Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 1 of 25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

. : : : vs. : : CITY OF NEW HAVEN; OFFICER : ANTHONY HOLLOWMAN, in his : individual and official capacities; TOWN : OF EAST HAVEN; OFFICER DANIEL : GILHALY, in his individual and official : capacities; OFFICER DENNIS : SPAULDING, in his individual and : official capacities; SERGEANT JOHN : MILLER, in his individual and official : capacities; LIEUTENANT HENRY : BUTLER, in his individual and official : capacities. : Defendants. : GIUSEPPE BRUNO Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. _____________

April 14, 2011

AMENDED COMPLAINT The Plaintiff, Giuseppe Bruno, through his attorneys, brings this civil action for violations of his rights secured and protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. 1983), the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article First 7, 8, and 9 of the Connecticut Constitution,

Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 2 of 25

and under the laws of the State of Connecticut, for which he seeks compensatory and punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys fees and costs. JURISDICTION 1. Jurisdiction in this matter is premised on 28 U.S.C. 1331, in that this District Court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 2. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs state law claims in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1367. VENUE 3. Venue in the District of Connecticut is proper in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1391, in that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this judicial district. 4. The Plaintiff, Giuseppe Bruno (hereinafter, the Plaintiff) is a resident of the Town of Branford, Connecticut.

Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 3 of 25

5. Upon information and belief, the Defendant City of New Haven, is and was at all times relevant hereto a municipal corporation, incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut. 6. Upon information and belief, the Defendant Office Anthony Hollowman, is and was at all times relevant hereto an officer with the New Haven Police Department, he is being named in his individual and official capacity, and was at all times relevant hereto acting under the color of law during the course of and within the scope of his employment with the City of New Haven and/or the New Haven Police Department. 7. Upon information and belief, the Defendant Town of East Haven, is and was at all times relevant hereto a municipal corporation, incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut. 8. Upon information and belief, the Defendant Officer Gilhaly, is and was at all times relevant hereto an officer with the East Haven Police Department, he is being named in his individual and official capacity, and was at all times relevant hereto acting under the color of law during the

Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 4 of 25

course of and within the scope of his employment with the Town of East Haven and/or the East Haven Police Department. 9. Upon information and belief, the Defendant Office Spaulding, is and was at all times relevant hereto an officer with the East Haven Police Department, he is being named in his individual and official capacity, and was at all times relevant hereto acting under the color of law during the course of and within the scope of his employment with the Town of East Haven and/or the East Haven Police Department. 10. Upon information and belief, the Defendant Sergeant Miller, is and was at all times relevant hereto a sergeant of the East Haven Police Department, being named in his individual and official capacity, and was at all times relevant hereto acting under the color of law during the course of and within the scope of his employment with the Town of East Haven and/or the East Haven Police Department. 11. Upon information and belief, the Defendant Lieutenant Henry Butler, is and was at all times relevant hereto a lieutenant of the East Haven Police Department, being named in his individual and official capacity,

Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 5 of 25

and was at all times relevant hereto acting under the color of law during the course of and within the scope of his employment with the Town of East Haven and/or the East Haven Police Department. STATEMENT OF FACTS 12. On or about April 15, 2009, at or about 8:00 p.m., the Plaintiff was operating a Ford Contour motor vehicle traveling westbound on Main Street in East Haven, Connecticut. 13. On or about said date at or about said time, the Plaintiff exited the Ford Contour motor vehicle and entered Trolley Square Plaza at the intersection of Main Street and Hemingway Avenue in East Haven, Connecticut. 14. On or about said date at or about said time, Defendant Officer Hollowman was present at Trolley Square Plaza at the intersection of Main Street and Hemingway Avenue in East Haven, Connecticut. 15. On or about said date at or about said time, Defendant Officer Gilhaly was present at Trolley Square Plaza at the intersection of Main Street and Hemingway Avenue in East Haven, Connecticut.

Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 6 of 25

16. On or about said date at or about said time, Defendant Officer Spaulding was present at Trolley Square Plaza at the intersection of Main Street and Hemingway Avenue in East Haven, Connecticut. 17. On or about said date at or about said time, Defendant Sergeant Miller was present at Trolley Square Plaza at the intersection of Main Street and Hemingway Avenue in East Haven, Connecticut. 18. On or about said date at or about said time, Defendant Lieutenant Butler was present at Trolley Square Plaza at the intersection of Main Street and Hemingway Avenue in East Haven, Connecticut. 19. Upon entering Trolley Plaza the Defendants violently tackled the Plaintiff to the ground. 20. Upon being tackled to the ground, the Plaintiff put his arms over his head and exclaimed, Im done. Im having a heart attack. 21. The Defendants then attacked him without cause and repeatedly struck the Plaintiffs head and upper body. 22. The Defendants also tasered the Plaintiff with an electroshock weapon and continued to viciously assault him.

Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 7 of 25

23. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the City of New Haven, Officer Hollowman, the Town of East Haven, Officer Gilhaly, Officer Spaulding, Sergeant Miller and Lieutenant Butler, the Plaintiff has suffered personal injuries including but not limited to a injuries to his head, jaw, neck, shoulder, facial lacerations, fractured clavicle and left eye erythema. Some of these injuries are permanent in nature. FIRST COUNT Officer Hollowman 42 U.S.C. 1983 / Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United State Constitution; Article First 7, 8, and 9 of the Connecticut Constitution 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Preliminary Statement are hereby reincorporated and realleged as if fully restated herein as paragraphs 1 through 23 of the First Count. 24. Officer Hollowman violated the Plaintiffs rights secured and protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article First 7, 8, and 9 of the Connecticut Constitution, in one or more of the following ways: a. in using excessive force upon the Plaintiff.

Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 8 of 25

25. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant Officer Hollowman, the Plaintiff has suffered property damage, loss of gainful employment, loss of earning capacity, personal injuries, emotional distress, some of which injuries are permanent in nature. SECOND COUNT Officer Hollowman in Common Law 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Preliminary Statement are hereby reincorporated and realleged as if fully restated herein as paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Second Count. 24. Officer Hollowman violated the Plaintiffs common law rights in one or more of the following ways: a. in that Officer Hollowman was negligent in conducting himself in that he should have been aware of a substantial an unjustifiable risk that his conduct would violate the Plaintiffs rights; b. in that Officer Hollowman was reckless in conducting himself in that he consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his actions would violate the Plaintiffs rights;

Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 9 of 25

c. in that Officer Hollowman assaulted and/or battered the Plaintiff in that his conduct caused harmful or offensive contact with the Plaintiff, and that immediately before the battery his conduct caused imminent apprehension of harmful or offensive contact; d. in that Officer Hollowman negligently inflicted emotional distress upon the Plaintiff in that he should have realized that his conduct involved an unreasonable risk of causing emotional distress and that distress, might result in illness or bodily harm, further the fear or distress experienced by the Plaintiff was reasonable in light of the conduct; and/or e. in that Officer Hollowman intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon the Plaintiff in that he (1) intended to inflict emotional distress upon the Plaintiff or that he knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct; (2) that his conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) that his conduct was the cause of the Plaintiff's distress; and (4) that the emotional distress sustained by the Plaintiff was severe.

Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 10 of 25

25. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant Officer Hollowman, the Plaintiff has suffered property damage, loss of gainful employment, loss of earning capacity, personal injuries, emotional distress, some of which injuries are permanent in nature. THIRD COUNT Officer Gilhaly 42 U.S.C. 1983 / Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United State Constitution; Article First 7, 8, and 9 of the Connecticut Constitution 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Preliminary Statement are hereby reincorporated and realleged as if fully restated herein as paragraphs 1 through 23 of the First Count. 24. Officer Gilhaly violated the Plaintiffs rights secured and protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article First 7, 8, and 9 of the Connecticut Constitution, in one or more of the following ways: a. in using excessive force upon the Plaintiff. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant Officer Gilhaly, the Plaintiff has suffered property damage, loss of gainful

10

Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 11 of 25

employment, loss of earning capacity, personal injuries, emotional distress, some of which injuries are permanent in nature. FOURTH COUNT Officer Gilhaly in Common Law 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Preliminary Statement are hereby reincorporated and realleged as if fully restated herein as paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Second Count. 24. Officer Gilhaly violated the Plaintiffs common law rights in one or more of the following ways: a. in that Officer Gilhaly was negligent in conducting himself in that he should have been aware of a substantial an unjustifiable risk that his conduct would violate the Plaintiffs rights; b. in that Officer Gilhaly was reckless in conducting himself in that he consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his actions would violate the Plaintiffs rights; c. in that Officer Gilhaly assaulted and/or battered the Plaintiff in that his conduct caused harmful or offensive contact with the Plaintiff,

11

Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 12 of 25

and that immediately before the battery his conduct caused imminent apprehension of harmful or offensive contact; d. in that Officer Gilhaly negligently inflicted emotional distress upon the Plaintiff in that he should have realized that his conduct involved an unreasonable risk of causing emotional distress and that distress, might result in illness or bodily harm, further the fear or distress experienced by the Plaintiff was reasonable in light of the conduct; and/or e. in that Officer Gilhaly intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon the Plaintiff in that he (1) intended to inflict emotional distress upon the Plaintiff or that he knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct; (2) that his conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) that his conduct was the cause of the Plaintiff's distress; and (4) that the emotional distress sustained by the Plaintiff was severe. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant Officer Gilhaly, the Plaintiff has suffered property damage, loss of gainful

12

Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 13 of 25

employment, loss of earning capacity, personal injuries, emotional distress, some of which injuries are permanent in nature. FIFTH COUNT Officer Spaulding 42 U.S.C. 1983 / Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United State Constitution; Article First 7, 8, and 9 of the Connecticut Constitution 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Preliminary Statement are hereby reincorporated and realleged as if fully restated herein as paragraphs 1 through 23 of the First Count. 24. Officer Spaulding violated the Plaintiffs rights secured and protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article First 7, 8, and 9 of the Connecticut Constitution, in one or more of the following ways: a. in using excessive force upon the Plaintiff. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant Officer Spaulding, the Plaintiff has suffered property damage, loss of gainful employment, loss of earning capacity, personal injuries, emotional distress, some of which injuries are permanent in nature.

13

Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 14 of 25

SIXTH COUNT Officer Spaulding in Common Law 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Preliminary Statement are hereby reincorporated and realleged as if fully restated herein as paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Second Count. 24. Officer Spaulding violated the Plaintiffs common law rights in one or more of the following ways: a. in that Officer Spaulding was negligent in conducting himself in that he should have been aware of a substantial an unjustifiable risk that his conduct would violate the Plaintiffs rights; b. in that Officer Spaulding was reckless in conducting himself in that he consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his actions would violate the Plaintiffs rights; c. in that Officer Spaulding assaulted and/or battered the Plaintiff in that his conduct caused harmful or offensive contact with the Plaintiff, and that immediately before the battery his conduct caused imminent apprehension of harmful or offensive contact;

14

Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 15 of 25

d. in that Officer Spaulding negligently inflicted emotional distress upon the Plaintiff in that he should have realized that his conduct involved an unreasonable risk of causing emotional distress and that distress, might result in illness or bodily harm, further the fear or distress experienced by the Plaintiff was reasonable in light of the conduct; and/or e. in that Officer Spaulding intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon the Plaintiff in that he (1) intended to inflict emotional distress upon the Plaintiff or that he knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct; (2) that his conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) that his conduct was the cause of the Plaintiff's distress; and (4) that the emotional distress sustained by the Plaintiff was severe. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant Officer Spaulding, the Plaintiff has suffered property damage, loss of gainful employment, loss of earning capacity, personal injuries, emotional distress, some of which injuries are permanent in nature.

15

Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 16 of 25

SEVENTH COUNT Sergeant Miller 42 U.S.C. 1983 / Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United State Constitution; Article First 7, 8, and 9 of the Connecticut Constitution 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Preliminary Statement are hereby reincorporated and realleged as if fully restated herein as paragraphs 1 through 23 of the First Count. 24. Sergeant Miller violated the Plaintiffs rights secured and protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article First 7, 8, and 9 of the Connecticut Constitution, in one or more of the following ways: a. in using excessive force upon the Plaintiff. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant Sergeant Miller, the Plaintiff has suffered property damage, loss of gainful employment, loss of earning capacity, personal injuries, emotional distress, some of which injuries are permanent in nature.

16

Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 17 of 25

EIGHTH COUNT Sergeant Miller in Common Law 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Preliminary Statement are hereby reincorporated and realleged as if fully restated herein as paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Second Count. 24. Sergeant Miller violated the Plaintiffs common law rights in one or more of the following ways: a. in that Sergeant Miller was negligent in conducting himself in that he should have been aware of a substantial an unjustifiable risk that his conduct would violate the Plaintiff s rights; b. in that Sergeant Miller was reckless in conducting himself in that he consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his actions would violate the Plaintiffs rights; c. in that Sergeant Miller assaulted and/or battered the Plaintiff in that his conduct caused harmful or offensive contact with the Plaintiff, and that immediately before the battery his conduct caused imminent apprehension of harmful or offensive contact;

17

Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 18 of 25

d. in that Sergeant Miller negligently inflicted emotional distress upon the Plaintiff in that he should have realized that his conduct involved an unreasonable risk of causing emotional distress and that distress, might result in illness or bodily harm, further the fear or distress experienced by the Plaintiff was reasonable in light of the conduct; and/or e. in that Sergeant Miller intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon the Plaintiff in that he (1) intended to inflict emotional distress upon the Plaintiff or that he knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct; (2) that his conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) that his conduct was the cause of the Plaintiff's distress; and (4) that the emotional distress sustained by the Plaintiff was severe. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant Sergeant Miller, the Plaintiff has suffered property damage, loss of gainful employment, loss of earning capacity, personal injuries, emotional distress, some of which injuries are permanent in nature.

18

Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 19 of 25

NINTH COUNT Lieutenant Butler 42 U.S.C. 1983 / Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United State Constitution; Article First 7, 8, and 9 of the Connecticut Constitution 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Preliminary Statement are hereby reincorporated and realleged as if fully restated herein as paragraphs 1 through 23 of the First Count. 24. Lieutenant Butler violated the Plaintiffs rights secured and protected by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article First 7, 8, and 9 of the Connecticut Constitution, in one or more of the following ways: a. in using excessive force upon the Plaintiff. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant Lieutenant Butler, the Plaintiff has suffered property damage, loss of gainful employment, loss of earning capacity, personal injuries, emotional distress, some of which injuries are permanent in nature.

19

Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 20 of 25

TENTH COUNT Lieutenant Butler in Common Law 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Preliminary Statement are hereby reincorporated and realleged as if fully restated herein as paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Second Count. 24. Lieutenant Butler violated the Plaintiffs common law rights in one or more of the following ways: a. in that Lieutenant Butler was negligent in conducting himself in that he should have been aware of a substantial an unjustifiable risk that his conduct would violate the Plaintiffs rights; b. in that Lieutenant Butler was reckless in conducting himself in that he consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his actions would violate the Plaintiffs rights; c. in that Lieutenant Butler assaulted and/or battered the Plaintiff in that his conduct caused harmful or offensive contact with the Plaintiff, and that immediately before the battery his conduct caused imminent apprehension of harmful or offensive contact;

20

Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 21 of 25

d. in that Lieutenant Butler negligently inflicted emotional distress upon the Plaintiff in that he should have realized that his conduct involved an unreasonable risk of causing emotional distress and that distress, might result in illness or bodily harm, further the fear or distress experienced by the Plaintiff was reasonable in light of the conduct; and/or e. in that Lieutenant Butler intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon the Plaintiff in that he (1) intended to inflict emotional distress upon the Plaintiff or that he knew or should have known that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct; (2) that his conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) that his conduct was the cause of the Plaintiff's distress; and (4) that the emotional distress sustained by the Plaintiff was severe. 25. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant Lieutenant Butler, the Plaintiff has suffered property damage, loss of gainful employment, loss of earning capacity, personal injuries, emotional distress, some of which injuries are permanent in nature.

21

Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 22 of 25

ELEVENTH COUNT City of New Haven - Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-557n; Conn. Gen. Stat. 7-465 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Preliminary Statement are hereby reincorporated and realleged as if fully restated herein as paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Tenth Count. 24. The City of New Haven is liable to the Plaintiff in accordance with one or more of the following statutes: a. Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-557n in that a municipal employee(s) negligence caused damage to the Plaintiff, who was at all times relevant hereto an identifiable victim that was subjected to immanent harm; and/or b. Conn Gen. Stat. 7-465 in that the municipality is required to indemnify municipal employee(s) who cause physical injury and/or violate an individuals civil rights. 25. Officer Hollowman is a municipal employee of the City of New Haven. 26. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the municipal employee of the City of New Haven, the Plaintiff has suffered property damage, unjust prosecution, loss of gainful employment, loss of earning

22

Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 23 of 25

capacity, personal injuries, and emotional distress. Some of these injuries are permanent in nature. TWELFTH COUNT Town of East Haven - Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-557n; Conn. Gen. Stat. 7-465 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Preliminary Statement are hereby reincorporated and realleged as if fully restated herein as paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Tenth Count. 24. The Town of East Haven is liable to the Plaintiff in accordance with one or more of the following statutes: a. Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-557n in that a municipal employee(s) negligence caused damage to the Plaintiff, who was at all times relevant hereto an identifiable victim that was subjected to immanent harm; and/or b. Conn Gen. Stat. 7-465 in that the municipality is required to indemnify municipal employee(s) who cause physical injury and/or violate an individuals civil rights. 25. Officer Gilhaly, Officer Spaulding, Sergeant Miller, and Lieutenant Butler are all municipal employees of the Town of East Haven.

23

Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 24 of 25

26. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the municipal employee of the Town of East Haven, the Plaintiff has suffered property damage, unjust prosecution, loss of gainful employment, loss of earning capacity, personal injuries, and emotional distress. Some of these injuries are permanent in nature.

JURY DEMAND The plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial.

24

Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 25 of 25

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands: 1. A trial by a jury of his peers; 2. Punitive damages; 3. Compensatory damages; 4. Attorneys fees and costs; 5. Injunctive relief; 6. Any and all other equitable relief in accordance with the claims of the Plaintiff, as the Court deems appropriate.

Respectfully submitted, \s\ ct28054 . Patrick T. Battersby, Jr. (ct 28054) Fazzano & Tomasiewicz, LLC 96 Oak Street Hartford, CT 06106 Phone: (860) 231-7766 Fax: (860) 560-7359 pbattersby@ftb-law.com

25