Case 1:20-cv-00885-FJS-DJS Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page ...€¦ · Case 1:20-cv-00885-FJS-DJS Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 10 of 34. ... Mr. Gustave had not improperly moved

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK------------------------------------------------------------------------------)(CLAY GUSTAVE,

Plaintiff,-against-

THE CITY OF ALBANY; and CITY OF ALBANY POLICEOFFICER EMILJAN MIFTARI, individually and in hisofficial capacity,

Defendants.--------------------------------------------------------- --------------------)(

COMPLAINT andJURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, Clay Gustave, by his attorneys, Law Office of Mark S. Mishler, P.c., states as

his Complaint:

INTRODUCTION

1. On August 5, 2019, on-duty Albany Police Officer defendant Emiljan Miftari violated

Mr. Gustave's rights by:

• unlawfully stopping the car Mr. Gustave was driving based on a falseallegation that Mr. Gustave had failed to properly signal and had engagedin reckless driving,

forcibly removing Mr. Gustave from his car,

brutally assaulting Mr. Gustave,

unlawfully arresting Mr. Gustave for reckless driving and resisting arrest,

taking Mr. Gustave into custody, and

• falsely charging and maliciously prosecuting Mr. Gustave with criminaland traffic offenses.

2. There was no lawful basis for any of defendant on-duty Police Officer Miftari's actions.

1

1:20-cv-885 (FJS/DJS)

Case 1:20-cv-00885-FJS-DJS Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 1 of 34

3. The actions of defendant Miftari, who is a white person, were motivated, in part, by anger

at Mr. Gustave for engaging in constitutionally protected expression and, in part, by

discriminatory racial prejudice against Mr. Gustave, who is Black.

4. The unlawful actions of defendant Miftari were compounded by subsequent actions of the

City of Albany through public statements and actions of City of Albany policy-makers City of

Albany Mayor Kathy Sheehan and City of Albany Eric Police Chief Hawkins. Mayor Sheehan

and Chief Hawkins, without knowing all of the facts and acting in a grossly irresponsible manner

without due consideration for the standards of information gathering ordinarily followed by

reasonable parties, retaliated against Mr. Gustave for the exercise of his constitutionally

protected rights by making defamatory and/or harmful public statements about the stop and the

arrest and about Mr. Gustave, and/or by unlawfully and affirmatively seeking on behalf of

defendant City of Albany to interfere with Mr. Gustave's employment status at Albany Law

School where he served as the Coordinator of the City of Albany Community Police Review

Board ("CPRB"). Among other things, neither the Mayor nor the Chief knew at the time they

made their statements and took their actions that there was absolutely no factual basis for

defendant Miftari to have pulled Mr. Gustave over. They could have ascertained this information

by reviewing, among other items of evidence, the video footage from the car-mounted camera on

defendant Miftari's police car, which plainly refutes defendant Miftari's allegations that Mr.

Gustave had driven recklessly. The CPRB is an independent body established by defendant City

of Albany, but administered by Albany Law School where Mr. Gustave is employed. Mr.

Gustave was not an employee of the City of Albany, was not a member of the CPRB, had no

decision-making role on the CPRB, but served as the CPRB' s coordinator. The Chief publicly

2


and falsely said Mr. Gustave had driven "recklessly", that his "behavior" was "very disturbing",

and that Mr. Gustave's behavior "unnecessarily, dangerously, irresponsibly escalated the

situation", among other statements.

5. The Mayor's and Chiefs statements and actions caused Mr. Gustave to be stripped of

his CPRB responsibilities by his employer, Albany Law School.

6. All criminal and traffic charges against Mr. Gustave were terminated in his favor when

they were dismissed on November 7,2019, in Albany City Court, Criminal Part, based on a

motion by the People.

7. In this lawsuit, Mr. Gustave seeks to vindicate his rights, to obtain compensation for the

violation of his rights and the harm caused to him by defendants, and to hold defendants City of

Albany and Miftari accountable for their egregious, unlawful, and unconstitutional actions.

JURISDICTION and VENUE

8. Mr. Gustave brings this lawsuit under the United States Constitution, international

human rights law, and the common law of the State of New York, and pursuant to Title 42

U.S.C. § 1983 as well as under the laws of the State of New York.

9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this lawsuit based on Title 28 U.S.c. §§

1331 (federal question), 1343(3) (equal rights), and 1367(a) (supplemental jurisdiction over state-

law claims).

10. This Court is the proper venue for this lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and

(2). All of the events complained of occurred within the Northern District of New York ,

defendant City is located within the Northern District of New York and, on information and

belief, all of the defendants reside within New York State.

3


11. Mr. Gustave served a Notice of Claim on defendant City of Albany on or about January

30,2020, a date within 90 days of the accrual of the malicious prosecution claims.

12. Mr. Gustave remains ready and willing to participate in a properly noticed and arranged

examination pursuant to NY General Municipal Law 50-h. Such an examination was scheduled

by defendant City and then adjourned without date by defendant City.

13. More than thirty days have passed since the Notice of Claim was served and the claims

herein have not been settled or adjusted.

PARTIES

14. Plaintiff Clay Gustave is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of New

York. Mr. Gustave is Black. Mr. Gustave was, at all times relevant to this Complaint, employed

by Albany Law School as the Coordinator of the City of Albany Community Police Review

Board ("CPRB"), a position he held since 2016. In that capacity, he worked closely with many

officers and officials of the Albany Police Department. He twice took and successfully completed

the twelve week "Citizen Police Academy" run by the City of Albany Police Department, had

also engaged in national training programs in police / community relations, and also successfully

completed the eight week Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI) Citizens Police Academy. Mr.

Gustave was qualified to serve in the capacity of Coordinator of the CPRB and had always

performed his job responsibilities properly.

15. Defendant City of Albany ("City") is a municipal corporation formed under and pursuant

to the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business being Albany, New

York. Defendant City was, at the time the events complained of occurred, the employer of the

individual defendant Emiljan Miftari. Defendant City has oversight over the hiring, training,

4


supervision, discipline, management, policies, and other aspects of the functioning of the Albany

Police Department. City of Albany Mayor Kathy Sheehan and City of Albany Police Chief Eric

Hawkins were, at all times relevant to this Complaint, final policy-makers and spokespersons for

defendant City of Albany in regard to matters relating to the City of Albany Police Department

and, in regard to Mayor Sheehan, regarding all matters of City policy. At all times relevant to this

Complaint, defendant City was acting under color of state law.

16. Defendant Emiljan Miftari was, at all times relevant to this Complaint, employed as

a police officer by and for defendant City, was on-duty in such capacity, was acting under color

of state law, and within the scope of his employment and duties and in furtherance of his

employer's interests. Defendant Miftari is sued individually and in his official capacity.

Defendant Miftari is a white person.

FACTS

17. The events that form the core factual basis of this case took place on August 5, 2019,

starting at approximately 5:00 pm, near the intersection of Orlando Avenue and Western Avenue

in the City of Albany and on an access road leading from Western Avenue into the NYS

Harriman Office Campus, also located in the City of Albany.

18. On that date, immediately prior to this incident, Mr. Gustave was driving his car west-

bound on Western Avenue, on his way to pick-up his son at day-care.

19. Mr. Gustave was not violating any law, other than that his license had recently been

suspended due to a failure to respond to a prior traffic ticket.

20. Defendant Miftari, in a marked Albany Police car, was driving east-bound on Western

Avenue.

5


21. As soon as defendant Miftari, heading east-bound, passed Mr. Gustave, heading west-

bound, near the intersection of Manning Boulevard and Western Avenue, defendant Miftari made

a U-turn and began to follow Mr. Gustave.

22. At some point, after they had proceeded in that manner for several minutes, defendant

Miftari, in the left-hand lane, ended up ahead ofMr. Gustave, who was in the right-hand lane.

23. As they both approached the intersection of Orlando Avenue and Western Avenue, Mr.

Gustave became frustrated at another driver whom Mr. Gustave perceived to have held up the

flow of traffic, and Mr. Gustave gave this other driver the "finger", by holding his arm up with a

raised middle finger, in a gesture commonly understood to be an expression of anger or

frustration. It is clear and well-established law that an individual has a constitutionally protected

right to use this gesture in a public place.

24. When Mr. Gustave, in the right-hand lane, held up his middle finger out of frustration

with another driver, he was passing defendant Miftari, who was then in the left-hand lane.

25. Defendant Miftari observed Mr. Gustave giving this other driver the "finger".

26. In addition, if he had not already observed this, at that point defendant Miftari observed

that Mr. Gustave was Black.

27. Defendant Miftari immediately turned his police car's lights on, moved abruptly from the

left-hand lane of Western Avenue to the right-hand lane, behind Mr. Gustave and intentionally

pulled over Mr. Gustave, in a purported traffic stop.

28. At the time defendant Miftari decided to pull over Mr. Gustave and took steps to do so,

defendant Miftari had not observed any conduct, nor did he know any information, that could

possibly have provided any probable cause or other legal basis to pull over Mr. Gustave.

6


29. By communicating that he was directing Mr. Gustave to pull over and, then, by actually

pulling him over, defendant Miftari seized Mr. Gustave and implicated Mr. Gustave's rights as

protected, inter alia, by the 4th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

30. Mr. Gustave understood that defendant Miftari was a police officer in a marked police

car, that defendant Miftari was communicating by his actions that he was directing Mr. Gustave

to pull over, and Mr. Gustave further understood that he was required to comply with defendant

Miftari's direction to pull over, that is, that he was not free to leave.

31. At the time defendant Miftari communicated that he was directing Mr. Gustave to pull

over, both Mr. Gustave and defendant Miftari were close to the access road leading from Western

Avenue into the NYS Harriman Office Campus, which is where Mr. Gustave was traveling, and

Mr. Gustave turned from Western Avenue onto the access road immediately followed by

defendant Miftari.

32. Mr. Gustave pulled over his car in compliance with defendant Miftari's directive.

33. Mr. Gustave stopped his car by the side of the road and sat in the driver's seat.

34. Defendant Miftari stopped his police car behind Mr. Gustave's car.

35. Defendant Miftari then got out of his police car and walked up to the driver's door ofMr.

Gustave's car.

36. Mr. Gustave had no idea why defendant Miftari had pulled him over.

37. Defendant Miftari was hostile and aggressive towards Mr. Gustave from the moment he

got to the driver's door ofMr. Gustave's car.

38. There was absolutely no legitimate reason for defendant Miftari to be hostile and

aggressive towards Mr. Gustave.

7


39. Defendant Miftari kept escalating the tension in his interaction with Mr. Gustave.

40. Mr. Gustave was quite alarmed by defendant Miftari's tone and his actions and was very

fearful for his own safety.

41. Mr. Gustave knew he had not committed any moving traffic violation and had not

engaged in the crime of reckless driving.

42. Based on Mr. Gustave's life experiences as a Black man, his knowledge of the history of

how Black men in this country have disproportionately been subjected to unjustified and

unlawful harm at the hands of white police officers, and based on the knowledge and expertise he

had gained through his work as Coordinator of the City of Albany Community Police Review

Board in regard to proper police procedures and police / community relations, Mr. Gustave

believed defendant Miftari was acting improperly, believed that defendant Miftari's angry words

and actions likely reflected and were motivated by racial bias against Mr. Gustave, and was

extremely worried that he was going to be harmed by defendant Miftari.

43. Mr. Gustave exercised his constitutionally protected rights and tried to get defendant

Miftari to explain why he had pulled Mr. Gustave over and why he was acting in such a hostile

and aggressive manner.

44. Defendant Miftari refused to provide answers to Mr. Gustave and responded to Mr.

Gustave's exercise of his constitutionally protected rights by continuing to escalate

the situation by his angry tone and hostile and aggressive actions.

45. Defendant Miftari then intentionally physically and forcefully pulled Mr. Gustave out of

his car and immediately began to violently physically assault Mr. Gustave.

8


46. Defendant Miftari intentionally grabbed Mr. Gustave, threw him to the ground, punched

him repeatedly in the face as Mr. Gustave's head was up against the asphalt roadway, put metal

hand-cuffs on Mr. Gustave, and arrested Mr. Gustave and took him into custody.

47. As defendant Miftari was placing Mr. Gustave under arrest, defendant Miftari told Mr.

Gustave that he was being arrested for disorderly conduct for having given the "finger" or for

having "flipped someone off' (a reference to the same constitutionally protected gesture), and

stated words to the effect of "That's not something you can do in traffic.".

48. Defendant Miftari's actions in arresting and taking Mr. Gustave into custody were not

lawful, privileged, or justified.

49. There was no warrant for Mr. Gustave's arrest.

50. There was no lawful basis, privilege, or justification for any use of force by defendant

Miftari against Mr. Gustave

51. Mr. Gustave was repeatedly intentionally placed in apprehension by defendant Miftari

that defendant Miftari intended to inflict harmful and offensive physical contact to Mr. Gustave.

52. Mr. Gustave, while in custody, was taken by an City of Albany Police officer in an City

of Albany police car to the South Station of the Albany Police Department.

53. Mr. Gustave was subsequently transported by ambulance to Albany Medical Center

where Mr. Gustave was treated for injuries inflicted by defendant Miftari as described above.

54. On or about August 5, 2020, defendant Miftari prepared written accusatory instruments

and supporting depositions charging Mr. Gustave with the criminal offenses of reckless driving

and resisting arrest, and the traffic infraction of failure to signal.

9


55. Each of the above-referenced accusatory instruments and supporting depositions

contained or incorporated false statements which were affirmed to by defendant Miftari under the

penalties of perjury.

56. For example, defendant Miftari intentionally and falsely affirmed under the penalties of

perjury in the reckless driving supporting deposition, attached to and incorporated into the

simplified information accusatory instrument charging that offense, that Mr. Gustave had

committed the criminal offense of reckless driving, stating that Mr. Gustave:

" ... was observed cutting off a vehicle that was already in thenorthbound lane, said action unreasonably interfered with the freeand proper use of the public highway and unreasonably endangeredthe driver of that vehicle when he caused the vehicle to abruptlyslam on the breaks [sic] and veer to the right causing the car toalmost drive off the road way onto the sidewalk".

57. As clearly shown on video captured on defendant Miftari's police vehicle mounted

camera, Mr. Gustave had not done anything remotely close to the actions defendant Miftari

described and affirmed under the penalties of perjury in the reckless driving supporting

deposition.

58. In addition, defendant Miftari intentionally and falsely affirmed under the penalties of

perjury in the "failure to signal" supporting deposition, attached to and incorporated into the

simplified information accusatory instrument charging that offense, that Mr. Gustave had:

" ...failed to signal to get into the northbound lane from thesouthbound lane, cutting off a vehicle that was already in thenorthbound lane". (This supporting deposition has a hand-writtencorrection, on information and belief, made by defendant Miftari,which changed "northbound lane" to "northside lane".)

10


59. Again, as clearly shown on the video captured by defendant Miftari's police vehicle

mounted camera, Mr. Gustave had not done anything remotely close to the actions defendant

Miftari described under oath in the failure to signal supporting deposition.

60. In fact, regardless of defendant Miftari's directional errors (there are no northbound or

southbound lanes on Western Avenue at that location - it is a roadway that has an eastbound and

a westbound lane), Mr. Gustave had not improperly moved from one lane to another, had not

failed to signal such a move, had not cut off any other driver, and no other driver was caused by

Mr. Gustave to slam on their brakes, veer to the right, or almost drive off the roadway onto the

sidewalk.

61. The only vehicle that abruptly moved from one lane to another at that location at that time

was defendant Miftari's vehicle which defendant Miftari caused to quickly move from the left-

hand lane to the right-hand lane as soon as Mr. Gustave's car passed defendant Miftari's on the

right.

62. The resisting arrest accusatory instrument, also affirmed under the penalties of perjury by

defendant Miftari, repeats the same false allegations about failing to signal, cutting off another

vehicle, causing the other vehicle to slam on their brakes, veer to the right, and almost drive off

the road onto the sidewalk, and then intentionally and falsely alleges that Mr. Gustave pushed the

officer multiple times, engaged in combative behavior, and prevented defendant Miftari from

effecting the lawful arrest of Mr. Gustave for reckless driving.

63. Defendant did not prepare or file any accusatory instrument charging Mr. Gustave with

disorderly conduct, which is the offense he had told Mr. Gustave was the reason for the arrest.

11


64. Mr. Gustave was in custody for approximately four hours as a result of being placed

under arrest by defendant Miftari as described above.

65. Mr. Gustave was conscious of and was aware of his confinement throughout the time he

was held in custody.

66. Mr. Gustave never consented to being arrested and taken into custody by defendant

Miftari.

67. On or about August 6, 2019, defendant Miftari intentionally filed or caused to have filed

the above-referenced accusatory instruments and supporting depositions in Albany City Court,

Criminal Part, commencing the criminal and traffic prosecutions against Mr. Gustave despite the

fact that there was absolutely no probable cause or lawful basis for these charges or these

prosecutions to be commenced against Mr. Gustave.

68. Defendant Miftari's intentional actions in preparing, swearing to, and filing the above-

described accusatory instruments and supporting depositions as described above were undertaken

with the intent of covering up or justifying the unjustified, unreasonable, excessive, and unlawful

actions that he had engaged in towards Mr. Gustave.

69. On information and belief, defendant Miftari's actions as described above in regard to the

preparation, swearing, and filing of the accusatory instruments and supporting depositions were

undertaken by him in concert with and consultation with, on information and belief, supervisory

officials within the Albany Police Department.

70. Mr. Gustave was innocent of the above-referenced charges commenced against him by

defendant Miftari.

71. Defendant Miftari's actions as described above were intentional and his actions in

commencing the above-referenced charges against Mr. Gustave were based on malice and ill will

12


towards Mr. Gustave.

72. Defendant Miftari did not have, and could not have had, any reasonable expectation that

the prosecution of Mr. Gustave on the above-referenced charges he commenced would be

successful as defendant Miftari knew such charges were false.

73. Defendant Miftari also charged Mr. Gustave with Aggravated Unlicensed Operation in

the third degree based on Mr. Gustave's license suspension for having failed to appear in court in

regard to a previous minor traffic ticket.

74. Defendant Miftari did not know Mr. Gustave's license had been suspended until well

after he stopped Mr. Gustave.

75. The license suspension was not, and could not have been, a basis for defendant Miftari's

actions in stopping Mr. Gustave.

76. On August 6, 2019, Mr. Gustave was arraigned in Albany City Court, Criminal Court, on

the charges commenced against him by defendant Miftari and entered pleas of "not guilty".

77. On or about August 7, 2019, and, on information and belief on other occasions, defendant

City'S Police Chief, Eric Hawkins, made public statements - including false statements to the

news media - expressing support for defendant Miftari' s actions, criticizing Mr. Gustave for his

alleged conduct, and, in effect, intentionally publicly retaliating against Mr. Gustave for the

exercise of his constitutionally protected rights and damaging Mr. Gustave's reputation.

78. At the time Chief Hawkins made such statements in August 2019, he did not know all of

the facts regarding the events of August 5, 2019, described above.

79. Among the facts Chief Hawkins did not know when he made his public statements was

that defendant Miftari' s allegations regarding the alleged reckless driving and failing to properly

13


signal a lane change were completely false, and that, therefore, there was no lawful basis for

defendant Miftari to have stopped Mr. Gustave's car.

80. Had Chief Hawkins conducted a full investigation prior to making public statements

about this incident, he would have known that defendant Miftari' s reckless driving and failure to

signal allegations were completely false.

81. Chief Hawkins acted in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for

the standards of investigation and information gathering ordinarily followed by responsible

persons in such circumstances, including, but not limited to, on information and belief, failing to

obtain and review the video footage from the car-mounted camera on defendant Miftari's police

car. Such information was available to Chief Hawkins prior to his public statements, or, if it was

not, Chief Hawkins could have and should have refrained from making any public statements

until after he had reviewed such information.

82. As reported in the news media - and, on information and belief, accurately reported - the

public statements intentionally made by Chief Hawkins on or about August 7, 2019, and, on

information and belief on other occasions, included:

"Gustave put lives in danger with his immediate defiance and con-complianceafter driving recklessly",

• that Mr. Gustave's "behavior" was "very disturbing",

• that Mr. Gustave's behavior "unnecessarily, dangerously, irresponsibly escalatedthe situation",

that Mr. Gustave had cut off a motorist on Western Avenue, and

• that he was "infuriated that my officer was put in a position like this, especially bysomebody that should know better."

14


83. Chief Hawkins was also reported in the news media - on information and belief,

accurately - to have called for Mr. Gustave to be relieved of his job responsibilities at Albany

Law School.

84. Chief Hawkins was also reported in the news media - on information and belief,

accurately - to have stated that he did not believe there was any aspect or element of racial

profiling in this situation, apparently responding to a statement to that effect that had been made

by Mr. Gustave.

85. Chief Hawkins should have known that the question of racial profiling in this incident did

not relate solely to the actions of defendant Miftari after he stopped Mr. Gustave, but also related

to the question of whether there was any lawful basis for the stop to begin with. As he had not

conducted a full investigation, and, therefore, did not know that the purported basis for the stop

was false, and, at least, plausibly, was the result of racial profiling, he had no basis to make any

statement regarding the question of racial profiling.

86. On or about August 7, 2019, defendant City's Mayor, Kathy Sheehan, contacted the Dean

of Albany Law School, Mr. Gustave's employer, and also sent a letter to Albany Law School

"requesting that [Mr. Gustave] be relieved of his duties" relating to the Community Police

Review Board until the matter is fully resolved.

87. Mayor Sheehan also made at least one public statement to the news media on or about

August 7, 2019, to the same effect.

88. Mayor Sheehan contacted a private employer, Albany Law School, in her official capacity

as Mayor of the City of Albany and utilizing her official status as Mayor, to ask that the

employment status of an employee, Mr. Gustave, be changed and that he be stripped of his

15


responsibilities, in effect using her status as Mayor to publicly retaliate against Mr. Gustave for

the exercise of his constitutionally protected rights.

89. Neither Mayor Sheehan, nor Chief Hawkins, nor any official of the City of Albany had

any right to exert pressure on Albany Law School to change Mr. Gustave's employment status or

to ask that he be stripped of his responsibilities.

90. At the time Mayor Sheehan publicly stated that Mr. Gustave's employment status should

be changed and that he should be stripped of his responsibilities, and also sent a letter to Mr.

Gustave's employer asking for the same, she had not conducted a full investigation into the facts

of the situation and did not know all the facts.

91. As was the case with Chief Hawkins, among the facts Mayor Sheehan did not know

when she made her public statements and when she asked a private employer to change the

employment status of an employee and strip him of his responsibilities, was that defendant

Miftari's allegations regarding the alleged reckless driving and alleged failure to signal were

completely false, and that, therefore, there was no lawful basis for defendant Miftari to stop Mr.

Gustave's car.

92. Had Mayor Sheehan conducted a full investigation prior to making public statements

about this incident, she would have known that defendant Miftari's reckless driving and failure to

signal allegations were completely false.

93. Mayor Sheehan acted in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for

the standards of investigation and information gathering ordinarily followed by responsible

persons in such circumstances, including, but not limited to, on information and belief, failing to

obtain and review the video footage from the car-mounted camera on defendant Miftari's police

16


car. Such information was available to Mayor Sheehan prior to her public statements, or, if it was

not, Mayor Sheehan could have and should have refrained from making any public statements

until after she had reviewed such information.

94. Mayor Sheehan's private communications with Albany Law School and public statements

described above were intended to, and did, cause damage to Mr. Gustave's reputation and used

her power as Mayor of defendant City of Albany to interfere with a private employment

relationship between Mr. Gustave and his employer.

95. At the time that Mayor Sheehan contacted Albany Law School asking that the

employment status of their employee, Mr. Gustave, be changed and that he be stripped of his

responsibilities, she was a sitting member of the Board of Trustees of Albany Law School.

96. At the time that Mayor Sheehan and Chief Hawkins made the statements and took the

actions described above, they both were aware that Mr. Gustave, as Coordinator of the

Community Police Review Board, had no policy-making or decision-making authority regarding

the work of the Board, but served in an administrative capacity.

97. The actions and statements of Mayor Sheehan and Chief Hawkins described above were

irresponsible, improper, and were taken and made with reckless disregard as to whether the

allegations made by defendant Miftari were true or false.

98. The actions and statements of Mayor Sheehan and Chief Hawkins caused damage to Mr.

Gustave's reputation and other injuries to Mr. Gustave, including by communicating to Mr.

Gustave's colleagues and to members of the public that he was not capable of properly and

ethically performing his job responsibilities.

17


99. As a direct result, in part, of the actions and statements of Mayor Sheehan and Chief

Hawkins, Mr. Gustave was temporarily removed from his job responsibilities as Coordinator of

the Community Police Review Board on August 8, 2019 - the day after Mayor Sheehan had

contacted the Dean of Albany Law School, had sent a letter to Albany Law School, and had made

a public statement that Mr. Gustave should be relieved of his CPRB responsibilities - and was

then permanently stripped of those responsibilities in February 2020.

100. The actions and statements of Mayor Sheehan and Chief Hawkins described above were

official actions taken by them in their respective capacities as Mayor and Police Chief, were

actions relating to matters over which they individually and collectively have final decision and

policy-making authority for defendant City, and represented actions and policies of defendant

City of Albany.

101. The actions and statements of Mayor Sheehan and Chief Hawkins as described above

reflected a disturbing and inaccurate view of the role of the Coordinator of the Community

Police Review Board and, indeed, of the role of the Board itself. Their statements and actions

presumed and communicated to the public that there would be something improper,

inappropriate, and unethical about having a person who had personally experienced misconduct

by police officer(s) and/or had spoken out publicly about such treatment serve as Coordinator of

the Board. This publicly expressed position had the effect of causing Albany Law School to strip

Mr. Gustave of his responsibilities and also would preclude large sectors of the population from

ever serving in the position of Coordinator of the Board, even though such persons - like Mr.

Gustave - might otherwise be qualified to serve in that capacity and might have valuable

experience and expertise to bring to such position.

18


102. On November 7, 2019, Shane Hug, the prosecutor handling the criminal case against Mr.

Gustave, who had been appointed by Albany County Court to serve as a special prosecutor in the

criminal prosecution of Mr. Gustave, moved in open Court to dismiss all charges against Mr.

Gustave.

103. Based on Special Prosecutor Hug's investigation - which he stated included review of the

video footage from defendant Miftari's body-worn camera and dash-cam, his interview with

defendant Miftari, and his review of the paperwork prepared by defendant Miftari - Mr. Hug

stated on the record:

• "I don't see a traffic infraction occurring."

"What is alleged to have occurred here under the law, in my estimation, isnot a reckless driving."

"If there is no reckless driving, then there was no lawful arrest for Mr.Gustave to resist."

• That on the video defendant Miftari told Mr. Gustave he was beingarrested for disorderly conduct and made "a reference to Mr. Gustaveflipping somebody off, to which Mr. Gustave responds, 'I wasn't flippingyou off. It was directed at someone else.' The officer then states, 'That isnot something that you can do in traffic'. 1think the courts are pretty clearon that, that that is protected speech under the First Amendment such thatMr. Gustave, as anyone else, has a right to flip the bird to anyone hechooses, and he cannot be arrested for doing so. So, if disorderly conduct,although not listed in the paperwork, was the reason for the arrest, that,again would not be a lawful arrest under the law such that there would beno resisting arrest."

• "Given the questions that 1have that I'm not certain as to what happenedon that day, I do not feel it's appropriate for me to move forward with thisprosecution. I don't think ethically I should be doing so."

(All quotes in this paragraph are taken from the transcript of the November 7,2019, proceeding in

the criminal case against Mr. Gustave in Albany City Court, Criminal Court, a copy of which is

19


attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein.)

104. On November 7,2020, after hearing Special Prosecutor Hug's statements in Court,

Albany City Court Judge Trexler dismissed all charges pending against Mr. Gustave.

105. There were no conditions or limitations attached to, implied in, or incorporated into Mr.

Hug's motion that the all charges against Mr. Gustave be dismissed.

106. There were no conditions or limitations attached to, implied in, or incorporated into the

Court's granting of the motion to dismiss all of the charges against Mr. Gustave.

107. The dismissal was not based on a compromise or agreement between the People and Mr.

Gustave.

108. The dismissal of these charges was not based on mercy.

109. The dismissal was not the result of any misconduct on the part of Mr. Gustave.

110. The dismissal was not a "dismissal in the furtherance of justice" as defined in the NY

Criminal Procedure Law.

111. The dismissal was a final judgment, with prejudice, and the prosecution against Mr.

Gustave cannot be revived by re-filing an accusatory instrument.

112. The prosecution terminated in a manner not inconsistent with Mr. Gustave's innocence.

113. The prosecution was terminated in a manner that was indicative of Mr. Gustave's

innocence.

114. The prosecution commenced by defendant Miftari against Mr. Gustave was terminated in

Mr. Gustave's favor.

115. The actions of defendants as set forth above were intentional, wanton, callous, and

malicious, and were taken with disregard for Mr. Gustave's constitutionally protected rights.

20


116. On information and belief, the actions of defendant Miftari as set forth above were, at

least in part, based on or motivated by racial animus towards Mr. Gustave.

117. On information and belief, the actions of defendant Miftari as set forth above were also,

at least in part, based on or motivated by anger towards Mr. Gustave due to Mr. Gustave having

engaged in the constitutionally protected expressive conduct of giving someone the "finger", an

action on Mr. Gustave's part which defendant Miftari incorrectly believed had been directed

towards him and may have incorrectly thought could provide a basis for a charge of disorderly

conduct.

118" On information and belief, defendant Miftari would not have engaged in the actions

described above had Mr. Gustave been a white person.

119. Defendant Miftari's actions constituted violations ofMr. Gustave's clearly established

constitutionally protected rights, including his right to be free from unreasonable and unlawful

seizures by law enforcement officers, his right to be free from unreasonable uses of force by law

enforcement officers, his right to engage in constitutionally protected expressive conduct, and his

right to liberty, due process, and equal protection of the law, all of which a reasonable police

officer would have known.

120. Therefore, defendant Miftari is not entitled to qualified immunity.

121. As a direct result of defendant Miftari' s actions, Mr. Gustave suffered physical injuries

and physical pain, was held in custody, was subjected to malicious prosecution, his constitutional

rights were violated, he incurred medical and legal expenses, and he suffered significant

psychological and emotional pain and suffering.

21


122. As a direct result of defendant City's actions, specifically the actions of defendant City's

final policy-makers Mayor Kathy Sheehan and Police Chief Eric Hawkins, as described above,

Mr. Gustave suffered damage to his reputation, damage to his employment status, and significant

psychological and emotional pain and suffering.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION42 USC §1983

Unlawful seizure - Defendant Miftari

123. Paragraphs 1 through 122 are re-alleged as if fully set forth herein.

124. Defendant Miftari, acting under color of state law, intentionally violated Mr. Gustave'

rights protected by the 4th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by binding principles

of international human rights law, including provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, to be free from unreasonable

and unlawful warrantless seizures by law enforcement officers and is liable to Mr. Gustave for

the injuries directly and proximately caused by said actions.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION42 USC §1983

Violation of right to free expression - Defendant Miftari


126. Defendant Miftari, acting under color of state law, intentionally violated Mr. Gustave's

rights protected by the 1st and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by binding principles


Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, to be free from governmental

infringement upon or penalization of the right to freedom of expression and is liable to Mr.

Gustave for the injuries directly and proximately caused by said actions.

22


THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION42 USC §1983

Unlawful arrest, unlawful imprisonment, and malicious prosecution.Defendant Miftari


128. Defendant Miftari, acting under color of state law, intentionally violated Mr. Gustave'

rights protected by the 4th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by binding principles


Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, to be free from unlawful

arrest, unlawful imprisonment, and malicious prosecution and is liable to Mr. Gustave for the

injuries directly and proximately caused by said actions.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION42 USC §1983

Equal protection - Defendant Miftari


130. Defendant Miftari, acting under color of state law, intentionally violated Mr. Gustave's

rights protected by the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by binding principles of

international human rights law, including provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, to be free from governmental

discrimination on the basis of race or color and is liable to Mr. Gustave for the injuries directly

and proximately caused by said actions.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION42 USC §1983

Municipal liability - Defendant City


23


132. Defendant City, acting under color of state law by and through defendant City's final

policy-makers relating to all matters relating to defendant City'S police department, Mayor

Sheehan and Chief Hawkins, violated Mr. Gustave's rights protected, inter alia, by the l " and

14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution and binding principles of international human rights

law, including provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International

Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, to be free from governmental retaliation for the exercise

of his constitutionally protected rights and is liable to Mr. Gustave for the injuries directly and

proximately caused by said actions.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTIONCommon law assault - Defendants Miftari and City


134. Defendant Miftari intentionally repeatedly placed Mr. Gustave in apprehension of

imminent harmful or offensive conduct, thereby committing multiple common law assaults

against Mr. Gustave and is liable to Mr. Gustave for the injuries directly and proximately caused

by his actions.

135. Defendant City is also liable for the assaults pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat

superior.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTIONCommon law battery - Defendants Miftari and City


137. Defendant Miftari intentionally repeatedly engaged in harmful, offensive, and

unprivileged physical contact with Mr. Gustave, thereby committing multiple common law

batteries against Mr. Gustave and is liable to Mr. Gustave for the injuries directly and

24


proximately caused by his actions.

138. Defendant City is also liable for the batteries pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat

superior.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTIONCommon law unlawful arrest - Defendants Miftari and City


140. Defendant Miftari intentionally and without the right to do so unlawfully arrested Mr.

Gustave and is liable to Mr. Gustave for the injuries directly and proximately caused by his

actions.

141. Defendant City is also liable for these torts pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat

superior.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTIONCommon law malicious prosecution - Defendants Miftari and City


143. Defendant Miftari intentionally and without the right to do so maliciously prosecuted Mr.

Gustave on charges of failure to signal, reckless driving, and resisting arrest, and is liable to Mr.

Gustave for the injuries directly and proximately caused by his actions.

144. Defendant City is also liable for these torts pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat

superior.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTIONCommon law tortious interference with business relationship - Defendant City


146. Defendant City, acting by and through defendant City'S Mayor and Police Chief

25


unlawfully and by wrongful means tortiously interfered with Mr. Gustave's business relationship,

specifically, the terms and conditions of his employment at Albany Law School, and is liable to

Mr. Gustave for the injuries directly and proximately caused by said actions.

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTIONCommon law defamation - Defendant City


148. Defendant City, acting by and through defendant City's Mayor and Police Chief

unlawfully defamed Mr. Gustave, damaged his reputation, caused him special damages -

specifically, the alteration of the terms and conditions of his employment - and is liable to Mr.

Gustave for the injuries directly and proximately caused by said actions.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands compensatory damages in the amount of

$1,000,000.00, punitive damages against defendant Miftari in the amount of$100,000.00, the

costs of this action, attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 USC §1988 and such other and further relief as

the Court deems just and proper.

Please take further notice that plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial.

Dated: August 5, 2020. Respectfully submitted,

Mark S. Mishler, Esq.Bar roll # 102213Law Office of Mark S. Mishler, P.C.Attorneys for Plaintiff744 BroadwayAlbany, NY 12207(518) 462-6753(518) 432-7325 (Fax - not for service of papers)[email protected]

26


EXHIBIT A to COMPLAINT

GUSTAVEv. THE CITY OF ALBANY, etal.

TRANSCRIPT OF NOV. 7,2019, PROCEEDING INALBANY CITY COURT, CRIMINAL PART


1 STATE OF NEW YORKCITY COURT

CITY OF ALBANYCOUNTY OF ALBANY

2 *************************************************************

3 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

4 - against - Docket #CR-2406-19

5 CLAY GUSTAVE,

6 Defendant.

7 *************************************************************

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

BEFORE:

FOR THE PEOPLE:

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

ALSO PRESENT:

Albany City CourtCriminal PartOne Morton AvenueAlbany, New York 12202

November 7, 2019Commencing at 9:28 a.m.

HON. HOLLY A. TREXLER

SHANE HUG, ESQ.Special Prosecutor

LAW OFFICE OF MARK S. MISHLER, P.C.Attorneys for DefendantBY: MARK S. MISHLER, ESQ.

CLAY GUSTAVE, In Person

[Digitally Recorded Proceedings]

TRANSCRIBED BY: RENEE D. LEGUIRE, CSR, RMR, CRR

Leguire Shorthand ReportersServing the Legal Profession Since 1982

www.TheSteno.com - (518) 371-4143


[People v. Clay Gustave - 11/7/19}

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

PRO C E E DIN G S

THE COURT: Clay Gustave.

(Pause.)

THE COURT: Good morning, sir. How are you?

THE DEFENDANT: I'm well. How are you?

THE COURT: Good. You're here in open court

with your attorney, Mr. Michelle. The people are

represented by Special Assistant District Attorney Shane

hug. This matter comes on for an appearance today.

Mr. Hug.

MR. HUG: Yes, your Honor. After reviewing

this file at length, discussing this matter with the

officers involved, conferencing the case with defense

counsel, reviewing the videos that were generated in this

case over and over again, I'm left with more questions, I

think, than I have answers to.

I don't know what happened that day.

According to the police officer who stopped Mr. Gustave,

the alleged traffic infraction occurred, unfortunately,

behind him. In such case, there is no video to capture

it. We have body camera video from the officer. We have

dash cam' video from the officer. In fact, you can glean

certain things if you look in the rearview mirrors of his

vehicle based upon his body camera. I don't see a

traffic infraction occurring. What I know, based upon my

Leguire Shorthand ReportersServing the Legal Profession Since 1982www.TheSteno.com - (518) 371-4143

2


[People v. Clay Gustave - 11/7/19j

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

conversations with the officer involved, is that he

placed Mr. Gustave under arrest, according to the

paperwork and according to my conversations with him, for

a reckless driving. What is alleged to have occurred

here under the law, in my estimation, is not a reckless

driving. If there is no reckless driving, then there was

no lawful arrest for Mr. Gustave to resist.

There is conflicting information on the videos

where Mr. Gustave is on the ground with a police officer

on top of him in a struggle where Mr. Gustave asks the

officer what he's under arrest for, and the officer says,

"Disorderly conduct," and there's reference to

Mr. Gustave flipping somebody off, to which Mr. Gustave

responds, "I wasn't flipping you off. It was directed at

someone else." The officer then states, "That is not

something that you can do in traffic."

I think the courts are pretty clear on that,

that that is protected speech under the First Amendment

such that Mr. Gustave, as anyone else, has a right to

flip the bird to anyone he chooses, and he cannot be

arrested for doing so.

So, if a disorderly conduct, although not

listed in the paperwork, was the reason for the arrest,

that, again, would not be a lawful arrest under the law

such that there would be no resisting arrest.

Leguire Shorthand ReportersServing the Legal Profession Since 1982

www.TheSteno.com - (518) 371-4143

3



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

What we are left with, the best case scenario,

is an AUO, which my understanding is Mr. Gustave went out

that following day and cleared his license, as well as a

traffic infraction.

I don't know, like I said, what happened that

day. I was not there. I am not prepared to call anyone

a liar in this case, neither the police officer, nor

Mr. Gustave. I don't think either of them had their

finest days, however. I think they probably both, if

they could go back in time, would admittedly act

differently.

As a prosecutor, I think it's my to seek

justice, and I've been careful in reviewing this matter

to try to figure out what happened and what the right

result is; but, as I indicated here, I have more

questions than I have answers. I think it's apparent and

it's obvious, it's undisputed that Mr. Gustave had a

suspension on his license. The question becomes, though,

was there a lawful stop? If the stop was not lawful,

then this case would not survive a suppression hearing,

and the charges would be dismissed.

Given the questions that I have that I'm not

certain as to what happened on that day, I do not feel

it's appropriate for me to move forward with this

prosecution. I don't think ethically I should be doing


4


[People v. Clay Gustave - ll/7/19J

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

so. I think, if I am not convinced what happened, as a

prosecutor my role is to be upfront and honest with it no

matter what the political ramifications of that are. So

at this point I would file a motion to dismiss the

charges against Mr. Gustave.

THE COURT: Mr. Mishler, any objection to that

dismissal?

MR. MISHLER: Your Honor, first, no, we have

no objection. Secondly, I do want to express really

profound and deep appreciation for the manner in which

Mr. Hug has conducted himself as a prosecutor in this

case. He has, I think, displayed the highest level of

ethical conduct as an attorney and as a prosecutor.

aware from many conversations we've had the amount of

work that Mr. Hug put into reviewing this matter, the

thoroughness with which he reviewed all of the

information and evidence, his follow-up with witnesses,

and his discussions with the defense regarding this.

We're very appreciative of that work, and certainly we

agree with what he's moving for, and we ask -- we join in

the motion to dismiss all of the pending charges against

Mr. Gustave, and I want to just be clear that my

understanding of the motion that's been made and what we

are agreeing to is an immediate and outright dismissal

with no conditions attached to that.


5

I'm


[People v. Clay Gustave - ll/7/19}

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. HUG: That is my motion.

MR. MISHLER: And, based on that, we certainly

join in that motion and ask the court to move forward.

THE COURT: Based on the factors enumerated by

Mr. Hug as the special assistant district attorney and

Mr. Mishler joining in that application, the court

dismisses this matter outright.

Mr. Gustave, I wish you the best of luck.

Mr. Hug, thank you for your hard and thorough work in

this matter.

MR. HUG: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: I appreciate it. You guys have a

great day.

MR. MISHLER: Thanks, Judge.

[Proceedings concluded at 9:34 a.m.]

* * *


6


1

2

3

4

5

6


C~.8IIII~l':IION

If RENEE D. LEGUIRE, a Certified Shorthand

7 Reporter, Registered Merit Reporter, and Certified Realtime

7

8 Reporter, certify that the foregoing transcript of proceedings

9

10

11

12

13

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

in the Albany City, Court Criminal, Part of PEOPLE v. CLAY

GUSTAVE, Docket No. CR-2406-19, was prepared using the

required transcription equipment and is a true and accurate

record of the proceedings.

RENEE D. LEGUIRE, RMR, CRR,Certified Shorthand Reporter

August 3, 2020Date:



JS 44 (Rev. 09/19) CIVIL COVER SHEETThe JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except asprovided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for thepurpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INS71WC710NS ON NI!."XTPAGE OF THIS FORM)

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff .!..A.."L='B""A'-"-N'--Y'-- _(EXCEPT IN us. PLAINTIFF CASES)

Ta~JC'fM~~I~ANY; AND CITYOF ALBANY POLICE OFFICEREMILJAN MIFTARI, individually and in his official capacity,

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant -I..:.A"'L"'B!!.A.."NC!..!Y _(IN Us. PLAINfIFFCASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OFTHE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)Mark S. Mishler, Esq., Law Office of Mark S. Mishler, P.C., 744Broadway, Albany, NY 12207

Attorneys {If Known}Not known,

o I u.s.GovernmentPlaintiff

~ 3 Federal Question(U.s. Government NOI a Party)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "x" in One BoxforPlalllti/J(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant}

PTF DEF PTF DEFCitizen of This State 0 I 0 I Incorporated or Principal Place 0 4 0 4

of Business In This State

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "x: rno.«Box Only}

o 2 U.S. GovernmentDefendant

o 4 Diversity(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item II/)

Citizen of Another State o 2 o 2 Incorporated and Principal Placeof Business In Another State

o 5 05

Citizen or Subject of aForeizn Count

o 3 o 3 Foreign Nation o 6 06

IV NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X" ill One Box Only) Click here for: Nature 0 Suit Code Descriotions.CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURFJPENAL TY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

0 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY o 625 Drug Related Seizure o 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 o 375 False Claims Act0 120 Marine o 310 Airplane o 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 o 423 Withdrawal o 376 Qui Tam (31 USC0 130 Miller Act o 315 Airplane Product Product Liability o 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a»0 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability o 367 Health Carel o 400 State Reapportionment0 ISORecovery of Overpayment o 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical RIr.HTS o 410 Antitrust

& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury o 820 Copyrights o 430 Banks and Banking0 151 Medicare Act o 330 Federal Employers Product Liability o 830 Patent o 450 Commerce0 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability o 368 Asbestos Personal o 835 Patent - Abbreviated o 460 Deportation

Student Loans 0340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application o 470 Racketeer Influenced and(Excludes Veterans) o 345 Marine Product Liability o 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations

0 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY AROR SOC I o 480 Consumer Creditof Veteran 's Benefits o 350 Motor Vehicle o 370 Other Fraud o 710 Fair Labor Standards o 861 HIA (139511) (15 USC 1681 or 1692)

0 160 Stockholders' Suits o 355 Motor Vehicle o 371 Tnlth in Lending Act o 862 Black Lung (923) o 485 Telephone Consumer0 190 Other Contract Product Liability o 380 Other Personal o 720 Labor/Management o 863 DlWCIDIWW (405(g» Protection Act0 195 Contract Product Liability o 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations o 864 ssro Title XVI o 490 CablelSat TV0 196 Franchise Injury o 385 Property Damage o 740 Railway Labor Act o 865 RSI (405(g» o 850 Securities/Commodities!

o 362 Personal Injury • Product Liability o 751 Family and Medical ExchangeMedical Malpractice Leave Act o 890 Other Statutory Actions

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS o 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TA.,{ SUITS o 891 Agricultural Actso 210 Land Condemnation OJ: 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: o 791 Employee Retirement o 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff o 893 Environmental Matterso 220 Foreclosure 0441 Voting o 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) o 895 Freedom of Informationo 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment o 442 Employment o 510 Motions to Vacate o 871 IRS-Third Party Acto 240 Torts to Land o 443 Housing! Sentence 26 USC 7609 o 896 Arbitrationo 245 Tort Product Liability Acconunodations o 530 General o 899 Administrati ve Procedureo 290 All Other Real Property o 445 Amer. wlDisabilities - o 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION ActlReview or Appeal of

Employment Other: o 462 Naturalization Application Agency Decisiono 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - o 540 Mandamus & Other o 465 Other Immigration o 950 Constitutionality ofOther o 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes

o 448 Education o 555 Prison Conditiono 560 Civil Detainee -

Conditions ofConfinement

V. ORIGIN (Ptace an "X" in One Box Only)

~ 1 Original 0 2 Removed fromProceeding State Court

o 3 Remanded fromAppellate Court

o 4 Reinstated or 0 5 Transferred fromReopened Another District

(s ci ~

o 6 MultidistrictLitigation -Transfer

o 8 MultidistrictLitigation -Direct File

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are tiling (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):42 USC 1983

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION "'B'-r;;;'ie~f;"'de~s;;;'cr""ip"';;li"';;o"';;n-of""c-a-us-e-:-----------------------------------

Claims based on unlawful arrest, excessive force, malicious prosecution under US Const and common law

VII. REQUESTED INCOMPLAINT:

o CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND s CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. 1,000,000.00 JURY DEMAND: ~ Yes ONo

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)IF ANY (See ins/ructions):

JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE08/05/2020

SIGN~~~OF~TIO~,yO~RD /. £?~/, r~~ MAfZ-1?- 5.Mt5tl-l.-cA-.FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

1:20-cv-885 ANYNDC-5195460

$400.00 FJS DJS

Case 1:20-cv-00885-FJS-DJS Document 1-1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 1 of 1

Documents

Case 1:20-cv-00885-FJS-DJS Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page ...€¦ · Case 1:20-cv-00885-FJS-DJS Document 1 Filed 08/05/20 Page 10 of 34. ... Mr. Gustave had not improperly moved