Plaintiff, MICHAEL REBECK, by his attorneys, STEVENS, HINDS & WHITE, P.C., Preliminary Statement



Similar documents
Case 1:13-cv SEB-TAB Document 1 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1

Case 2:13-cv RBS Document 1 Filed 03/19/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 06/04/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

Case: 1:16-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/16 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1

CASE 0:12-cv RHK-SER Document 1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:14-cv HU Document 1 Filed 04/23/14 Page 1 of 12 Page ID#: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 12/08/14 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS COMPLAINT

Case 4:15-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 08/04/15 Page 1 of 46 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. Plaintiff, No.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Case No: Defendants, Steven Lecy and the City of Minneapolis, through their

Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 07/11/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case 4:15-cv RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 2:14-cv DB Document 2 Filed 09/03/14 Page 1 of 10

COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND. of police reports in bad faith. Plaintiff claims that Defendants acted willfully, wantonly and in

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 4:09-cv RCC Document 1 Filed 09/04/09 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff,

Haro was at home with his family when they saw an intruder lurking in their backyard. When

2:13-cv BAF-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 06/24/13 Pg 1 of 14 Pg ID 1

How To Sue A Truck Driver For Causing A Car Accident In New Jersey

Case 5:14-cv OLG Document 9 Filed 07/31/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE DIVISION. MELISSA ROWE, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of E.R

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DEFENDANT S ANSWER

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

CASE NO.: COMPLAINT. Plaintiff, [PLAINTIFF S NAME], by and through her parent and natural guardian

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION COMPLAINT

Case 3:10-cv DRD Document 31 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 9

Case: 1:13-cv SAS Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/19/13 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

PREVIEW PLEASE DO NOT COPY THIS DOCUMENT THANK YOU. LegalFormsForTexas.Com

Case 2:12-cv SRC-CLW Document 1 Filed 12/06/12 Page 1 of 13 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 4:08-cv Document 18 Filed in TXSD on 05/28/08 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

Case: 1:15-cv CAB Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/08/15 1 of 10. PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Case 5:11-cv FB Document 1 Filed 09/06/11 Page 1 of 14

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 9 th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

vs. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff JAMES SCHAIRER, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby sues

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII. Case No.: CV-06-00~CK-LEK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

Case 3:08-cv JM-CAB Document 9 Filed 08/25/2008 Page 1 of 7

r 15 FRIDOON RAWSHAN NEHAD, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:13-cv JS-AKT Document 1 Filed 07/26/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Case No.

Case 5:14-cv IPJ Document 1 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 17

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT STATE OF MISSOURI

Case 1:14-cv ILG-JMA Document 1 Filed 05/02/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1. KAREN FENNELL, JAMES JORDAN, JR. and ANTHONY SOLIS,

- Violations of 42 U.S.C. $ Supplemental State Claims

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Case No.:

COMPLAINT. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF] hereby sues the Defendants, [DEFENDANT #1], [DEFENDANT INTRODUCTION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA * *

CASE 0:13-cv ADM-BRT Document 1 Filed 07/18/13 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Case 4:15-cv A Document 1 Filed 03/23/15 Page 1 of 18 PageID 1

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Case 3:14-cv L Document 1 Filed 08/13/14 Page 1 of 14 PageID 1

GRAY, L.L.C. 760 ROUTE 10 WEST, SUITE 203 WHIPPANY, NEW JERSEY PH: F: Attorneys for Plaintiff Henry Kent

Case 3:10-cv JAP -DEA Document 1 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

CAUSE NO. JULIE TORBERT, as next friend of IN THE DISTRICT COURT PHILIP ORMSTON V. DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS

U ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTER DISTRICT OF KE TUCKY AT LOUISVILLE O. FILED ELECTRO ICALLY U IVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA. v. Civil Action No.:CL Plaintiff Demands Trial by Jury COMPLAINT

Case 3:15-cv LAB-BLM Document 1 Filed 03/16/15 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Broadband Graphics - infringement of Patent Law and Procedure

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI DIVISION

Case 1:09-cv NT Document 1 Filed 03/02/09 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

PLAINTIFF S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL. MYRIAM DEL SOCORRO LOPEZ, by and through his undersigned counsel, and files this First

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Case 3:14-cv MMD-VPC Document 12-1 Filed 02/12/14 Page 1 of 14 EXHIBIT 1

CASE NO.: CIVIL DIVISION COMPLAINT. through undersigned counsel, and hereby sues Defendant, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., a Florida GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

Case 3:14-cv P Document 1 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, Defendants. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff, Rebecca Weston, hereby accepts the Offer of

Case 3:14-cv AC Document 10 Filed 03/26/14 Page 1 of 14 Page ID#: 43

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case4:13-cv DMR Document1 Filed12/11/13 Page1 of 5

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH

Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 01/21/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1

Case 1:16-cv CBA-PK Document 1 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Complaint

Case 1:15-cv GAO Document 1 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 3:08-cv JAP-JJH Document 1 Filed 02/20/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON

Case 2:13-cv CG-WPL Document 24 Filed 10/15/13 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Transcription:

Case 2:11-cv-02649-KSH -PS Document 1 Filed 05/09/11 Page 1 of 12 PageID: 1 Lennox S. Hinds Steven Hinds & White Attorney for Plaintiff 42 Van Doren Avenue Somerset, N.J. 08873 (732) 873 3096 116 West 111 th Street New York, NY 10026 (212) 864 4445 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY -------------------------------------------------------------------------X MICHAEL REBECK, Plaintiff, -against- TOWNSHIP OF EDISON, EDISON POLICE CHIEF THOMAS BRYAN, PTL. OFFICERS, SCOT SOFIELD, CHRISTOPHER SORBER, JOE KENNY, DOMENIC DICARLO, SHAWN MEAD, AND EDISON POLICE DEPARTMENT AND EDISON POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMBERS JOHN DOE I-X, individually and in their official capacities, COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------X Plaintiff, MICHAEL REBECK, by his attorneys, STEVENS, HINDS & WHITE, P.C., complaining of Defendants, states as follows: Preliminary Statement 1. This action is brought to redress wrongs done to Plaintiff when officers of the Township of Edison along with Lucky K-9 Patrol Dog assaulted and battered Plaintiff

Case 2:11-cv-02649-KSH -PS Document 1 Filed 05/09/11 Page 2 of 12 PageID: 2 under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, causing severe injuries to Plaintiff including multiple dog bites about the body, kidney failure, multiple bruises and cuts about the body and psychological trauma. 2. This action is also brought to redress the wrongs visited upon Plaintiff when Edison Township Patrol Officers denied Plaintiff rights secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by using excessive and unjustified force upon Plaintiff during his arrest. Jurisdiction 3. Jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. Section 1343 to redress wrongs committed under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 as well as the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 4. Pendent Jurisdiction over state law claims is based on the identity of factual and legal issues. Venue 5. Venue is properly laid in the District of New Jersey, where upon information and belief, all the Defendants reside and where the transactions occurred.

Case 2:11-cv-02649-KSH -PS Document 1 Filed 05/09/11 Page 3 of 12 PageID: 3 Party Plaintiff 6. MICHAEL REBECK is a United States citizen who at all times mentioned herein resided in the State of New Jersey. Parties Defendants 7. Defendants EDISON TOWNSHIP and Edison Township PATROL OFFICERS, at all times mentioned herein, are a governmental agency in the County of Middlesex, New Jersey. 8. Defendant Police Chief THOMAS BRYAN, was at all times mentioned herein the Chief of Police at the Edison Township Police Department and was acting under color of law. He is being sued in his official and individual capacity. 9. P.O. SCOT SOFIELD was at all times mentioned herein a Patrol Officer at the Edison Township Police Department and was acting under color of law as an employee of the Township of Edison and under the supervision of Police Chief THOMAS BRYAN. He is being sued in his official and individual capacity. 10. P.O. CHRISTOPHER SORBER was at all times mentioned herein a Patrol Officer at the Edison Township Police Department and was acting under color of law as an employee of the Township of Edison and under the supervision of Police Chief THOMAS BRYAN. He is being sued in his official and individual capacity.

Case 2:11-cv-02649-KSH -PS Document 1 Filed 05/09/11 Page 4 of 12 PageID: 4 11. P.O. JOE KENNY was at all times mentioned herein a Patrol Officer at the Edison Township Police Department and was acting under color of law as an employee of the Township of Edison and under the supervision of Police Chief THOMAS BRYAN. He is being sued in his official and individual capacity. 12. P.O. DOMENIC DICARLO was at all times mentioned herein a Patrol Officer at the Edison Township Police Department and was acting under color of law as an employee of the Township of Edison and under the supervision of Police Chief THOMAS BRYAN. He is being sued in his official and individual capacity. 13. P.O. SHAWN MEAD was at all times mentioned herein a Patrol Officer at the Edison Township Police Department and was acting under color of law as an employee of the Township of Edison and under the supervision of Police Chief THOMAS BRYAN. He is being sued in his official and individual capacity. As a First Cause of Action 14. On May 11, 2010 at approximately 1:30 a.m., Plaintiff MICHAEL REBECK was arrested by police officers from the Edison Township Police Department after he allegedly attempted to rob a gas station. 15. During the alleged robbery, police officers arrive at the gas station. 16. While making the arrest, police officers named in the complaint tackled MR. REBECK causing him to land face first on the ground.

Case 2:11-cv-02649-KSH -PS Document 1 Filed 05/09/11 Page 5 of 12 PageID: 5 17. While Mr. REBECK was face down on the ground, Defendant officers pressed their knees in MR. REBECK S back while punching him several times in the head and kicking him in the back. 18. MR. REBECK released his hands, which he had been lying on, and was handcuffed by Defendants. 19. At this point, MR. REBECK hears the Defendants say, are we going to let Lucky have some fun with this guy?, Lucky being the K-9 police dog. 20. Soon after, while MR. REBECK was face down on the ground and in handcuffs, Defendant OFFICER SHAWN MEAD ordered Lucky to attack MR. REBECK. 21. During the attack, MR.REBECK felt Defendant Officer Mead tap him on his left thigh, at which point MR. REBECK felt Lucky bite and shake his left thigh. This happened about two or three more times up and down MR. REBECK S thigh. 22. Defendant OFFICER MEAD then tapped on the back of MR. REBECK S upper left arm, and again, MR. REBECK then felt Lucky bite and shake his upper left arm, causing extreme pain and serious bite wounds. 23. Soon after, DEFENDANT MEAD tapped MR. REBECK on the left side of his neck and shoulder area which was followed by Lucky biting and shaking the left side of MR. REBECK S neck, breaking skin and causing extreme pain and serious injury. 24. Lucky was then walked to the right side of MR. REBECK S body and instructed to bite MR. REBECK S right knee and the right side of his neck and shoulder, causing extreme pain and serious injury.

Case 2:11-cv-02649-KSH -PS Document 1 Filed 05/09/11 Page 6 of 12 PageID: 6 25. As Lucky bit MR. REBECK S right shoulder, he heard one of the Defendants state, lets see if he can drag him. Soon after, MR. REBECK felt Lucky bite his shoulder as Lucky dragged MR. REBECK for about five feet. 26. Defendants Patrol Officers SORBER, KENNY, SOFIELD and DICARLO failed in their duty to restrain and stop Defendant MEAD from his clearly illegal conduct of making Lucky viciously attack MR. REBECK while his hands were handcuffed behind his back. 27. The Defendants then dragged MR. REBECK S bloodied and injured body to their police vehicle, where they placed him in the back seat. 28. Despite MR. REBECK being in visibly severe pain and suffering from bleeding bite wounds, Defendants transported MR. REBECK to Edison Township Police Station instead of seeking much needed medical attention for him. 29. During the ride to the police department, the Defendants would speed up then abruptly apply the brake, causing MR. REBECK S injured body to slam into the dividing apparatus. 30. Once at the police station, MR. REBECK S injured body was pulled, feet dragging, into the station, down a flight of stairs and then thrown into a cell. 31. While in the cell, MR. REBECK began to vomit, at which time, Defendants poured water on him while stating, we have to clean the baby up. 32. MR. REBECK was then stripped and dressed in a paper outfit, where he was then dragged to the processing room. 33. While being processed, MR. REBECK was choked and punched in the head and ribs several times by Defendants.

Case 2:11-cv-02649-KSH -PS Document 1 Filed 05/09/11 Page 7 of 12 PageID: 7 34. Defendants, though sworn to uphold the law, did nothing to prevent or limit the violent assault on MR. REBECK. 35. Defendants, in reckless disregard to MR. REBECK S medical condition, failed to seek medical assistance to relieve the intolerable pain caused by the bite wounds and assault. 36. After being processed, which was many hours after the dog attack and assault, MR. REBECK was finally taken to Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center in New Brunswick, New Jersey, where he was admitted and received medical treatment. 37. Defendants used on Plaintiff, excessive, unnecessary and unjustified force under the circumstances. 38. During the K-9 attack, MR. REBECK was face down on the ground in handcuffs and was not resisting and at no time threatened to use force against the Defendants. 39. As a result of Defendants actions, MR. REBECK suffered permanent scarring, kidney failure, pain and suffering and mental anguish, which required prolonged medical treatment. 40. The illegal, wanton, willful, reckless and grossly negligent acts of Defendants, deprived MR. REBECK of rights secured to him by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States of the Constitution and 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983.

Case 2:11-cv-02649-KSH -PS Document 1 Filed 05/09/11 Page 8 of 12 PageID: 8 As for the Second Cause of Action 41. Plaintiff repleads and realleges, as if stated her in full, the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 40 of the complaint. 42. Defendants SOFIELD, SORBER, KENNY, DICARLO and MEAD conspired to deprive MR. REBECK of his civil rights by tacitly and explicitly agreeing to allow Plaintiff to be beaten by Defendants and viciously attacked by Ptl. Dog Lucky. As for a Third Cause of Action 43. Plaintiff repleads and realleges, as if stated here in full, the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 40 of the complaint. 44. The acts of Defendants MEAD, SOFIELD, KENNY, SORBER and DICARLO constituted an assault under New Jersey law for which Defendants are liable. As for a Fourth Cause of Action 45. Plaintiff repleads and realleges, as if stated here in full, paragraphs 1 through 40 of the complaint. 46. The acts of Defendants MEAD, SOFIELD, SORBER, KENNY and DICARLO constituted battery under New Jersey law for which Defendant is liable.

Case 2:11-cv-02649-KSH -PS Document 1 Filed 05/09/11 Page 9 of 12 PageID: 9 As for the Fifth Cause of Action 47. Plaintiff repleads and realleges, as if stated here in full, the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 46 of the complaint. 48. Defendant EDISON TOWNSHIP is a recipient of federal funds for its Police Department. 49. The acts of Defendants MEAD, SOFIELD, SORBER, KENNY and DICARLO and JOHN DOE constituted intentional violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As and for the Sixth Cause of Action 50. Plaintiff repleads and realleges, as if stated here in full, the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 49 of the complaint. 51. Defendant MEAD, on May 11, 2010, as the official handler of Lucky K-9, denied MR. REBECK his Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force by ordering Lucky K-9 to viciously attack Plaintiff about the body causing MR. REBECK to suffer serious injury, including dog bite wounds and kidney failure and experience excruciating pain. 52. The acts of Defendants MEAD, SOFIELD, SORBER, KENNY and DICARLO constituted unnecessary and unjustified use of force upon Plaintiff, prohibited by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Case 2:11-cv-02649-KSH -PS Document 1 Filed 05/09/11 Page 10 of 12 PageID: 10 As for the Seventh Cause of Action 53. Plaintiff repleads and realleges, as if stated here in full, the allegations of paragraphs 1through 52 of the complaint. 54. Defendant Edison Police Chief THOMAS BRYAN, had a duty to establish adequate rules and procedures to protect MR. REBECK; furthermore, Defendant Chief THOMAS BRYAN had a duty to ensure that arrestees in the custody of Edison Township Police Officers are not physically abused by the Officers. 55. Defendant Police Chief THOMAS BRYAN had a duty to establish rules and procedures and to train and supervise its employees. 56. Defendant Police Chief THOMAS BRYAN had a duty to adequately train and supervise all Edison Township Police Officers including Defendants MEAD, SOFIELD, SORBER, KENNY and DICARLO and DOE I-X with respect to the aforementioned rules in paragraphs 54 and 55 above. 57. Defendant Police Chief THOMAS BRYAN was grossly negligent and recklessly indifferent in their duty to establish mechanisms to receive and investigate complaints of misconduct by Edison Township Ptl. Officers and to discipline said Officers. 58. The injuries sustained by Plaintiff REBECK were approximately caused by the failure of Defendant THOMAS BRYAN to properly train, supervise and discipline Defendant Ptl. Officers. 59. Defendant EDISON TOWNSHIP and Police Chief THOMAS BRYAN had a duty to establish rules and procedures to train and supervise their employees,

Case 2:11-cv-02649-KSH -PS Document 1 Filed 05/09/11 Page 11 of 12 PageID: 11 including Defendant Police Officers, to protect the constitutional rights of arrested persons including, the duty to prevent the use of excessive and illegal force upon such persons in their presence. 60. Defendant EDISON TOWNSHIP and Police Chief THOMAS BRYAN failed in their duty to train and supervise Defendant Police Officers with respect to the use of excessive and illegal force upon such persons in their presence. 61. The injuries sustained by Plaintiff REBECK were approximately caused by the failure of the TOWNSHIP OF EDISON and Police Chief THOMAS BRYAN to properly train, supervise and discipline Defendant Police Officers. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands an award of actual damages and punitive damages against each individual Defendant, together with reasonable attorneys fees and costs as well as such further, other and different relief as this Court deems just. Jury Demand A jury trial is herby demanded on issues triable by jury. /s/ Lennox S. Hinds (LH 8196) Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:11-cv-02649-KSH -PS Document 1 Filed 05/09/11 Page 12 of 12 PageID: 12