UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SONDRA ARQUIETT,

PlaintiII,

-agains t-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and TIMOTHY
SINNIGEN, individually and in his oIIicial capacity as
an Agent oI the United States Drug EnIorcement
Administration,

DeIendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

&203/$,17

-85< 75,$/ '(0$1'('




PlaintiII, Sondra Arquiett ('Plaint iII), by and through her undersigned
attorneys, submits the Iollowing as and Ior her Complaint in the above-captioned action:
35(/,0,1$5< 67$7(0(17
1. PlaintiIIs bring this action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Namea
Agents of Fea. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and the Federal Tort Claim s
Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. 1346, 2671-80.
2. This action involves the deprivation oI PlaintiII`s constitutional rights by
the DeIendants, as well as claim s in tort ar ising under the FTCA. These claims all arise
out oI the DeIendants` use oI Pla intiII`s name and likeness to create a counterIeit
Facebook account in her nam e, which was ut ilized to initiate communications with
criminal suspects and other persons known to the PlaintiII.
-85,6',&7,21 $1' 9(18(
3. This Court has jurisdiction over the s ubject matter oI this action pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343.
7:13-CV-752 [TJM/TWD]
Case 7:13-cv-00752-TJM-TWD Document 1 Filed 06/27/13 Page 1 of 7
- 2 -
4. Venue is proper in th is District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) becau se
the acts complained oI occurred in this District.
3$57,(6
5. PlaintiII is a resident oI the County oI JeIIerson, State oI New York.
6. Upon inIormation and belieI, at all times relevant hereto, DeIendant
Timothy Sinnigen had a residence and place oI employment within the Northern Dis trict
oI New York.
7. At the times relevant hereto, Sinnegen was employed as an agent in the
New York division oI the United States Drug EnIorcement Administration ('DEA),
working out oI an oIIice located within the Northern District oI New York.
8. At all times hereinaIter mentioned, Sinnigen was acting under color oI
Iederal law in his oIIicial capacity as an agent oI the United States government.
*(1(5$/ $//(*$7,216
9. On or about July 15, 2010, PlaintiII wa s arrested as part oI a join t
investigation by the DEA, the Department oI Homeland Security and the Saint Lawrence
County Drug Task Force. At the tim e oI he r arrest, various personal property oI the
PlaintiII was seized, including her cell phone.
10. On or about August 13, 2010, Sinnigen a ppropriated PlaintiII`s name and
likeness to create a publicly available Face book account that purported to be an account
belonging to PlaintiII.
11. Sinnigen created the Face book account without Plai ntiII`s knowledge or
permission.
Case 7:13-cv-00752-TJM-TWD Document 1 Filed 06/27/13 Page 2 of 7
- 3 -
12. AIter creating the cou nterIeit Facebook acco unt, Sinnigen then posted
photographs belonging to the P laintiII to the publicly available account page that he had
created.
13. Sinnegen seized the photographs Irom PlaintiII`s personal cell phone, and
published them on the counterIeit Facebook account without her knowledge or consent.
14. The photographs used by Sinnigen incl uded revealing and/or suggestive
photographs oI PlaintiII, includ ing photographs oI the Plainti II in her bra and panties.
Sinnigen also posted photographs o I PlaintiII`s minor child and her m inor niece to the
Facebook.
15. Sinnigen then utilized the F acebook page to initiate contact with
dangerous individuals he wa s investigating with reg ard to an alleged narcotics
distribution ring.
16. Sinnigen also initiated c ontacts with other persons known to the PlaintiII
through use oI the Facebook account.
17. Sinnigen pretended to be Plainti II throughout the course oI such
communications.
18. Sinnigen maintained the Facebook account Ior a period oI at least three
months without PlaintiII`s knowledge, during which time the revealing and/or suggestive
photographs oI PlaintiII remained displayed and available on Facebook.
19. When PlaintiII learned o I Sinnigen`s actions, she suIIered Iear and great
emotional distress because, by posing as her on Facebook, Sinnege n had created the
appearance that PlaintiII was willIully cooperating in his i nvestigation oI the narcotics
traIIicking ring, thereby placing her in danger.
Case 7:13-cv-00752-TJM-TWD Document 1 Filed 06/27/13 Page 3 of 7
- 4 -
20. Sinnigen admitted and acknowledg ed his unauthorized appropriation oI
PlaintiII`s name and likeness in writing on November 17, 2010.
21. On July 12, 2012, PlaintiII submitted a timely Notice oI Claim to the DEA
with regard to Sinnigen`s i nvasion oI PlaintiII`s privacy, his appropriation oI her name
and likeness, and his inIliction oI emotional distress upon the PlaintiII.
22. At times subsequent to the Iiling oI PlaintiII`s Notice oI Claim, the
counterIeit account reappeared on Facebook and was publicly available to persons known
to the PlaintiII. As oI t he date oI this Iiling, the counterIeit account remains publicly
available on Facebook.
23. By letter dated January 9, 2013, the DEA adm inistratively denied
PlaintiII`s claim.
24. PlaintiII exhausted her administrative remedies with regard to her claims.
25. As oI the date oI th is Iiling, the counterIeit account rem ains publicly
available on Facebook.
),567 &$86( 2) $&7,21 %,9(16 $&7,21
26. PlaintiII repeats and realleges each oI the Ioregoing allegations as iI Iully
set Iorth herein.
27. In Bivens v. Six Unkn own Namea Agents o f the Feae ral Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999 (1971), the Supreme Court oI the United States
recognized an implied private cause oI action Ior dam ages against Iederal oIIicers who
violate a citizen's constitutional rights.
28. By virtue oI the Ioregoing conduct, Sinnegen deprived PlaintiII oI her
Constitutional rights, including the right oI privacy aIIorded to her under the F irst
Case 7:13-cv-00752-TJM-TWD Document 1 Filed 06/27/13 Page 4 of 7
- 5 -
Amendment to the United States C onstitution, the right aIIorded to her under the FiIth
Amendment to equal protection under the la w and the right to due process, and her
Eighth Amendment right to be Iree Irom cruel and unusual punishment.
29. Sinnigen committed these violations in his capacity as an agent oI the
United States government, and in the course oI his employment.
30. PlaintiII suIIered damages as a resu lt oI Sinnegen`s violation oI her First
Amendment rights, including monetary and other damages in an amount to be determined
at trial, but believed to be in excess oI $250,000, plus costs and attorneys` Iees.
6(&21' &$86( 2) $&7,21 )('(5$/ 7257 &/$,06 $&7
,QWHQWLRQDO ,QIOLFWLRQ RI (PRWLRQDO 'LVWUHVV
31. PlaintiII repeats and realleges each oI the Ioregoing allegations as iI Iully
set Iorth herein.
32. The Ioregoing conduct by Sinnigen was extreme and outrageous.
33. Sinnigen engaged in the Ioregoing conduct with the intent to cause, or in
disregard oI a substantial probability that the conduct would cause, severe em otional
distress to the PlaintiII.
34. The Ioregoing conduct by the DeIendants caused the P laintiII to suIIer
severe emotional distress.
35. PlaintiII suIIered damages, including emotional distress, shame, Iear and
great mental anguish due to the DeIendants` tortious conduct, in the amount oI $250,000.
7+,5' &$86( 2) $&7,21 )('(5$/ 7257 &/$,06 $&7
3ULPD )DFLH 7RUW
36. PlaintiII repeats and realleges each oI the Ioregoing allegations as iI Iully
set Iorth herein.
Case 7:13-cv-00752-TJM-TWD Document 1 Filed 06/27/13 Page 5 of 7
- 6 -
37. Sinnigen engaged in the Ioregoing conduct with the intent to cause, or in
disregard oI a substantial probability that the conduct would cause, harm to the PlaintiII.
38. PlaintiII suIIered special dam ages as a result oI DeIenda nts` conduct,
including emotional distress, shame, Iear a nd great mental anguish as a result oI the
DeIendants` tortious conduct.
39. There was no justiIication or excuse Ior DeIendants` tortious conduct.
40. The Ioregoing conduct by the DeIendants caused the P laintiII to suIIer
damages in the amount oI $250,000.
WHEREFORE, the PlaintiII demands judgment against the DeIendant as Iollows:
(1) On PlaintiII`s First Cause oI Acti on, damages Ior DeIendants` violation oI
PlaintiII`s constitutional rights in an amount to be determined at trial, but believed to be
in excess oI $250,000;
(2) On PlaintiII`s Second Cause oI Action, dam ages in the am ount oI
$250,000;
(3) On PlaintiII`s Third Cause oI Action, damages in the amount oI $250,000;
(4) Reasonable costs, disbursements and attorneys` Iees; and
(6) Such other and Iurther relieI as may seem equitable to the Court.
Dated: June 13, 2013
Albany, New York
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN HOGGAN, PLLC

By: s/John D. Hoggan, Jr.
John D. Hoggan, Jr. (Bar Roll No. 511254)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
90 State Street
Albany, New York 12207
(518) 312-4176
fhogganhogganlaw.com
and
Case 7:13-cv-00752-TJM-TWD Document 1 Filed 06/27/13 Page 6 of 7
- 7 -
LAW OFFICE OF DONALD T. KINSELLA

By: s/Donald T. Kinsella
Donald T. Kinsella (Bar Roll No. 103149)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
90 State Street
Albany, New York 12207
(518) 312-4176
akinsellakhlaw.net
and
ZIMMER LAW OFFICE, PLLC

By: s/Kimberly Zimmer
Kimberly Zimmer (Bar Roll No. 505346)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
333 East Onondaga Street
Suite 301
Syracuse, New York 13202
(315) 422-9909
klmkim:immerlaw.com
Case 7:13-cv-00752-TJM-TWD Document 1 Filed 06/27/13 Page 7 of 7
2597537 $400.00
TJM TWD
7:13-CV-752
Case 7:13-cv-00752-TJM-TWD Document 1-1 Filed 06/27/13 Page 1 of 1