Azana lawsuit

7/29/2019 Azana lawsuit

1/13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

RICARDO AZANA; :YAMILEIDI AZANA; : :

and R.A. ppa Yamileidi Azana ::Plaintiffs : DOCKET NO.

:v. :

:CITY OF WEST HAVEN :CHIEF OF POLICE JOHN KARAJANIS :SERGENT RON CELENTANO :OFFICER BRIAN BOGERT :OFFICER MICHAEL WOLF : June 4, 2010

OFFICER DEBBIE DAMATO :OFFICER SCOTT BLOOM :

:Defendants. :

COMPLAINT

This action is to redress the excessive and unreasonable use of force against the

Plaintiffs, Ricardo Azana, Yamileidi Azana and R.A. ppa Yamileidi Azana, by

Defendants, Police Officers of the City of West Haven Police Department, in violation of

the Plaintiffs rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United

States Constitution as enforced through 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1988, and the

deprivation of the Plaintiffs liberty without the due process of law, in violation of the

Fourteenth Amendment. Mr. Azana also asserts state law claims alleging violations of

the Connecticut Constitution article first, 7 and 9; assault and battery; recklessness

and maliciousness; negligence; negligent infliction of emotional distress; intentional

infliction of emotional distress; and municipal liability for the aforesaid under Connecticut

General Statutes section 52-557n.

Case 3:10-cv-00883-JBA Document 1 Filed 06/07/10 Page 1 of 13


2/13

2

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has jurisdiction of the claims for deprivation of constitutional

rights under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1343; under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and

1988; and this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over all state law claims under 28

U.S.C. Section 1367.

2. Venue is Proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391

because: (1) all defendants reside within the judicial district, and (2) all of the events

giving rise to this Complaint occurred in this judicial district.

II. PARTIES

3. The plaintiff, Ricardo Azana, is a resident of West Haven, County of New

Haven and the State of Connecticut.

4. The plaintiff, Yamiledi Azana, is a resident of West Haven, County of New

Haven and the State of Connecticut.

5. The plaintiff, R.A. is a minor child and a resident of West Haven, County of

New Haven and the State of Connecticut. He brings this action through his guardian

and next of friend Yamiledi Azana.

6. Defendant, the City of West Haven is a municipality in the County of New

Haven created and existing as a political subdivision of and in the State of Connecticut.

7. Defendant, the Chief of West Haven Police, John Karajanis, is the Chief of

the West Haven Police Department, having his principal business address at 200 Saw

Mill Road, West Haven, Connecticut and acted under color of statute, ordinance,

regulation, custom or usage of the State of Connecticut. Chief Karajanis is being sued

in his official and individual capacity.



3/13

3

8. Defendant, Police Sergeant Ron Celentano, is and was at all times

relevant hereto a police officer of the West Haven Police Department, having his

principal business address at 200 Saw Mill Road, West Haven, Connecticut and acted

under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of the State of

Connecticut. Police Officer Morse is being sued in his official and individual capacity.

9. Defendant, Police Officer Brian Bogert, is and was at all times relevant

hereto a police officer of the West Haven Police Department, having his principal

business address at 200 Saw Mill Road, West Haven, Connecticut and acted under

color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of the State of Connecticut.

Police Officer Bogert is being sued in his official and individual capacity.

10. Defendant, Police Officer Michael Wolf, is and was at all times relevant

hereto a police officer of the West Haven Police Department, having his principal



Police Officer Wolf is being sued in his official and individual capacity.

11. Defendant, Police Officer Debbie DAmato, is and was at all times relevant

hereto a police officer of the West Haven Police Department, having her principal



Police Officer DAmato is being sued in her official and individual capacity.

12. Defendant, Police Officer Scott Bloom, is and was at all times relevant

hereto a police officer of the West Haven Police Department, K-9 Unit, having his

principal business address at 200 Saw Mill Road, West Haven, Connecticut and acted



4/13

4

under color of statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of the State of

Connecticut. Police Officer Morse is being sued in his official and individual capacity.

III. ALLEGATIONS OF FACTS

13. On or about October 25, 2009 the Plaintiffs were in their home at 145

William Street, West Haven, Connecticut with friends and family members celebrating

the birthday of Plaintiff Ricardo Azana.

14. At around 12:30 a.m. the Plaintiffs and their guests were eating dinner

when Defendant Police Officers of the City of West Haven (Defendant Officers) burst

into the apartment, without notice or announcement.

15. On said date and time, Plaintiff Ricardo Azana entered the living room

area where the Defendant Officers had forcibly entered the Plaintiffs' home.

16. When Mr. Azana asked the Defendant Officers why they had entered the

home the Defendant Officers intimidated him with verbal taunts and threats of arrest

him.

17. Suddenly, unexpectedly and without provocation, one of the Defendant

Officer assaulted Mr. Azana, causing Mr. Azana to fall to the floor.

18. The Defendant Officers subsequently mocked and humiliated the Plaintiffs

and their guests for speaking Spanish and threatened to call the immigration authorities.

19. Frightened and intimidated, Mr. Azana retreated to his bedroom to protect

his three-year-old son, Plaintiff R.A., who was sleeping in his bed.

20. The Defendant Officers entered the bedroom using violent force,

ultimately breaking the door. The Defendant Officers forcibly grabbed and removed the

child from Mr. Azana.

21. Thereafter, the Defendant Officers forcibly grabbed Mr. Azana and placed



5/13

5

him under arrest in the presence of his wife, Yamileidi Azana, and his son, R.A.

22. The Defendant Officers purposefully and with intent tightened the

handcuffs on the Plaintiffs wrists so as to cause skin abrasions and contusions.

23. As a result of the Defendant Officers unreasonable and aggressive

conduct Mr. Azana suffered the following serious and painful injuries: lacerations,

contusions and abrasions to the face; lacerations, contusions and abrasions to the

wrists and hands; severe and painful headaches.

24. On or about November 30, 2009, the Department of Children and Families

(DCF) sent a social worker to the Plaintiffs' home at the request of the Defendants.

25. The DCF social worker went to the Plaintiffs' home a total of three times

over a period of forty days from the end of October to November 30, 2009.

26. The Defendants used DCF to repeatedly harass the Plaintiffs without

reason, causing the Plaintiffs to suffer mental and psychological harm and anxiety.

IV. ALLEGATIONS

COUNT I: AS TO DEFENDANT OFFICERS: Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983.

27. Paragraphs 1 through 26, inclusive of the foregoing are hereby

incorporated as if recited in full herein.

28. Without probable cause, Mr. Azana was arrested and suffered an

excessive use of force in his detention by the Defendant Officers.

29. The excessive force used by Defendant Officers caused Mr. Azana to

suffer severe personal injuries and emotional distress and caused him to be deprived of

rights secured by the United States Constitution in one or more of the following ways:

A. The Defendant Officers used an excessive and unreasonable

amount of force against Mr. Azana, in violation of his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and



6/13

6

Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as enforced through 42

U.S.C. Section 1983 and 1988;

B. The Defendant Officers acted toward Mr. Azana with the intent to

deprive him of his liberty, privileges, or immunities without due process of law, in

violation of Mr. Reynolds' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States

Constitution; and

C. The Defendant Officers acted toward Mr. Azana with the intent to

deprive him of his rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution

to be free of unreasonable arrest.

COUNT II: AS TO DEFENDANT OFFICERS: VIOLATION OF CONNECTICUTSTATE CONSTITUTION .



31. The Defendant Officers unlawfully deprived Mr. Azana of rights secured to

him by the Connecticut Constitution as a result of the excessive use and unreasonable

use of force and arrest without probable cause.

32. The conduct of the Defendant Officers was unlawful and in violation of

Article First, sections 8 and 9, of the Connecticut Constitution.

COUNT III: AS TO DEFENDANT OFFICERS: ASSAULT AND BATTERY.



34. The Defendant Officers forcefully restrained, threatened and touched Mr.

Azana with the intention of placing him in apprehension of imminent serious bodily harm

or death.



7/13

7

35. The Defendant Officers intended to touch and did in fact touch Mr.

Azanas person in a manner offensive and harmful manner.

36. As a result of the conduct of the Defendant Officers, Mr. Azana was in fact

put in apprehension of imminent serious bodily harm or death.

37. The conduct of the Defendant Officers constituted an assault and battery

upon Mr. Reynolds.

38. The personal injuries and losses complained of by Mr. Azana were the

direct and proximate result of said assault and battery.

COUNT IV: AS TO DEFENDANT OFFICERS: RECKLESSNESS ANDMALICIOUSNESS.



40. The conduct of the Defendant Officers was not ordinary and customary for

the arrest and detention of a criminal suspect.

41. The Defendant Officers were reckless and malicious in one or more of the

following ways:

A. They arrested Mr. Azana was without legal or probable cause or

justification;

B. They restrained Mr. Azana without legal or probable cause or

justification;

C. They assaulted Mr. Azana without legal or probable cause or

justification;

D. They each used excessive and unreasonable force against Mr.

Azana and failed or refused to act to prevent each other defendant from using

excessive and unreasonable force against Mr. Reynolds;



8/13

8

E. The conduct of the Defendant Officers was done with the intent of

inflicting bodily injury and without any useful purpose for the arrest and detention of a

criminal suspect.


direct and proximate result of said recklessness or maliciousness.

COUNT V: AS TO DEFENDANT OFFICERS: NEGLIGENCE.



44. The Defendant Officers failed to observe the ordinary and usual standard

of care in the apprehension and detention of a criminal suspect.

45. The Defendant Officers failed to observe the customary and ordinary use

of force proportional to the resistance of a criminal suspect.

46. The Defendant Officers were negligent in one or more of the following

ways:

A. They arrested Mr. Azana without probable cause;

B. They restrained and assaulted Mr. Azana without justification or

provocation;

C. They each used excessive and unreasonable force against Mr.

Azana and failed or refused to act to prevent each other from using excessive and

unreasonable force against Mr. Azana;

47. The personal injuries and losses of which Mr. Azana complains were the

direct and proximate result of said negligence.

COUNT VI: AS TO DEFENDANT OFFICERS: NEGLIGENT NFLICTION OFEMOTIONAL DISTRESS



9/13

9



49. The Defendant Officers each knew or should have known that his acts and

omissions as alleged herein involved and unreasonable risk of causing emotional

distress to the Plaintiffs.

50. As a direct and proximate result of said acts or omissions, the Plaintiffs

suffered emotional distress.

COUNT VII: AS TO DEFENDANT OFFICERS: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OFEMOTIONAL DISTRESS



52. The Defendant Officers intended to inflict severe emotional distress to the

Plaintiffs and each knew or should have known or acted with an intentional disregard of

known facts such that their acts would result in severe emotional distress to the

Plaintiffs.

53. The actions of the Defendant Officers were extreme and outrageous in

light of the facts herein previously alleged.

54. As a direct and proximate result of said acts or omissions, the Plaintiffs

suffered emotional distress.

COUNT VIII: AS TO THE CITY OF WEST HAVEN CHIEF OF POLICE JOHNKARAJANIS





10/13

10

56. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant Officers were under the

command, control, and direction of the City of West Haven Police Department and its

Chief, John Karajanis.

57. Chief Karajanis failed to secure to Mr. Azana, unlawfully deprived Mr.

Azana, or caused Mr. Azana to be unlawfully deprived of rights secured to him by the

United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988 in one or more of the

following ways:

A. He failed or refused to promulgate and enforce appropriate

guidelines, regulations, policies, practices, procedures or customs regarding the arrests

of person by the Defendant Officers;

B. He failed or refused to promulgate and enforce appropriate

guidelines, regulations, policies, practices, procedures or customs regarding the use of

force against persons by the Defendant Officers;

C. He failed or refused to promulgate and enforce guidelines,

regulations, policies, practices, procedures or customs regarding the training of the

Defendant Officers in the performance of their duties and conduct toward persons;

D. He failed or refused to recognize the dangerous and violent

propensities of the Defendant Officers and to take corrective disciplinary or educational

actions regarding such dangerous and violent propensities;

E. He failed or refused to recognize the emotional fatigue and stress

of the Defendant Officers and to adequately address such fatigue and stress when he

knew or should have known such a condition was likely to lead to the excessive use of

force against individuals such as Mr. Azana.



11/13

11


direct and proximate result of such failure by the Chief Karajanis.

COUNT IX: AS TO THE CITY OF WEST HAVEN AS FOR NEGLIGENCE OF ITS

AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO CONN. GEN. STAT. 52-557n

59. Paragraphs 1 through 65 inclusive of the foregoing are hereby


60. At all times relevant hereto the Defendant Officers were acting as agents

and employees of the City of West Haven in the performance of ministerial acts and

duties.

61. The Defendant Officers were negligent in the performance of their

ministerial acts and duties in one or more of the following ways:

A. They arrested Mr. Azana without probable cause;

B. They restrained and assaulted Mr. Azana without justification or

provocation;

C. They each used excessive and unreasonable force against Mr.

Azana and failed or refused to act to prevent each other from using excessive and

unreasonable force against Mr. Azana.

62. At all times relevant hereto Chief of Police Karajanis was acting as an

agent and employee of the City of West Haven in the performance of ministerial acts

and duties.

63. Chief Karajanis was negligent in the performance of his ministerial acts or

duties in any one or more of the following ways:



12/13

12

A. He failed or refused to promulgate and enforce appropriate

guidelines, regulations, policies, practices, procedures or customs regarding the arrests

of person by the Defendant Officers;

B. He failed or refused to promulgate and enforce appropriate

guidelines, regulations, policies, practices, procedures or customs regarding the use of

force against persons by the Defendant Officers;

C. He failed or refused to promulgate and enforce guidelines,

regulations, policies, practices, procedures or customs regarding the training of the

Defendant Officers in the performance of their duties and conduct toward persons;

D. He failed or refused to recognize the dangerous and violent

propensities of the Defendant Officers and to take corrective disciplinary or educational

actions regarding such dangerous and violent propensities;

E. He failed or refused to recognize the emotional fatigue and stress

of the Defendant Officers and to adequately address such fatigue and stress when he

knew or should have known such a condition was likely to lead to the excessive use of

force against individuals such as Mr. Azana.

64. The personal injuries and losses of which Mr. Azana complains were the

direct and proximate result of said negligence.

65. The City of West Haven is liable for the actions and conduct pursuant to

Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-557n.

COUNT X: AS TO THE CITY OF WEST HAVEN FOR INDEMNIFICATIONPURSUANT TO CONN. GEN. STAT. 7-465

66. Paragraphs 1 through 65 inclusive of the foregoing are hereby




13/13

13

67. The City of West Haven is liable to pay on behalf of its employees the

Defendant Officers and Chief of Police Karajanis, all sums which each become

obligated to pay by reason of liability being imposed upon such employee by law for

damages awarded for the infringement of the civil rights and physical damages to the

person or property of the Plaintiffs pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 7-465.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs claim:

1. Monetary damages of not less than Two Million Dollars;

2. Punitive damages;

3. Attorney fees and costs provided by 42 U.S.C. 1988;

4. Indemnification pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. 7-465; and

5. Such other relief in law or equity as the Court may deem appropriate.

Dated at New Haven, Connecticut on this 4 th Day of June 2010.

PLAINTIFFS: RICARDO AZANA, YAMILEIDI AZANA,and R.A. ppa YAMILEIDI AZANA

/s/

By: Glenn L. Formica, Ct. Fed. 21053Formica, P.C.900 Chapel Street, Suite 1200New Haven, Connecticut 06510Telephone: (203) 789-8456Facsimile: (203) 787-6766E-Mail: [email protected]

JURY DEMAND

The plaintiffs, Ricardo Azana, Yamileidi Azana, and R.A. ppa YAMILEIDI AZANA

hereby demand a jury trial on all Counts of this Complaint.


Azana lawsuit

Documents

Transcript of Azana lawsuit