You are on page 1of 8

Mitchell & Theresa Richard Petitioners V.

DOCKET NO.: 15TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ACADIA

Chief K.P. Gibson, Chief of Police of Crowley Police Department, Individually STATE OF LOUISIANA and In his Official Capacity ; Officer Tammy Mallett, Individually and in her Official Capacity; and Officer John Doe, Individually and in his Official Capacity Defendants

PETITION FOR DAMAGES NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes the Plaintiff herein, Mitchell and Theresa Richard, who file this Petition for Damages and who, with respect to same, do hereby allege, aver, depose, attest, state, and claim as follows: 1. Made defendants herein are: A. City of Crowley Police Department through the Crowley City Government , alleged upon information and belief to be a Mayor-Council form of government. The City Council is composed of nine members ( Steven Premeaux, Jeff Dore, Kathleen Valdetero, Bryan Borill,Lyle O. Fogleman, Jr., Vernon Martin, Laurita D. Pete, Elliot Dore, and Mary T. Melancon) who are elected to serve in four-year terms. The Mayor ( Gregory Jones) is elected by the community at large every four years and performs as the Chief Executive of the City of Crowley. The above name the Chief of the Crowley Police Department providing him with ultimate authority who is Chief.Kelly Gibson (named in his individual and official capacities) as the Chief of the Crowley Police Department, and, upon information and belief, is the progenitor (separately or collaboratively) of that Departments policies, procedures, customs, and/or practices, including those said policies / procedures which are identified herein as violating the Plaintiffs constitutional rights, thereby making this Defendant liable for (i) affirmatively participating in acts that caused grave constitutional deprivation and/or (ii) implementing unconstitutional policies that causally resulted in Plaintiffs injury. See, e.g., Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303 (5th Cir. 1987), Grandstaff v. City of Borger, 767 F.2d 161, 169-70 (5th Cir. 1985), cert. den., 480 U.S. 916,
PETITION FOR DAMAGES THERESA & MITCHELL RICHARD PAGE 1 OF 8

107 S.Ct. 1369, 94 L.Ed.2d 686 (1987), Mouille v. City of Live Oak, Tex., 977 F.2d 924, 929 (5th Cir. 1992). B. Officer Tammy Mallett, alleged upon information and belief to be member of the Crowley Police Department who was engaged in performance of his job function at or near the time of the incident(s) giving rise to the present litigation; and, C. Officer John Doe, alleged upon information and belief to be unknown police officer who conspired with and participated with Defendants Gibson and Mallett in falsely arresting Plaintiff on June 7, 2012, in the incident(s) giving rise to the present litigation. 2) On or about June 7, 2012, Plaintiffs experienced the loss of their daughter and

twenty-three month old granddaughter emanating from a fire which occurred on or about the same date. 3) On that date, Plaintiffs were informed by the investigating Fire Marshall and two

police officers from the Crowley Police Department that the residence of their deceased would be released to them and the owner of the home, Harvey Trahan, that day. 4) The purpose of this release was to allow Plaintiffs to salvage items from the

residence as well as retrieve items of property with sentimental value, including a safe that was located in the structure where the fire had occurred claiming the lives of Plaintiffs family. 5) The Fire Marshall recommended that the safe be removed as soon as possible.

After the Fire Marshall and Crowley police officers left, Plaintiffs went to Lake Charles to make the necessary funeral arrangements. Upon their return, other immediate family members had arrived at Plaintiffs home. 6) Plaintiff Mitchell Richard and Christopher Hargrave, an in law, left Plaintiffs

residence to retrieve the safe. Soon after, Mrs. Richard was informed by Sarah Richard informed her that her husband and brother were being arrested. Sarah also stated that the police had attempted to arrest her as well. 7) Mr. Richard and his family were being accused of stealing the safe by police

officers from the Crowley Police Department. When Mrs. Richard left the family home to go to her daughters home, she was immediately accosted by a female officer from the Crowley PD who was standing in her front yard.

PETITION FOR DAMAGES THERESA & MITCHELL RICHARD

PAGE 2 OF 8

8)

Officer Mallet ordered Mrs. Richard to go back into her home. Mrs. Richard told

her that there was no crime scene since the investigation had been completed in the morning. Mrs. Richard further told Mallett that the Fire Marshall and two officers told her earlier in the day to retrieve the safe. Throughout the process, Mallett was assisted and joined in concert with Officer John Doe, who knew or should have known of the violation of Mrs. Richards statutory and Constitutional rights, but simply acquiesced in her conduct failing to intervene or correct the outlandish conduct of Mallett. 9) In addition, upon information and belief, Defendant Gibson was aware and

likewise acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of Mallett. 10) Upon hearing this, Mallett told Mrs. Richard to shut up and get back into her

house. Mrs. Richard ran off her porch telling the officer to leave her property. 11) As Mrs. Richard approached Mallett, she (Mallett) grabbed Mrs. Richards arm,

took out hand cuffs, and told Mrs. Richard she was going to arrest her. At this point, Mrs. Richards relatives witnessing the incident grabbed her and shuttled her into the home. 12) Mrs. Richard, upon entering her home, called the Crowley police department

requesting the senior officer on duty. After requesting more officers, the senior officer told her he wasnt sending anyone else out there and if she didnt like what was happening to file an Internal Affairs Complaint on Monday. 13) Mrs. Richard then called the Sheriffs office who hung up on her. After hanging

up, Mrs. Richard heard Mallett outside yelling to her to stop calling the Sheriffs office because they werent coming. 14) On or about June 7, 2012, Plaintiff Theresa Richard was arrested by Mallett who

acted in concert with Defendants Gibson and Doe. There was no probable cause for said arrest and Plaintiff is innocent of all charges never prosecuted. 15) Plaintiff was battered and taken into custody, the officer Defendants seized her

peson without lawful cause.Further, and irrespective of any prior plan, artifice, or scheme, Plaintiff specifically alleges this fact pattern occurred in the present matter. 16) Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief that Defendant, Mallet conspired

with Officer Doe and Chief Gibson and various other members of the Crowley Police arresting Plaintiff for suspected criminal misconduct in an effort to obtain the a result which is not contemplated within the prosecution of criminal statutes and to defame the good name of

PETITION FOR DAMAGES THERESA & MITCHELL RICHARD

PAGE 3 OF 8

Plaintiff. 17) Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief that the plan, scheme, and artifice of

the complaining individual was known or reasonably should have been known unto Mallett, Gibson and Officer John Doe and various other members of the Crowley Police Department. 18) Plaintiff alleges the events made subject of this suit occurred within the City of

Crowley, Parish of Crowley, State of Louisiana, thus making venue for this action properly vested in Acadia Parish of the 15th Judicial District Court. 19) Plaintiff alleges she was subject of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious

prosecution, and all other various and sundry torts and delicts attendant unto the facts pled with specificity herein. 20) Plaintiff alleges upon information and belief that Defendant Kelly Gibson is the

progenitor (separately or collaboratively) of the Crowley Police Departments policies, procedures, customs, and/or practices, including those said policies / procedures which are identified herein as violating the Plaintiffs constitutional rights, thereby making this Defendant liable for (i) affirmatively participating in acts that caused grave constitutional deprivation and/or (ii) implementing unconstitutional policies that causally resulted in Plaintiffs injury. See, e.g., Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303 (5th Cir. 1987), Grandstaff v. City of Borger, 767 F.2d 161, 169-70 (5th Cir. 1985), cert. den., 480 U.S. 916, 107 S.Ct. 1369, 94 L.Ed.2d 686 (1987), Mouille v. City of Live Oak, Tex., 977 F.2d 924, 929 (5th Cir. 1992). 21) Plaintiff suffered monetary loss, emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of

income, and all manner of other attendant losses as a result of the actions of Mallett, Gibson and Officer John Doe. 22) The actions of Defendants acting in concert with each other (whether

independently or in concert with Mallett and others) resulted in Plaintiff being falsely arrested: To establish a false arrest claim, the plaintiff must prove that the arrest was unlawful and that the unlawful arrest resulted in injury. Saucier v. Players Lake Charles, L.L.C., 99-1196

(La.App. 3 Cir. 12/22/99), 751 So.2d 312, 316. 23) Defendants Gibson, Mallett and Does actions (whether independently or in

concert with other defendants) resulted in Plaintiff being falsely imprisoned: False imprisonment is the unlawful and total restraint of the li berty of the person. Crossett v.

Campbell, 122 La. 659, 48 So. 141 (1908), cited as the leading case by Stone - Louisiana Civil

PETITION FOR DAMAGES THERESA & MITCHELL RICHARD

PAGE 4 OF 8

Law Treatise, Vol. 12, La. Tort Doctrine, Sec. 203, at p. 267 (1977). 24) Malletts actions (whether independently or in con cert with Gibson and Officer

John Doe) resulted in Plaintiff suffering the effects of a malicious prosecution. 25) The defedants actions (whether independently or in concert with each other) as

alleged herein certainly conform to and meet each of the six (6) elements for malicious prosecution as defined by our Louisiana Supreme Court. See, e.g., Eusant v. Unity Industrial Life Insurance and Sick Benefit Association of New Orleans, Inc., 195 La. 347, 196 So. 554 (1940), Robinson v. Goudchaux's, 307 So.2d 287 (La. 1975), Johnson v. Pearce, 313 So.2d 812 (La. 1975), all as cited in Lees v. Smith, 363 So.2d 974, 978 (La.App. 3 Cir., 1978). 26) Defendants actions (whether independently or in concert with other defendants)

as alleged herein certainly conform to and meet each of the essential elements in Louisiana for a successful action in defamation: (1) defamatory words, (2) communication to persons other than the one alleging the action, (3) falsity, (4) malice, actual or implied, (5) resulting injury. Madison v. Bolton, 234 La. 997, 102 So.2d 433 (1958), Rougeau v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 274 So.2d 454 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1973), Sas Jaworsky v. Padfield, 211 So.2d 122 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1968), Carter v. Catfish Cabin, 316 So.2d 517 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1975). 27) Plaintiff specifically alleges the actions and conduct of Defendants (whether

independently or in concert with other defendants) relative to the conduct made subject of this Petition for Damages arose to the level of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Louisiana law, where the said conduct was extreme and outrageous, it caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress, and it was done with a specific intent to cause severe emotional distress. See, e.g., White v. Monsanto Co., 585 So.2d 1205, 1209 (La. 1991). 28) Defendants Mallett, Gibson, and Officer John Doe acted in concert and in

accordance with their singular plan and as such are liable both jointly and in solido unto the Plaintiff, such that any and all acts by one named Defendant, is further attributable to the other named defendants in accordance with the plan executed whereby they could inflict public humiliation and disrepute upon Plaintiff and thereby gain a pecuniary advantage for themselves. 29) As a result of the above-described events, Plaintiffs suffered the following

damages, which include, but are not limited to, the following: A. B. C. D. Past, present and future medical, hospital, doctor, and related expenses; Past, present and future physical pain and suffering; Past, present and future mental anguish and anxiety; Past, present and future lost wages and diminished earning capacity;
PAGE 5 OF 8

PETITION FOR DAMAGES THERESA & MITCHELL RICHARD

E. F. G. H. I. J.

Past, present, and future emotional distress; Past, present, and future loss of enjoyment of life; Past, present, and future embarrassment and humiliation; Past, present, and future loss of consortium; Residual physical disability; and, Such other damages which are caused by the aforesaid incidents and which were sustained by the plaintiffs. 30) The actions of Defendants were in wanton and reckless disregard for

Plaintiffs clearly-established rights, and, as a result, Defendants are liable unto Plaintiff for punitive damages as allowed by law. 31) Plaintiff is entitled to and does hereby seek an award of all such other

various and sundry relief to which he may be entitled in these premises. 32) Plaintiff avers she has raised claims which subtend allegations of abuse of

process, false arrest, false imprisonment, defamation, and malicious prosecution. 33) Plaintiff would respectfully show that the one (1) year prescriptive period

for a claim of false imprisonment runs from the date of release from prison unless interrupted or suspended. Restrepo v. Fortunato, 556 So.2d 1362, 1363 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1990). 34) Where the actions of the Defendants coalesced to keep Plaintiff

incarcerated until after her arrest on June 7, 2012, the present lawsuit, filed within one (1) year of that date, is per se timely for all material purposes. 35) Plaintiff specifically shows that one (1) or more elements of their claims

for damages may be based upon a deprivation of Constitutional rights. 36) Plaintiff shows that to the extent discovery conducted with reference to

the present proceeding reveals liability upon one (1) or more individuals acting under color of state law or otherwise subject to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1983, Plaintiff specifically reserves the right to amend the present Petition for Damages for the purpose of setting forth and establishing the said claim(s) adding that despite a prior Court order commanding Defendant Gibson to produce his entire IA investigation file, upon information and belief, he has refused to comply with a legitimate Court order as part of the policy of the Crowley Police Department, Crowley City Government, and in an effort to shield the liability of himself and other defendants (Mallett and Doe) while also

PETITION FOR DAMAGES THERESA & MITCHELL RICHARD

PAGE 6 OF 8

attempting to hide the identity of Officer John Doe.1 37) Plaintiff reserves the right to seek the amendment(s) referenced above by

utilization of the listed party Defendants, Kelly Gibson, Officer Tammy Mallett and Officer John Doe. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Theresa and Mitchell Richard pray that the Defendants be served with this petition, and after being duly cited to appear and answer same and the expiration of all legal delays and due proceedings are had, that there be judgment to include punitive damages rendered herein in favor of Plaintiffs, and against Defendants, Kelly Gibson, Officer Tammy Mallett, Officer John Doe, and the Crowley Police Department through the Crowley City Government, for such damages as are reasonable in the premises, together with legal interest from the date of judicial demand until paid, all costs of these proceedings, and all such other equitable and just relief to which plaintiffs may be entitled in these premises. Respectfully submitted, Spring & Spring, LLC Attorneys and Counselors at Law

_________________________________ S. Stephen Spring, II, Esq. Louisiana Bar Roll No.: 12347 733 East Airport Avenue, Suite 104 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70806 225-932-9671 (telephone) 413-451-8923 (facsimile) springlaw@gmail.com Counsel for Jon Randall Hebert PLEASE WITHHOLD SERVICE: 1. 2. 3. Kelly Gibson Officer Tammy Mallett Officer John Doe

The present matter is scheduled for a Motion to Enforce Judgment with Sanctions on June 20, 2013, before the Honorable Durwood Conque, District Judge.
PETITION FOR DAMAGES THERESA & MITCHELL RICHARD PAGE 7 OF 8

Mitchell & Theresa Richard Petitioners V.

DOCKET NO.: 15TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ACADIA

Chief K.P. Gibson, Chief of Police of Crowley Police Department, Individually STATE OF LOUISIANA and In his Official Capacity ; Officer Tammy Mallett, Individually and in her Official Capacity; and Officer John Doe, Individually and in his Official Capacity Defendants

AFFIDAVIT OF VERITY BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally came and appeared: Theresa Richard, a person over the age of 18 years of age residing and domiciled in Crowley, Acadia Parish Louisiana, who, after being sworn did depose and say that she has read the petition and all that of the allegations contained of fact contained in it are true and correct. To the best of my knowledge, no Defendant is in the military service of the United States of America or any of its allies. ______________________________ Theresa Richard SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED TO before me, Notary Public, this 5th day of June, 2013. ______________________________________________ S. Stephen Spring, II Notary Public- State of Louisiana Bar Roll Number 12347 My Commission Expires At Death

PETITION FOR DAMAGES THERESA & MITCHELL RICHARD

PAGE 8 OF 8

You might also like