe 3 stated that Mr. Gelpi's beating was a consequence of protesting

the unlawful entry and search of his home and expressing his intent to report the incident.



the Mr. Gelpi's detriment, some of which may be permanent.





12


COUNT 5.

ASSAULT AND BATTERY Pendant State Law Claim as to Redanauer and 2


herein.

68. Defendants Redanauer and John Doe 2 committed battery in violation of the laws of

Pennsylvania by using unjustified and excessive force in the form of forcibly shoving,

restraining, and punching Mr. Gel pi, all of which conduct constitutes malicious, willful,

intentional, harmful and offensive contact that caused severe physical and mental injury.

69. Defendants Redanauer and John Doe 2 committed assault through the herein-described

acts in this complaint which caused the Mr. Gel pi apprehension of malicious, intentional,

willful and harmful offensive contact.





damages in an amount in excess of $150,000.00, and punitive damages in an amount in excess

of $150,000.00, plus interest, costs, attorney's fees, and such other relief as this Honorable

Court may deem just.

13


COUNT6.

FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT

Pendant State Law Claim as to Redanauer and John Doe 2


herein.

72. By the acts and conduct incorporated herein, defendants Redanauer and John Doe 2

committed false arrest and/or false imprisonment in violation of the laws of Pennsylvania

by maliciously, and willfully detaining and restraining the plaintiffs body from

movement in all directions without the plaintiffs consent or under authority of law.








14


COUNT7.

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Pendant State Law Claim as to Redanauer, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, and Does 4-X


herein.

75. The acts and conduct all individually named Defendapt Police Officers, individually and

in furtherance, concert and conspiracy, incorporated herein constitutes extreme and

outrageous conduct that is beyond the bounds of conduct tolerated by civilized society

such that they violate basic concepts of human decency and shock the conscience of

society.



the Mr. Gelpi's detriment, some of which may be permanent.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against the defendant for compensatory




15


COUNTS

CIVIL CONSPIRACY

Pendant State Law Claim as to Defendants Redanauer, John Does 2, 3 and Does 4-X


herein.

78. Based on the aforementioned acts, omissions and conduct, Defendants Redanauer, John

Doe 2, John Doe 3, and Does 4-X committed Civil Conspiracy in violation of

Pennsylvania State Law.

79. The herein-alleged Civil Conspiracy is based in Civil Cause of action(s) under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1981, 1983 et seq., and the aforementioned Counts alleging substantive violations of

Tort Law recognized by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

80. The Defendant Police Officers combined and/or agreed to intentionally commit the

aforementioned violations of the Constitution, unlawful acts and or omissions used the

aforementioned unlawful means in order to facilitate the aforementioned unlawful

purpose(s), and or with knowledge that the harm herein would be the likely result.




WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment against the Defendant for compensatory




16


II. DAMAGES RELIEF


herein.

83. As the proximate result of the acts committed by all of the defendants under the color of

state law in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1988, and in violation of

Pennsylvania Tort Law the plaintiffs suffered damages, not limited to the deprivation of

his Constitutional Rights, substantial pain, humiliation, physical and psychological

injury, economic loss, and deprivation of the plaintiffs civil rights, some of which may

be permanent.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff respectfully requests judgment in favor of the plaintiff as to

all counts and award the plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages against all defendants,

attorney's fees and costs, all applicable interest, and any suck other relief that the Court

deems appropriate.

III. JURY DEMAND


herein.

85. On all the counts, facts and claims herein asserted, the plaintiff hereby demands a trial by

JUry.

17


18

Respectfully Submitted,

Brian F. Humble Brian F. Humble, Esquire Bar ID: 88887 1500 JFK Blvd, suite 1313 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 501-6356 Fx: 2 525-1340


Cops Lawsuit

Documents

Transcript of Cops Lawsuit