Karen Rayfield v. City of Paterson

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

____________________________________:

KAREN RAYFIELD, : CIVIL ACTION660 E. 29th Street :Paterson, NJ 07504, : NO.

:Plaintiff, :

:v. :

:CITY OF PATERSON, :155 Market Street :Paterson, NJ 07505, :

:and :

:CHIEF JAMES WITTIG, :PATERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT, :111 W. Broadway :Paterson, NJ 07522 :

:and :

:OFFICER JASON WESTER, :PATERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT, :111 W. Broadway :Paterson, NJ 07522 :

:and :

:OFFICER MICHEL AVILA, :PATERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT, :111 W. Broadway :Paterson, NJ 07522 :

:and :

:OFFICER MARTIN LUIZZI, :PATERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT, :111 W. Broadway :Paterson, NJ 07522 :

Case 1:33-av-00001 Document 10 Filed 05/10/2006 Page 1 of 12Case 2:06-cv-02126-KSH-PS Document 1 Filed 05/10/06 Page 1 of 12 PageID: 1

2

and ::

OFFICER JOSE GALVAN, :PATERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT, :111 W. Broadway :Paterson, NJ 07522 :

:and :

:OFFICER FRANCO CARAVELLA, :PATERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT, :111 W. Broadway :Paterson, NJ 07522 :

:and :

:OFFICER RICHARD LATRECCHIA, :PATERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT, :111 W. Broadway :Paterson, NJ 07522 :

:and :

:OFFICER SPENCER FINCH, :PATERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT, :111 W. Broadway :Paterson, NJ 07522 :

:and :

:LIEUTENANT DOMINICK TORCHA, :PATERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT, :111 W. Broadway :Paterson, NJ 07522 :

:and :

:SERGEANT DeMARCO, :PATERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT, :111 W. Broadway :Paterson, NJ 07522 :

:Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

____________________________________:


3

CIVIL ACTION - COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Karen Rayfield (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by and through her attorneys, Frost &

Zeff, hereby brings this Complaint against Defendants City of Paterson, Paterson Police Chief

James Wittig, Paterson Police Officers Jason Wester, Michael Avila, Martin Luizzi, Jose Galvan,

Franco Caravella, Richard Latrecchia, Spencer Finch, Paterson Police Lieutenant Dominick

Torcha and Paterson Police Sergeant DeMarco (hereinafter “Defendants” collectively), and in

support thereof avers as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This action for declaratory, injunctive, monetary and other appropriate relief is brought

by Plaintiff Karen Rayfield to redress the intentional violations by Defendants of the

rights secured to her by the laws of the United States of America and the and the State of

New Jersey.

II. JURISDICTION

2. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the First and Fourteenth

Amendments of the United States Constitution, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 et. seq., and N.J.S.A.

10:5 et seq. Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3) and the

aforementioned statutory and constitutional provisions.

3. Jurisdiction lies over state law claims based on the principles of supplemental

jurisdiction, as codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

4. The amount in controversy exclusive of interest and costs exceeds the sum of One

Hundred Thousand ($100,000.00) Dollars.

III. VENUE


4

5. All the claims herein arose within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for

the District of New Jersey and involve Defendants who reside within the jurisdictional

limits. Venue is accordingly invoked pursuant to the dictates of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and

(c).

IV. PARTIES

6. Plaintiff Karen Rayfield, an African-American female, is an adult individual citizen of

the State of New Jersey residing therein at the above address.

7. Defendant City of Paterson is a municipal corporation within the State of New Jersey

located at the above address.

8. Defendant Chief James Wittig is, and was at all times relevant hereto, the Chief of the

City of Paterson Police Department, located at 111 W. Broadway, Paterson, NJ 07522.

Defendant Chief Wittig is sued individually and in his official capacity.

9. Defendant Officer Jason Wester is, and was at all times relevant hereto, a Police Officer

for the City of Paterson Police Department, located at 111 W. Broadway, Paterson, NJ

07522. Defendant Officer Wester is sued individually and in his official capacity.

10. Defendant Officer Michael Avila is, and was at all times relevant hereto, a Police Officer


07522. Defendant Officer Avila is sued individually and in his official capacity.

11. Defendant Officer Martin Luizzi is, and was at all times relevant hereto, a Police Officer


07522. Defendant Officer Luizzi is sued individually and in his official capacity.

12. Defendant Officer Jose Galvan is, and was at all times relevant hereto, a Police Officer


5


07522. Defendant Officer Luizzi is sued individually and in his official capacity.

13. Defendant Officer Franco Caravella is, and was at all times relevant hereto, a Police

Officer for the City of Paterson Police Department, located at 111 W. Broadway,

Paterson, NJ 07522. Defendant Officer Caravella is sued individually and in his official

capacity.

14. Defendant Officer Richard Latrecchia is, and was at all times relevant hereto, a Police

Officer for the City of Paterson Police Department, located at 111 W. Broadway,

Paterson, NJ 07522. Defendant Officer Latrecchia is sued individually and in his official

capacity.

15. Defendant Officer Spencer Finch is, and was at all times relevant hereto, a Police Officer


07522. Defendant Officer Finch is sued individually and in his official capacity.

16. Defendant Lieutenant Dominick Torcha is, and was at all times relevant hereto, a

Lieutenant with the City of Paterson Police Department, located at 111 W. Broadway,

Paterson, NJ 07522. Defendant Lieutenant Torcha is sued individually and in his official

capacity.

17. Defendant Sergeant DeMarco is, and was at all times relevant hereto, a Sergeant with the

City of Paterson Police Department, located at 111 W. Broadway, Paterson, NJ 07522.

Defendant Sergeant DeMarco is sued individually and in his official capacity.

V. FACTS

18. Plaintiff is, and was at all times relevant hereto, employed as a Defendant City of


6

Paterson Police Officer. Plaintiff has been a City of Paterson Police Officer for

approximately ten (10) years.

19. On or about March 16, 2006 at approximately 3:32 a.m., a burglary in progress at 141

Alabama Avenue, Paterson, New Jersey, was reported to the City of Paterson Police

Department.

20. Plaintiff received the dispatch regarding the burglary and promptly reported to the

location.

21. Upon arrival, Plaintiff observed that Defendant Police Officers Jason Wester and Michael

Avila, as well as other Defendant Police Officers, were on scene.

22. At this time, Plaintiff observed an individual, the alleged suspect, run through several

residential back yards and jump several fences.

23. Plaintiff observed this individual to be an Hispanic male, approximately 5' 4", 130 to 135

pounds, 18 to 19 years of age.

24. Plaintiff and other Defendant Police officers responded on foot and cornered the suspect

in an effort to box him in.

25. Having no other means of escape, the suspect ran directly into Defendant Police Officer

Wester.

26. Plaintiff then heard Officer Wester order the suspect to the pavement.

27. At that time, Defendant Police Officers Wester, Martin Luizzi, Jose Galvan, and Franco

Caravella attempted to apprehend the suspect, but the suspected initially resisted.

28. As other Defendant Police Officers restrained the suspect, he no longer resisted and

Plaintiff was able to handcuff the suspect’s right arm. Plaintiff then instructed the other


7

Defendant Police Officers to turn the suspect over, whereupon Plaintiff was able to

handcuff the suspect’s left arm.

29. While the suspect was handcuffed, Defendant Police Officer Luizzi then kicked the

suspect several times in the side with his boot.

30. Defendant Police Officer Galvan then proceeded to punch the suspect in the face several

times.

31. During this time, Defendant Police Officer Wester applied a strangle-hold to the

suspect’s neck.

32. Plaintiff yelled to the other Defendant Police Officers to stop, stating that the suspect was

no longer resisting.

33. Ignoring Plaintiff’s instruction, however, Defendant Police Officers Luizzi and Caravella

pulled the suspect to feet, whereupon Defendant Police Officer Caravella began punching

the suspect in the chest.

34. Defendant Police Officers were yelling profanities at the suspect during this time.

35. Plaintiff observed that the suspect was bleeding.

36. Plaintiff then stated to the other Defendant Police Officers “enough” and instructed the

other Defendant Police Officers to place the suspect in Plaintiff’s patrol car.

37. Ignoring Plaintiff’s instructions, Defendant Police Officer Wester then punched the

suspect in the face, causing the suspect to fall to the pavement.

38. Plaintiff screamed for the other Defendant Police Officers to stop.

39. Defendant Police Officers Luizzi and Avila, however, began to kick the suspect several

more times.


8

40. Thereafter, Defendant Police Officers Richard Latrecchia and Spencer Finch, who had

arrived on the scene, apprehended the suspect and proceeded to strike the suspect several

times.

41. Defendant Police Officers Latrecchia and Finch then placed the suspect in an unmarked

Defendant Police Department vehicle.

42. The suspect sustained multiple serious injuries as a result of the aforementioned acts of

Defendant Police Officers and required medical attention.

43. As a result of Plaintiff’s speaking out against the aforementioned excessive use of force

and beating of the suspect, Plaintiff was subjected to hostile treatment from the

Defendant Police Officers following the incident, including, but not limited to, Defendant

Police Officer Luizzi calling Plaintiff a “coward” and stating that he would “knock [her]

the fuck out right now.”

44. Additionally, a number of the Defendant Police Officers threatened to accuse Plaintiff of

dereliction of duty if she reported the incident.

45. Plaintiff reported the above incidents to supervisors Defendant Police Lieutenant

Dominick Torcha and Defendant Police Sergeant DeMarco.

46. Lieutenant Torcha cautioned Plaintiff to be careful about what she wrote in her report

because “things around here could get out of hand.”

47. Sergeant DeMarco also suggested to Plaintiff that she had not seen the complete incident

and further warned that if Plaintiff disclosed the events of the evening in her report that

other officers would accuse her of dereliction of duty and she would then be written up.

48. Under duress and in fear of retaliation and further hostility from other Defendant Police


9

Officers and her supervisors , Plaintiff prepared a report which did not completely

disclose the true nature of the events regarding the 141 Alabama Avenue incident.

49. Later that same day, however, Plaintiff, though still fearful of retaliation, felt that the

actions of Defendants were improper and that it was necessary for her to disclose the

illegal and improper acts of the Defendant Police Officers in severely beating the suspect

without any cause.

50. Accordingly, on March 16, 2006, Plaintiff drafted a letter detailing the above account and

mailed it to the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office.

51. On or about March 23, 2006, Plaintiff reported the above account to Defendant Police

Department Internal Affairs.

52. Later that same day, March 23, 2006, Defendant Police Detective Castro stated to

Plaintiff “maybe you’re not cut out for this job.”

53. Later that same day, March 23, 2006, Plaintiff was placed on Administrative Leave at the

direction of the Police Department.

54. On or about April 13, 2006, Plaintiff was ordered, at the direction of the Police

Department, to undergo a psychological evaluation to determine whether she was fit to

return to active duty.

COUNT I42 U.S.C. § 1983

FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS

50. Plaintiff incorporates by this reference herein as though recited verbatim at length the

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 49 above.

51. Defendants violated the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in that Defendants, acting under


10

color of State law, deprived Plaintiff of the privileges and immunities secured to her by

the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and, in particular,

her right to hold employment without infringement of her First Amendment right to

freedom of speech.

52. Defendants intentionally, wilfully, and recklessly placed Plaintiff on administrative leave

in order to deny Plaintiff her First Amendment right to free speech.

53. Defendants’ actions aforesaid were to penalize and retaliate against Plaintiff for her

exercise of fundamental First Amendment rights and, specifically, to penalize and

retaliate against Plaintiff for opposing, reporting and speaking out against the illegal,

improper and unjust brutal beating of the suspect by Defendant Police Officers.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, and for injunctive relief,

compensation for lost wages (back pay, front pay and benefits), compensatory damages for pain,

suffering, embarrassment, emotional distress, past and future economic loss, together with

attorney’s fees, costs, punitive damages, and any further relief as the Court may deem proper.

COUNT IIVIOLATION OF THE CONSCIENTIOUS EMPLOYEE PROTECTION ACT

N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 et. seq.



55. Plaintiff spoke out against and reported the illegal, improper and unjust brutal beating of

the suspect by Defendant Police Officers through her verbal statements to Defendant

Police Lieutenant Domenick Torcha and Sergeant DeMarco, her written letter to the New

Jersey Attorney General’s Office, and her report to Defendant Police Department Internal


11

Affairs.

56. In direct retaliation therefore, Plaintiff was taken out her job and placed on administrative

leave and then forced order to undergo a psychological evaluation to determine her

fitness for duty.

57. Defendants’ actions violate the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J.S.A. 34:19-1

et. seq.





COUNT IIIVIOLATION OF THE NEW JERSEY LAW AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

N.J.S.A. 10:5 et seq. - RETALIATION



59. Defendants’ actions aforesaid in retaliating against Plaintiff for speaking out and

reporting the actions of Defendant police officers violates the New Jersey Law Against

Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et. seq.






12

Respectfully submitted,

FROST & ZEFF

BY: s/ Gregg L. Zeff GREGG L. ZEFF, ESQUIREAttorneys for Plaintiff

DATED: May 10, 2006

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

FROST & ZEFF

BY: s/ Gregg L. Zeff GREGG L. ZEFF, ESQUIREAttorneys for Plaintiff

DATED: May 10, 2006


Case 2:06-cv-02126-KSH-PS Document 1-1 Filed 05/10/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 13

Case 2:06-cv-02126-KSH-PS Document 1-1 Filed 05/10/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 14

Documents

Karen Rayfield v. City of Paterson