-1-
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. TARVER, JR.66 South Main StreetToms River, New Jersey 08757(732) 341-2152 Telephone(732) 341-2153 FacsimileRobert L. Tarver, Jr.Attorney for PlaintiffRT (0472)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
CYNTHIA MCDOUGALL O/B/O/J.M., a Minor,
Plaintiff,v.
THE TOWNSHIP OF MAPLEWOOD;,ROBERT CIMINO, Chief Of Police of theMaplewood Police Department, Individuallyand under color of State law; CAPTAINJOSHUA CUMMIS, Individually and undercolor of State law; BRIAN RODRIGUES,Individually and under color of State law;JOSEPH CIRAULO, Individually and undercolor of State law, MICHAEL JOHNSON,Individually and under color of State law; ABCMUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS 1-5; JOHNand JANE DOES 1-20 (fictitious names);
Defendants
Hon. _________________________
Civil Action No. ________________
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Cynthia McDougall on behalf of J.M., a minor, by way of Complaint against Defendants
says:
INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action for damages sustained by a J.M., a citizen of the United States,
against police officers of the Maplewood, Irvington and/or South Orange Police Department(s),
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 1 of 30 PageID: 1
-2-
who unlawfully arrested, assaulted, harassed and otherwise injured J.M. Herein J.M. is also
referred to as “Plaintiff” as he is plaintiff in fact.
2. The action is against the Chief of Police of Maplewood as the supervisory officer
responsible for the conduct of the defendants and for the Chief's failure to take corrective action
with respect to police personnel whose vicious propensities were notorious, to assure proper
training and supervision of the personnel, or to implement meaningful procedures to discourage
lawless official conduct, and against the Township of Maplewood as the employer of the police
personnel, which is sued as a person under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the
supplemental jurisdiction of this Court over state claims. Venue is proper within this District
because the unlawful practices complained of in this complaint all occurred within the District of
New Jersey.
4. The causes of action alleged, seek to redress the deprivation, under the color of state
law, policy and custom, of rights secured by the United States Constitution, the New Jersey
Constitution, and the statutory and common laws of the state of New Jersey, and to recover
damages, costs, and attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985(3) and 1988.
5. The acts, omissions and conspiracies alleged in this complaint were engaged in and
carried out by all defendants individually and under color of state law and/or agents, employees
and co-conspirators and the police departments of the Township of Maplewood, Township of
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 2 of 30 PageID: 2
-3-
Irvington and Village of South Orange by and through their employees, agents, officials and co-
conspirators pursuant to governmental policy, practice, and custom and under color of law.
THE PARTIES
6. Cynthia McDougall was at all times relevant herein, a resident of the State of New
Jersey and the Township of Maplewood. Ms. McDougall is the biological mother of J.M. and
brings this action on his behalf.
7. Plaintiff J.M.. was at all times relevant herein a resident of the State of New Jersey
and the Township of Maplewood. J.M. was a student at Maplewood’s Columbia High School.
He is an African American male. At the time of this incident, he was sixteen (16) years old and a
minor.
8. Defendant Robert Cimino was at all times relevant herein, the Chief of Police of the
Township of Maplewood and upon information and belief is a resident of the State of New
Jersey. In this capacity, the Chief of Police was:
a. The commanding officer of Maplewood Police Department, and Maplewood
Police Department officers “John and Jane Doe” as well as officers from other
jurisdictions acting under his supervision and was responsible for their training,
supervision and conduct.
b. Responsible by law for enforcing the regulations of the Maplewood Police
Department and for ensuring that Maplewood Police Personnel and other
officers under his supervisory control, obey the laws of the State of New Jersey.
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 3 of 30 PageID: 3
-4-
c. Acting as the agent, servant, and employee of the defendant Township of
Maplewood. This defendant is sued individually and in his official capacity.
9. Defendant Township of Maplewood is a governmental municipal corporation of the
State of New Jersey operating under its laws and at all relevant times, it employed members of
the Maplewood Police Department.
10. Defendant Captain Joshua Cummis was at all times relevant hereto a police officer
with the Township of Maplewood operating in a supervisory capacity. Upon information and
belief, he is a resident of the State of New Jersey. He is sued individually and in his official
capacity as a Maplewood Police Officer.
11. Defendant Detective Joseph Ciraulo was at all times relevant hereto a police officer
with the Township of Maplewood and upon information and belief is a resident of the State of
New Jersey. He is sued individually and in his official capacity as a Maplewood Police Officer.
12. Defendant Patrolman Brian Rodrigues, was at all times relevant hereto a police
officer with the Township of Maplewood and upon information and belief is a resident of the
State of New Jersey. He is sued individually and in his official capacity as a Maplewood Police
Officer.
13. Defendant Patrolman Michael Johnson was at all times relevant hereto a police
officer with the Township of Irvington and upon information and belief is a resident of the State
of New Jersey. He is sued individually and in his official capacity as an Irvington Police Officer.
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 4 of 30 PageID: 4
-5-
14. Defendants John and Jane Does 1-20 are past and present employees, past and present
supervisory employees and/or past and present agents of the Township of Maplewood, the
Township of Irvington and the Village of South Orange and/or any subdivision of each who
acted individually and under color of State law, to wit, under color of statutes, regulations,
policies, customs and usages of the State of New Jersey at all times relevant hereto. This group
also includes policymakers.
15. Defendants ABC Municipal Corporations 1-5 are governmental municipal
corporations of the State of New Jersey operating under its laws and who may have employed
any of the defendant John and Jane Does as set forth in paragraph eleven.
16. This action has been commenced within 2 years of the date of the incident.
17. At all relevant times and in all their actions, the defendants acted under color of state
law and pursuant to their authority as police personnel.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
18. The Township of Maplewood is a suburban community in Essex County, New Jersey.
The Township is closely related, geographically and governmentally, to the neighboring Village
of South Orange. Maplewood is bordered on one side by the Township of Irvington which has a
substantially larger population. According to the most recent United States Census, the African
American population of the Township of Irvington is substantially higher than that of
Maplewood.
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 5 of 30 PageID: 5
-6-
19. The Township of Maplewood conducts an annual fourth of July event in which they
have music, a circus, and refreshments culminating in an evening fireworks display. Although
tickets are sold for enclosed seating for the musical entertainment, the event is open to everyone.
The event is held at Memorial Park and attracts not only Maplewood residents but people from
the surrounding communities as described above.
20. On July 5, 2016, J.M. was attending the Annual July 4th event in Memorial Park.
McDougall was in the company of young people of all races and ages. J.M. was at the time of
this incident, only sixteen years old.
21. At the conclusion of the fireworks display, all of the attendees began to disburse from
the area where the event was held. Both black and white children began to leave the area. There
were groups of white children as well as groups of black children who left the festival area
walking to their homes.
22. The McDougall family has resided in the town of Maplewood for twenty-one (21)
years. J.M. and his sister were raised in Maplewood and attended primary and secondary schools
in that town. After the July 5, 2016 fireworks display ended, J.M. began to walk toward his home
in Maplewood. He, along with other youths left the area in front of Town Hall and began
walking down Valley Street. J.M. had not been involved in any arguments, altercations or
improper behavior while at the display or immediately thereafter.
23. Police Chief Robert Cimino was the officer in charge providing direction for police
officers at the time the fireworks display ended. At some point, Maplewood Chief of Police
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 6 of 30 PageID: 6
-7-
Robert Cimino determined that he was going to direct his officers to send black children who
were leaving the fireworks display in mass, out of the town of Maplewood and into neighboring
Irvington. He told his subordinate officers to “send them east” toward Irvington.
24. Although there were reports of isolated incidents of disruption the crowd of children
was generally orderly. An officer who was on the scene on Elmwood Avenue observing the
crowd of children reported on audio that the “Crowd [was] pretty much quiet, we’re just
maintaining.”
25. Despite the orderly nature of the young people, Captain Joshua Cummis was captured
on audio recordings saying, “Notify Irvington they’re coming down Elmwood…toward their
town.” This was done without regard for the fact that many of the children in that crowd lived in
Maplewood. Cummis repeatedly directed officers “Turn down Elmwood. Turn down
Elmwood…Notify Irvington they are coming down Elmwood toward their town.”
26. Unlike Maplewood, the Township of Irvington has imposed a Curfew wherein
juveniles sixteen (16) years old or younger are not permitted to “loiter” or “stroll” in the City. It
was the clear intent of the Maplewood Police Department to herd the youths out of Maplewood
and into Irvington without regard for their right to return to their homes and without regard for
their safety. At no time did officers attempt to determine if any of the children lived in
Maplewood nor did they make provisions for those who did.
27. It was the conscious intent of the Maplewood Police Department to keep the children
who lived in Maplewood from returning to their homes. This determination to herd black
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 7 of 30 PageID: 7
-8-
children out of Maplewood without regard to where they lived was racially based. Captain
Cummis, another supervisory Maplewood officer, told subordinate officers, “Once they reach
the Irvington border and enter Irvington, I want you to maintain our border on Franklin.”
Cummis’ belief that the children he ordered out of Maplewood did not belong there was made
clear by his statement captured on audio where he said, “I want them to maintain our border
once they leave OUR town.”
28. After walking down Valley Street on his way home, J.M. and other black children
were confronted by police officers who diverted them to Parker Avenue. Many of the youths
began to tell the police officers that they were attempting to get to their homes in Maplewood.
The officers began to get agitated with the youths. The officers began to physically push children
onto the sidewalk and to use their vehicles to move children out of the street.
29. The youths were then directed by police officers to head down Elmwood Avenue
toward Irvington. As J.M. walked down Elmwood Avenue he left the sidewalk to go toward
Boyden Avenue in an effort to go to his house. The officers, however, would not let him go
home and told him to get on the sidewalk and walk up Elmwood Avenue.
30. J.M. tried to explain to the police officer that he lived in that direction. When J.M.
hesitated in getting onto the sidewalk, the police officer approached him visibly agitated and said
“get your nigger ass on the sidewalk.” J.M. was obviously upset at hearing the racial statement
and advised that he was going to report the officer.
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 8 of 30 PageID: 8
-9-
31. J.M. complied with the officer’s request and began walking up Elmwood Avenue. As
he was walking he continued to tell the officer that he was going to report him and that what he
was doing in preventing him from home was illegal.
32. As he was walking up Elmwood Avenue, J.M. heard a commotion in the crowd. He
turned and saw other people moving quickly toward the intersection of Elmwood and Boyden
Avenues. He began to walk back toward the intersection to see what was happening. The police
officer he had been speaking to also ran toward the intersection.
33. As J.M. approached the intersection, the crowd began walking away from the Boyden
Avenue intersection. J.M. turned and began walking up Elmwood Avenue on the sidewalk. As he
walked, he was talking to an individual standing next to him.
34. Suddenly and without warning, another police officer ran toward J.M. and struck him
forcefully in the chest causing him to fall backward. As he fell to the ground, he was
immediately surrounded by at least eight police officers. He was kicked repeatedly by the police
officers and sprayed with a chemical capsicum type spray directly in his eyes, nose, mouth and
ears.
35. The effects of a chemical agent spray include “(1) dilation of the capillaries and
instant closing of the eyes through swelling of the eyelids, (2) immediate respiratory
inflammation, including uncontrollable coughing, retching, shortness of breath and gasping for
air with a gagging sensation in the throat, and (3) immediate burning sensations to the mucous
membranes, skin and inside the nose and mouth.” Park v. Shiflett, 250 F. 3d 843. The chemical
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 9 of 30 PageID: 9
-10-
capsicum spray had the instant effect of causing an intense burning sensation which prevented
J.M. from being able to see. J.M. experienced all of these effects after being sprayed.
36. The Attorney General’s Office for the State of New Jersey has promulgated directives
on the Use of Force by Police Officers and specifically as to the use of mechanical force which
includes the discharge of chemical spray agents. Pursuant to the Attorney General’s Use of Force
Policy, mechanical force is only to be used: a) to overcome resistance directed at the officer or
others; or b) to protect the officer, or a third party, from unlawful force; or c) to protect property; or
d) to effect other lawful objectives, such as to make an arrest. At the time he was viciously attacked,
assaulted and sprayed with a chemical agent, J.M. had broken no laws nor was he placed under
arrest.
37. While on the ground, the officer who struck J.M. shouted, “What now, Bitch?” They
then picked him up and an officer violently shoved him in his back and told him to “Get the fuck
out of here.” When he asked for water to flush his eyes, nose and mouth, the officers refused to
give it to him.
38. With his eyes, nose and mouth still burning from the capsicum spray, J.M.was lifted
to his feet by police officers and told to continue walking up Elmwood Avenue. Still nearly
blinded and disoriented, he began walking up Elmwood Avenue with the assistance of a friend.
39. As he walked up Elwood Avenue, J.M.was screaming from the burning in his eyes,
nose and throat. He was unable to see due to the fact that the capsicum had not been washed
from his face. Approximately 20 police officers followed behind him along with a police vehicle
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 10 of 30 PageID: 10
-11-
that recorded the actions on camera. The officers laughed and taunted J.M.as he walked down
Elmwood Avenue.
40. Because of the irritation to his mucus membranes, J.M. was continuously spitting out
the capsicum while walking. While he was spitting out capsicum, one of the police officers
walked near him. Suddenly and without warning, defendants Rodrigues, Johnson and John and
Jane Doe police officers converged on J.M., taking him to the ground and slamming his face into
the pavement. One of the officers yelled, “You just spit on a cop, you dirty ass nigge.r”
41. While he lay face down on the street with police officers on his back, defendants
Rodrigues, Johnson, Ciraulo and John and Jane Doe 1-20 police officers punched J.M.
repeatedly in the head, face and jaw. One officer approached J.M.while on the ground and kicked
him in the head.
42. J.M. was handcuffed, picked up off the ground and brought to a police car. At the
police car, an officer slammed his head onto the hood of the police vehicle and pushed his elbow
into the side of J.M.’s neck by his ear.
43. As stated above, chemical capsicum spray inhibits breathing. As a result of the
officer’s elbow resting against his neck and the capsicum spray in his mouth, nose and lungs,
J.M. was having trouble breathing. He told the police officer, “I can’t breathe.” The officer
replied, “if you’re telling me that, you can breathe.” As a result of the force applied to his neck,
J.M. lost consciousness immediately thereafter and he was taken to another police car.
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 11 of 30 PageID: 11
-12-
44. At no time prior to his arrest did Maplewood Police offer to provide medical
assistance to J.M. after having applied chemical capsicum spray to his eyes, nose and mouth,
forcing him to suffer the effects specified in paragraph thirty-five (35) although he requested
assistance and aid.
45. Thereafter, Officers Rodrigues, Ciraulo, Johnson and John and Jane Does, members
of the Maplewood, Irvington and South Orange Police Department, conspired together and
caused false reports to be generated and false complaints to be issued against J.M. in order to
protect themselves from criminal and civil liability for the unprovoked and unjustified assault
and beating of J.M..
46. As a result of the misconduct described above, J.M. experienced humiliation,
emotional distress, physical pain and suffering, psychological trauma, loss of assets and other
incurred expenses.
47. After the incident, members of the Maplewood Police Department further created
false reports which suggested that the children they encountered were “extremely disruptive” in
order to support the narrative that they were justified in herding black children out of
Maplewood and into Irvington even though contemporaneous reports from officers on the scene
indicated that the crowd was “quiet”.
48. The conduct of defendants Chief Robert Cimino, Captain Joseph Cummis, Officer
Joseph Ciraulo, Officer Brian Rodrigues, Officer Michael Johnson and John and Jane Does 1-20,
amounted to the excessive and unwarranted use of force against J.M..
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 12 of 30 PageID: 12
-13-
49. The abuse to which J.M. was subjected to was consistent with an institutionalized
practice of the Maplewood Police Department, which was known and ratified by defendants
Robert Cimino and the Township of Maplewood.
50. Despite knowledge of these institutionalized practices, the defendants Robert Cimino
and the Township of Maplewood have not taken any effective action to prevent Maplewood
police personnel from continuing to engage in this type of misconduct.
51. Defendants Chief of Police and Township of Maplewood had prior notice of the
vicious propensities of defendants Officer Brian Rodrigues, Joseph Ciraulo and John and Jane
Does 1-20, but took no steps to train them, correct their abuse of authority, or to discourage their
unlawful use of authority.
52. The failure of defendants Robert Cimino and the Township of Maplewood to properly
train defendants Brian Rodrigues, Joseph Ciraulo and John and Jane Does 1-20, including the
failure to instruct them in applicable provisions of the State Penal Law of the State of New
Jersey and the proper and prudent use of force.
53. Defendant Township of Maplewood authorized, tolerated as institutionalized
practices, and ratified the misconduct detailed above by:
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 13 of 30 PageID: 13
-14-
a. Failing to properly discipline, restrict, and control employees,
including defendants Chief Robert Cimino, Captain Joshua Cummis,
Detective Joseph Ciraulo, Officer Brian Rodrigues and John and Jane
Does 1-20, known to be irresponsible in their dealings with citizens of
the community;
b. Failing to take adequate precautions in the hiring, promotion, and
retention of police personnel, including specifically defendants Chief
Robert Cimino, Captain Joshua Cummis, Detective Joseph Ciraulo,
Officer Brian Rodrigues and John and Jane Does 1-20,;
c. Failing to complete reports as required and forward to the Office of
the Essex County Prosecutor evidence of criminal acts committed by
police personnel;
d. Failing to establish or assure the functioning of a bona fide and
meaningful departmental system for dealing with complaints of police
misconduct, but instead responding to these types of complaints with
bureaucratic power and official denials calculated to mislead the public.
54. As a consequence of the abuse of authority detailed above, J.M. sustained the
damages alleged above.
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 14 of 30 PageID: 14
-15-
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Excessive Force in violation of the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments(Against Defendants Rodrigues, Ciraulo, Johnson and John and Jane Does 1-20)
55. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
56. J.M. in this action is a citizen of the United States and all of the individual police
officer Defendants to this claim are persons for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
57. All individual Defendants to this claim, at all times relevant hereto, were acting under
the color of state law in their capacity as municipal police officers and their acts or omissions
were conducted within the scope of their official duties or employment.
58. At the time of the complained of events, J.M. had a clearly established constitutional
right under the Fourth Amendment to be secure in his person from unreasonable seizure through
excessive force.
59. J.M. also had the clearly established Constitutional right under the Fourteenth
Amendment to bodily integrity and to be free from excessive force by law enforcement.
60. Any reasonable police officer knew or should have known of these rights at the time
of the complained of conduct as they were clearly established at that time.
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 15 of 30 PageID: 15
-16-
61. Defendants actions and use of force, as described herein, were objectively
unreasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them and violated these Fourth
Amendment rights of Plaintiff.
62. Defendants Rodrigues, Ciraulo, Johnson and John and Jane Does 1-20’s actions and
use of force, as described herein, were also malicious and/or involved reckless, callous, and
deliberate indifference to J.M’s federally protected rights. The force used by these Defendant
officers shocks the conscience and violated these Fourteenth Amendment rights of Plaintiff.
63. Defendants Rodrigues, Ciraulo, Johnson and John and Jane Does 1-20 unlawfully
seized J.M. by means of objectively unreasonable, excessive and conscious shocking physical
force, thereby unreasonably restraining J.M. of his freedom.
64. The force used constituted mechanical and physical force and such force caused
serious bodily injury to J.M..
65. None of the Defendant officers took reasonable steps to protect Plaintiff from the
objectively unreasonable and conscience shocking excessive force of other Defendant officers or
from the excessive force of later responding officers despite being in a position to do so. They
are each therefore liable for the injuries and damages resulting from the objectively unreasonable
and conscience shocking force of each other officer.
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 16 of 30 PageID: 16
-17-
66. Defendants engaged in the conduct described by this Complaint willfully,
maliciously, in bad faith, and in reckless disregard of J.M.’s federally protected constitutional
rights.
67. The Police Officers did so with shocking and willful indifference to Plaintiff’s rights
and with their conscious awareness that they would cause Plaintiff severe physical and emotional
injuries.
68. The acts or omissions of all individual Defendants were moving forces behind
J.M.’s injuries.
69. These individual Defendants acted in concert and joint action with each other.
70. The acts or omissions of Defendants as described herein intentionally deprived
Plaintiff of his constitutional rights and caused him other damages.
71. These individual Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the
complained of conduct.
72. The Defendants to this claim at all times relevant hereto were acting pursuant to
municipal/county custom, policy, decision, ordinance, regulation, widespread habit, usage, or
practice in their actions pertaining to Plaintiff.
73. As a proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered actual
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 17 of 30 PageID: 17
-18-
physical and emotional injuries, and other damages and losses as described herein entitling him
to compensatory and special damages, in amounts to be determined at trial. As a further result of
the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has incurred special damages, including medically
related expenses and may continue to incur further medically and other special damages related
expenses, in amounts to be established at trial.
74. Plaintiff has suffered injuries both physical and emotional in amounts to be
ascertained in trial. Plaintiff is further entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§1988, pre-judgment interest and costs as allowable by federal law. There may also be special
damages for lien interests.
75. In addition to compensatory, economic, consequential and special damages, Plaintiff
is entitled to punitive damages against each of the individually named Defendants under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, in that the actions of each of these individual Defendants have been taken
maliciously, willfully or with a reckless or wanton disregard of the constitutional rights of
Plaintiff.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Racial Discrimination in Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981(Against Defendants Cimino, Cummis, Ciraulo, Rodrigues,
Johnson and John and Jane Does 1-20)
76. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
77. At the time of the complained of events, Plaintiff had the clearly established
constitutional right to be free from racial discrimination in law enforcement by police officers
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 18 of 30 PageID: 18
-19-
and to enjoy the equal protection of the laws.
78. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1981("Section 1981") provides, in pertinent part:
(a) All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right inevery State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence,and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons andproperty as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains,penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
79. Plaintiff, as an African American is a member of a protected class, and thus also had
the clearly established statutory right under this provision of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 to be free from
racially motivated beatings, arrests, searches, and the filing of false charges.
80. Any reasonable police officer knew or should have known of these rights at the time
of the complained of conduct as they were clearly established at that time.
81. Plaintiff’s race was a motivating factor in the decisions to infringe upon his liberty
and to deny him access to his home where no legitimate state interest existed justifying that
denial. Race was a motivating factor in the decision to herd black children from Maplewood to
Irvington without regard to their actual residence. Race was a motivating factor in the officers’
decision to use unnecessary and excessive force and then maliciously prosecute Plaintiff with
false charges. Defendants’ conduct was undertaken with the purpose of depriving Plaintiff of the
equal protection and benefits of the law, equal privileges and immunities under the law, and due
process in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and § 1981.
82. Defendants engaged in the conduct described by this Complaint willfully,
maliciously, in bad faith, and in reckless disregard of J.M.’s federally protected rights.
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 19 of 30 PageID: 19
-20-
83. The Defendants to this claim at all times relevant hereto were acting pursuant to
municipal/county custom, policy, decision, ordinance, regulation, widespread habit, usage, or
practice in their actions pertaining to Plaintiff.
84. As a proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered actual
physical and emotional injuries, and other damages and losses as described herein entitling him
to compensatory and special damages, in amounts to be determined at trial. As a further result of
the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has incurred special damages, including medically
related expenses and may continue to incur further medically and other special damages related
expenses, in amounts to be established at trial.
85. Plaintiff is further entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988,
pre-judgment interest and costs as allowable by federal law. There may also be special damages
for lien interests.
86. In addition to compensatory, economic, consequential and special damages, Plaintiff
is entitled to punitive damages against each of the individually named Defendants under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, in that the actions of each of these individual Defendants have been taken
maliciously, willfully or with a reckless or wanton disregard of the constitutional and statutory
rights of Plaintiff.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Retaliation in Violation of the First Amendment
(Against Defendants Rodrigues, Ciraulo, Johnson and John and Jane Does 1-20)
87. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully setforth herein.
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 20 of 30 PageID: 20
-21-
88. At the time of the complained of events, Plaintiff had the clearly established
Constitutional right to be free from retaliation for the exercise of protected speech.
89. Any reasonable police officer knew or should have known of this right at the time of
the complained of conduct as it was clearly established at that time.
90. J.M. exercised his constitutionally protected right to question law enforcement and/or
engaged in protected speech related to the constitutional rights of citizens with respect to
decisions to restrict residents from lawful access to their homes and to question objectionable
police conduct.
91. Retaliatory animus for J.M..’s exercise of his constitutionally protected right to
question Police Officers regarding the scope of their legal authority to restrict him from access to
his home was a substantially motivating factor in the unnecessary, unprovoked and excessive
force used by individual Defendants.
92. The excessive force used against J.M. in retaliation for his protected conduct would
deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the protected conduct.
93. Defendant officers participated in this use of force as a means of retaliation for his
protected speech and none of the Defendant officers took reasonable steps to protect Plaintiff
from this retaliation for the protected speech. They are each therefore liable for the injuries and
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 21 of 30 PageID: 21
-22-
damages resulting from the objectively unreasonable and conscience shocking force of each
other officer.
94. Defendants engaged in the conduct described by this Complaint willfully,
maliciously, in bad faith, and in reckless disregard of J.M.’s federally protected constitutional
rights.
95. The acts or omissions of all individual Defendants were moving forces behind
Plaintiff’s injuries.
96. These individual Defendants acted in concert and joint action with each other.
97. The acts or omissions of Defendants as described herein intentionally deprived
Plaintiff of his constitutional and statutory rights and caused him other damages.
98. As a proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered actual
physical and emotional injuries, and other damages and losses as described herein entitling him
to compensatory and special damages, in amounts to be determined at trial. As a further result of
the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has incurred special damages, including medically
related expenses and may continue to incur further medically and other special damages related
expenses, in amounts to be established at trial.
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 22 of 30 PageID: 22
-23-
99. Plaintiff is further entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988,
pre-judgment interest and costs as allowable by federal law. There may also be special damages
for lien interests.
100. In addition to compensatory, economic, consequential and special damages, Plaintiff
is entitled to punitive damages against each of the individually named Defendants under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, in that the actions of each of these individual Defendants have been taken
maliciously, willfully or with a reckless or wanton disregard of the constitutional rights of
Plaintiff.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEFViolation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Deliberately Indifferent Policies, Practices, Customs,
Training, and Supervision in violation of the Fourth, Fourteenth, and First Amendmentsand in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981
(Against Township of Maplewood and Defendant Cimino)
101. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
102. At all relevant times herein, Defendant Township of Maplewood, acting through its
Police Department, developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged and sanctioned de facto
policies, practices, and/or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the Plaintiffs'
constitutional rights which caused the violation of such rights.
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 23 of 30 PageID: 23
-24-
103. Defendants' unlawful actions were done willfully, knowingly and with the specific
intent to deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
104. The constitutional abuses and violations by Township of Maplewood, through the
actions of its Police Department, Chief Robert Cimino, Captain Joshua Cummis, Officers Brian
Rodrigues, Joseph Ciraulo, Michael Johnson and John and Jane Does 1-20, were and are directly
and proximately caused by policies, practices and/or customs developed, implemented, enforced,
encouraged and sanctioned by Defendant Township of Maplewood, including the failure: (a) to
adequately supervise and train its officers and agents, including the Defendants, thereby failing
to adequately discourage further constitutional violations on the part of its police officers; (b) to
properly and adequately monitor and discipline its officers, including Defendants; and (c) to
adequately and properly investigate citizen complaints of police misconduct, and, instead, acts of
misconduct were tolerated by the Township of Maplewood.
105. The deliberately indifferent training and supervision provided by Defendant
Township of Maplewood and Defendant Cimino resulted from a conscious or deliberate choice
to follow a course of action from among various alternatives available to Defendant Maplewood
and Defendant Cimino and were moving forces in the constitutional and federal violation
injuries complained of by J.M..
106. Upon information and belief, Defendant Township of Maplewood has, acting through
its police department, developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged and sanctioned a de facto
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 24 of 30 PageID: 24
-25-
policy, practice, and/or custom of unlawfully interfering with and/or arresting, without
reasonable suspicion or probable cause, harassing and using excessive force against individuals
in violation of the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the State of New Jersey.
107. Defendants' unlawful actions were done willfully, knowingly and with the specific
intent to deprive Plaintiff of his constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Thirteenth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
108. Defendants have acted with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of J.M..
As a direct and proximate result of the acts as stated herein by each of the Defendants, J.M.’s
constitutional rights have been violated which has caused him to suffer physical, mental and
emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, suffering, humiliation and embarrassment.
109. As a proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered actual
physical and emotional injuries, and other damages and losses as described herein entitling him
to compensatory and special damages, in amounts to be determined at trial. Plaintiff is further
entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, pre-judgment interest and costs
as allowable by federal law. There may also be special damages for lien interests.
110. Finally, Plaintiff seeks appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 to redress Defendants’ above described ongoing deliberate indifference in
policies, practices, habits, customs, usages, training and supervision with respect to the rights
described herein, and with respect to the ongoing policy and/or practice of the Internal Affairs
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 25 of 30 PageID: 25
-26-
Bureau of failing to investigate or appropriately handle complaints of the same, which
Defendants have no intention for voluntarily correcting despite obvious need and requests for
such correction.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) – Conspiracy to Deprive, Prevent or Hinder Equal Protection in
Violation of the United States Constitution(Against All Defendants)
111. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set
forth herein.
112. The individual defendants, under color of law, conspired with each other to undertake
a course of conduct to harass, threaten, intimidate and injure J.M. in the free exercise and
enjoyment of the rights and privileges and equal protection of the law secured to him by the
Constitution.
113. The conduct of defendants was motivated by racial animus and by their desire to
harass, threaten, intimidate and injure J.M. because of his race.
114. Defendants racial animus was expressed in racially insulting remarks specifically
directed at J.M..
115. Defendants racial animus was expressed in racially insulting remarks directed at other
individuals of African descent who interacted with defendants on the evening of July 5, 2016.
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 26 of 30 PageID: 26
-27-
116. Defendants racial animus was expressed in discriminatory practices of herding black
children out of the town of Maplewood and into the town of Irvington without regard to where
those children lived or without regard to their individual safety being on the streets of a foreign
town in the waning hours of the evening of July 5, 2016 and being subjected to a juvenile
curfew.
117. Defendants racial animus was expressed in the language used by superior officers in
failing to differentiate individuals by their residence and instead subjecting them to police action
as according to their race.
118. It was part of the conspiracy that defendant police officers physically attacked J.M.,
striking and knocking him to the ground and using capsicum spray when he had committed no
offense and was not arrested for or charged with any offense.
119. It was part of the conspiracy that officers Rodrigues, Ciraulo, Johnson and John and
Janes Does 1-20 viciously and savagely attacked J.M. and beat him, repeatedly punching him,
kicking him and applying unnecessary and excessive force.
120. It was part of and in furtherance of the conspiracy and to conceal the crimes and
misconduct of officers Rodrigues, Ciraulo, Johnson and John and Jane Does 1-20 that these
defendants and others engaged in activities which can be characterized as a cover-up.
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 27 of 30 PageID: 27
-28-
121. It was part of and in furtherance of the conspiracy that members of the Maplewood
Police Department, John and Jane Does 1-20, acted to deter Cynthia McDougall numerous times
from filing complaints against the officers who injured her son, J.M..
121. As a proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered actual
physical and emotional injuries, and other damages and losses as described herein entitling him
to compensatory and special damages, in amounts to be determined at trial. As a further result of
the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has incurred special damages, including medically
related expenses and may continue to incur further medically and other special damages related
expenses, in amounts to be established at trial.
122. Plaintiff is further entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988
and 1985, pre-judgment interest and costs as allowable by federal law. There may also be
special damages for lien interests.
123. In addition to compensatory, economic, consequential and special damages, Plaintiff
is entitled to punitive damages against each of the individually named Defendants under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, in that the actions of each of these individual Defendants have been taken
maliciously, willfully or with a reckless or wanton disregard of the constitutional rights of
Plaintiff.
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 28 of 30 PageID: 28
-29-
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment for the Plaintiff and against each of the
Defendants and grant:
A. compensatory and consequential damages, including damages for emotional distress,humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, and other pain and suffering on all claimsallowed by law in an amount to be determined at trial;
B. economic losses on all claims allowed by law;
C. special damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
D. punitive damages on all claims allowed by law against individual Defendants and in anamount to be determined at trial;
E. attorneys’ fees and the costs associated with this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1988,including expert witness fees, on all claims allowed by law;
F. pre- and post-judgment interest at the lawful rate; and,
G. any further relief that this court deems just and proper, and any other appropriate reliefat law and equity.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. TARVER, JR.
By: s/Robert L. Tarver, Jr._______________Robert L. Tarver, Jr., Esq.Attorney for Plaintiff
Dated: August 29, 2017
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 29 of 30 PageID: 29
-30-
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. TARVER, JR.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
By: s/Robert L. Tarver, Jr.
Robert L. Tarver, Jr. Esq. (RLT 0472)
Dated: August 29, 2017
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the matter in controversy is not the subject of any
other court, arbitration or administrative hearing.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. TARVER, JR.
By:__s/Robert L. Tarver, Jr.______________Robert L. Tarver, Jr., Esq.
Dated: August 29, 2017
Case 2:17-cv-06904-KM-SCM Document 1 Filed 09/08/17 Page 30 of 30 PageID: 30