Case 3:14-cv MLC-DEA Document 6 Filed 07/15/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 30

Similar documents
Case 3:33-av Document 4790 Filed 05/04/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 91151

Case 2:10-cv KSH -PS Document 4 Filed 11/19/10 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 20

Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 02/03/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1

)(

Case 6:14-cv JDL Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/25/12 Page 1 of 24 PageID #:1

Case 5:16-cv RWS-CMC Document 1 Filed 01/29/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII CV

Case 1:18-cv RBK-AMD Document 1 Filed 07/02/18 Page 1 of 16 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case: 4:13-cv HEA Doc. #: 27 Filed: 12/02/13 Page: 1 of 15 PageID #: 128

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

1/29/2019 8:49 AM 19CV04626

Case 2:16-cv RSL Document 1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 13

NATURE OF THE ACTION. This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STATE OF RHODE ISLAND COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION

Case 2:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 12/12/17 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Case 1:13-cv MKB-RER Document 1 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1. Plaintiff, Defendants. REYES, M.J PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Case 3:14-cv BR Document 1 Filed 10/09/14 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Case 1:12-cv S-LDA Document 1 Filed 08/10/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND COMPLAINT

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STATE OF RHODE ISLAND COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION

Case 3:16-cv MAS-DEA Document 1 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 17 PageID: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, WESTERN DIVISION

3:14-cv SEM-TSH # 1 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 02/18/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1

Case2:08-cv KSH-MAS Document 1 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, v.

Case: 2:16-cv ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/02/16 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Case 3:17-cv DJH Document 3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 13

Case3:05-cv WHA Document1 Filed02/14/05 Page1 of 5

Plaintiff, Willie Nevius, a resident of North Carolina, by way of complaint against the

Case 3:14-cv Document 1 Filed 05/30/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

Case: 1:06-cv JRA Doc #: 28 Filed: 05/08/09 1 of 9. PageID #: 220

Case: 5:15-cv SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/20/15 2 of 9. PageID #: 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION JUDGE:

Case 3:17-cv UN4 Document 1 Filed 08/24/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMPLAINT

Case 3:18-cv Document 1 Filed 09/19/18 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:07-cv NLH-AMD Document 1 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 1 of 12

2:15-cv PDB-DRG Doc # 1 Filed 02/11/15 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 5:15-cv SAC-KGS Document 1 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case 1:11-cv JBS-AMD Document 37 Filed 06/27/12 Page 1 of 16 PageID: 223 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 2:10-cv HGB-ALC Document 1 Filed 04/20/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JANET DELUCA CIVIL ACTION

Case 4:08-cv SNL Document 1 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

Case: 4:17-cv Doc. #: 1 Filed: 07/19/17 Page: 1 of 14 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

Case 1:18-cv RDB Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE DIVISION

Case 1:06-cv VM-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/10/06 Page 1 of 9

2:13-cv SJM-LJM Doc # 1 Filed 07/25/13 Pg 1 of 15 Pg ID 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON. Case No.:

Case 4:04-cv SBA Document 48-1 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 1 of 13

Case 0:10-cv KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2010 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

Case 3:18-cv Document 1 Filed 10/29/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

Case 1:06-cv JJF Document 5 Filed 06/20/2006 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA THIRD DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

2. One of the defendant in the case is Parker & Gould (P&G). What is exactly P&G?

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

Case 3:12-cv Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 1 of 17

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

Case Case 1:07-cv RMB-JS 1:33-av Document Document Filed Filed 01/10/2007 Page Page 2 of 2 7 of 7 4. Defendants, Sergeant Gerard S

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Plaintiffs, No. 1:15-cv-22096

2:16-cv HAB # 1 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS URBANA DIVISION

Case: 1:10-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 09/02/10 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:1

Case 1:17-cv RDB Document 1 Filed 03/06/17 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (NORTHERN DIVISION)

Amended Complaint, Gassman v. Frischholtz et al, Docket No. 1:05-cv (Northern District of Illinois 2005)

Case 5:17-cv Document 2 Filed in TXSD on 01/17/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LAREDO DIVISION

Case: 1:10-cv SJD Doc #: 1 Filed: 04/29/10 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION

Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 02/12/16 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 04/11/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1

Case 1:15-cv KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2015 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION INTRODUCTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Defendants. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND JURISDICTION

Courthouse News Service

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI`I ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT. Introduction

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Plaintiffs, Case No.: VERIFIED COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION

Case 5:08-cv GTS-GJD Document 1 Filed 11/10/2008 Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Charlottesville Division : : : : : : : : : : :

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 2:17-cv JAM-EFB Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 01/23/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1

Case 2:06-cv FSH-PS Document 20 Filed 01/10/08 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Hon.

Case 2:17-cv JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2017 Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 05/12/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:1

RECEIVED AUG COMPLAINT: JURY TRIAL.. YES. Case 2:18-cv MCA-CLW Document 1 Filed 08/14/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 1

Transcription:

Case 314-cv-04104-MLC-DEA Document 6 Filed 07/15/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 30 F. MICHAEL DAILY, JR., LLC ATTORNEY ID #011151974 ATTORNEY AT LAW 216 Haddon Avenue Sentry Office Plaza Suite 106 Westmont, New Jersey 08108 Telephone No. (856) 833-0006 Fax No. (856) 833-1083 Our File #F-2358 Attorney for the Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DON KARNS Plaintiff, vs. KATHLEEN SHANAHAN, SANDRA MCKEON CROWE, NEW JERSEY TRANSIT AND JOHN DOE SUPERVISORS #1 TO 50. Defendants. CIVIL CASE NO. 14-4104 (MLC) AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND Don Karns by way of complaint against the defendants says PARTIES, JURISDICATION, AND VENUE 1. The plaintiff, Don Karns, is an individual who resides at 18 Holloway Drive, Hampton Virginia. 2. The defendant, Kathleen Shanahan, is an individual who at all times relevant to this matter was employed as a police officer by the defendant, New Jersey Transit. -1-

Case 314-cv-04104-MLC-DEA Document 6 Filed 07/15/14 Page 2 of 9 PageID 31 3. The defendant, Sandra McKeon Crowe, is an individual who at all times relevant to this matter was employed as a police officer by the defendant, New Jersey Transit. 4. The defendant, New Jersey Transit, is an independent governmental entity, created under the laws of the State of New Jersey, that operates certain transit facilities within and without the State of New Jersey. 5. Defendant, John Doe Supervisors #1 to 50, are individuals who constitute the chain of command from the officers named above to and including the final official with decision making authority. 6. All of the foregoing individual defendants are sued in both their individual and official capacities. 7. This suit arises under the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States and is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 based upon violations of the plaintiff s rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. 8. The Court has jurisdiction over plaintiff s federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, as an action arising under the Constitution of the United States, and 28 U.S.C. 1343(A)(3), to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States. 9. The Court also has authority to grant declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 et seq. -2-

Case 314-cv-04104-MLC-DEA Document 6 Filed 07/15/14 Page 3 of 9 PageID 32 10. Venue is properly laid pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) in the District of New Jersey, because defendant, New Jersey Transit is located in this district, and the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this district. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 11. Don Karns is an evangelical minister who regularly preaches the Christian Gospel in public forums such as public sidewalks, public parks and other public places. 12. On June 26, 2012, Don Karns along with another preacher, Robert Parker, was preaching the word of God at the West Windsor Station owned and operated by New Jersey Transit. 13. The station and its train platforms are at all times open to the public and as of June 26, 2012, there were no notices posted that would have warned Don Karns or Robert Parker that their preaching was impermissible or that such conduct was not in conformance with lawful conditions placed upon the property by New Jersey Transit. 14. On the aforesaid date as a result of their preaching Robert Parker and Don Karns were arrested without probable cause by the defendants Kathleen Shanahan and Sandra McKeon Crowe. 15. Said arrests prevented the Robert Parker and Don Karns from continuing the exercise of the rights to free speech and included physical seizures and searches of their persons, -3-

Case 314-cv-04104-MLC-DEA Document 6 Filed 07/15/14 Page 4 of 9 PageID 33 transportation to a police facility, and detention in holding cells. 16. Thereafter Don Karns was charged by defendant, Sandra McKeon Crowe, without probable cause with violations of N.J.S. 2C18-3B (Defiant Trespass), N.J.S. 2C29-1A (Obstruction of Justice), and N.J.S. 2C29-1B (Prevention of a Public Servant From th Performing an Official Function, a Crime of the 4 Degree). 17. The filing and prosecution of the aforesaid charges were all approved and ratified by Defendant, John Doe Supervisors #1 to 50. 18. Subsequently the Fourth Degree Charges were downgraded by the Mercer County Prosecutor s Office and the matters tried before the West Windsor Municipal Court. 19. At the conclusion of these proceedings all charges were dismissed as to Don Karns. 20. At the aforesaid times and continuing to the present, New Jersey Transit has had an obscure regulation, that it has not published or disseminated on a broad basis to the public, requiring persons who wish to engage in non-commercial speech on its premises to obtain a permit. 21. Furthermore any persons who became aware of this regulation and actually request an application for a permit are never sent one, and therefore in practice this scheme is not a content neutral time place and manner regulation. -4-

Case 314-cv-04104-MLC-DEA Document 6 Filed 07/15/14 Page 5 of 9 PageID 34 22. In addition in practice New Jersey Transit officials have only enforced its permit scheme when its officials have encountered speech they find subjectively objectionable. 23. In fact, but for the religious nature of the speech of Robert Parker and Don Karns, they would have never even been approached by the defendants on the day in question. 24. In addition in order to deprive citizens such as the Robert Parker and Don Karns of their right to record the public activities of their police officers, officials of New Jersey Transit have instructed their officers to prevent such recordings by always claiming that the person recording maybe a terrorist who is potentially using his recording device to set off a bomb. 25. In fact on the day in questions the Robert Parker and Don Karns were charged with offenses in part because they attempted to record the actions of the officers. 26. As a result of the aforesaid actions of the defendants, the plaintiff Don Karns sustained pecuniary losses in the form of costs associated with his defense including attorney s fees, lost earnings as a result of time lost from his usual occupational endeavors in order to appear in court and personal travel expenses. 27. As a result of the aforesaid actions of the defendants the Don Karns sustained non-pecuniary losses in the form of emotional distress including emotional pain, suffering, -5-

Case 314-cv-04104-MLC-DEA Document 6 Filed 07/15/14 Page 6 of 9 PageID 35 inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and such other non-pecuniary losses as maybe disclosed in discovery. 28. All of the aforesaid actions of the defendants were performed willfully and intentionally for the purpose of depriving the Don Karns of his civil rights. FIRST COUNT (First Amendment Violation) 29. On account of the religious content of their speech Robert Parker and Don Karns were arrested without probably cause and prevented from engaging in further communication with the public. 30. On account of Robert Parker and Don Karns having protested the violation of their First Amendment rights to the investigating officers they were arrested without probably cause and prevented from engaging in further communication with the public. 31. On account of Robert Parker and Don Karns having attempted to create a record by recording the actions of the investigating officers, which record the plaintiffs could have communicated to other persons, they were arrested without probably cause and prevented from engaging in further communication with the public. 32. As reasonable public officials the investigating officers should have known that their actions would infringe upon the -6-

Case 314-cv-04104-MLC-DEA Document 6 Filed 07/15/14 Page 7 of 9 PageID 36 clearly established rights of Robert Parker and Don Karns under the First Amendment. 33. The aforesaid policies and actions of New Jersey Transit to create an illusory constitutionally permissible permit scheme and a policy that would prevent the recording of public actions of police officers deprived Robert Parker and Don Karns of their First Amendment rights pursuant to a custom and practice that was the equivalent of an official policy or law. 34. As a proximate result of the aforesaid actions of the defendants, the plaintiff, Don Karns, have sustained the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages previously set forth. 35. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 the Don Karns is entitled to attorney s fees and costs in connection with the claims set forth in this count. Wherefore, plaintiff, Don Karns, demands judgement against defendants Kathleen Shanahan, Sandra McKeon Crowe and New Jersey Transit for a. Compensatory damages; b. Nominal damages in the event no compensatory damages are allowed; c. Punitive damages against the individual defendants; d. Costs of the action; e. Reasonable attorney s fees and costs; -7-

Case 314-cv-04104-MLC-DEA Document 6 Filed 07/15/14 Page 8 of 9 PageID 37 f. Injunctive relief enjoining New Jersey Transit from continuing the practices set forth and, g. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate and just. SECOND COUNT (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments) 36. The aforesaid actions of defendants, Kathleen Shanahan and Sandra McKeon Crowe in arresting and charging Don Karns without probable cause constituted an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 37. The aforesaid actions of defendants, John Doe Supervisors #1 to 50 and New Jersey Transit in ratifying the arrest and permitting a malicious prosecution to go forward constituted a violation of Don Karns rights secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. 38. As a proximate result of the aforesaid actions of the defendants, Don Karns has sustained the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages previously set forth. 39. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 Don Karns is entitled to attorney s fees and costs in connection with the claims set forth in this count. for Wherefore, plaintiffs, demand judgement against the defendants a. Compensatory damages; -8-

Case 314-cv-04104-MLC-DEA Document 6 Filed 07/15/14 Page 9 of 9 PageID 38 b. Nominal damages in the event no compensatory damages are allowed; c. Punitive damages against the individual defendants; d. Costs of the action; e. Reasonable attorney s fees and costs; f. Injunctive relief enjoining New Jersey Transit from continuing the practices set forth and, g. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate and just. F. MICHAEL DAILY, JR., LLC ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFFS BY s/f. Michael Daily, JR. F. MICHAEL DAILY, JR. Dated July 14, 2014 JURY DEMAND The plaintiff demands a trial by jury as to all issues. F. MICHAEL DAILY, JR., LLC ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF BY s/f. Michael Daily, Jr. F. MICHAEL DAILY, JR. Dated July 14, 2014. -9-