Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
12 CIV 2305 Corbin v City of New York

12 CIV 2305 Corbin v City of New York

Ratings: (0)|Views: 508 |Likes:
Published by nicholasjpinto

More info:

Published by: nicholasjpinto on Apr 30, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/30/2012

pdf

text

original

 
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------X
SAMANTHA CORBIN and ROBIN WILSON
 Plaintiff,- against -THE CITY OF NEW YORK, a municipal entity,NEW YORK CITY
POLICE OFFICER ALANSCHLISSEL
, NEW YORK CITY POLICECAPTAIN CHRISTOPHER MCCORMACK,
and NEW YORK CITY POLICE OFFICERS“JOHN DOES”
1-9.Defendants.:::::::::::::
INDEX NO.ECF CASEJURY TRIAL DEMANDEDCOMPLAINT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------X
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs SAMANTHA CORBIN and ROBIN WILSON, by their attorney,DAVID A. THOMPSON, of Stecklow Cohen & Thompson, complaining of thedefendants, respectfully allege as follows:
I.
 
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.
 
Plaintiffs SAMANTHA CORBIN and ROBIN WILSON bring this actionfor compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for violations of their civil rights, as said rights are secured bysaid statutes and by the Constitutions of the State of New York and of the United States.2.
 
On June 2, 2011, Plaintiffs SAMANTHA CORBIN and ROBIN WILSONmet with approximately thirteen other individuals in order to engage in a protest againstthe political activities of right-wing billionaire David H. Koch. The plaintiffs believe thatit is inherently unfair and un-American that one man – by virtue of his astounding wealth
 
2 – can so magnify his voice that it overwhelms the voices of millions of ordinaryAmericans. Especially when the policies David H. Koch wants to push forward includethe abolishment of Social Security, welfare, and minimum wage laws which protectordinary Americans poverty and despair.3.
 
Even before the plaintiffs could begin their protest, they were approachedin Central Park by a Captain of the New York Police Department, defendant Christopher McCormack who told the plaintiffs they were not allowed to speak – despite the fact thatthe Plaintiffs were breaking no laws. Defendant McCormack, together with defendantPolice Officer Alan Schlissel and several defendant Police Officers John Doe followedthe plaintiffs for several blocks to Lincoln Center where the plaintiffs planned to protestin front of the theater named for David H. Koch.4.
 
The plaintiffs engaged in a brief protest of approximately ten to fifteenminutes while Defendant McCormack, defendant Police Officer Alan Schlissel andseveral defendant Police Officers John Doe looked on. The plaintiffs followed allinstructions by these officers while doing so. After the plaintiffs terminated their action,and while they were leaving the area, the defendant officers placed plaintiffs under arrest.Although charged with a mere violation, disorderly conduct, the plaintiffs were held incustody overnight in retaliation for the plaintiffs’ expression of their political views.5.
 
Unfortunately, the New York City Police Department (the “NYPD”) has awell-established practice of targeting for unlawful arrest citizens who speak out– especially those speaking out for left-of-center views. The NYPD treats law-abiding protestors as criminals, monitors their activities, and subjects them to punitive and
 
3retaliatory arrest. The present case is just one more outrageous example of thisunconstitutional policy.6.
 
The plaintiffs file this action to reclaim their right to participate in the political process by speaking out on the issues that will determine the future of thiscountry.
II.
 
JURISDICTION
7.
 
This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and theFourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction isconferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(3) and (4) and the aforementionedstatutory and constitutional provisions.8.
 
Plaintiffs further invoke this Court's supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to28 USC. § 1367, over any and all State law claims and causes of action which derivefrom the same nucleus of operative facts and are part of the same case or controversy thatgives rise to the federally based claims and causes of action.
III.
 
VENUE
9.
 
Venue is proper for the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), (b), and (c) and § 1402(b) because the claims arose in this district.
IV.
 
JURY DEMAND
10.
 
Plaintiffs respectfully demand a trial by jury of all issues in this matter  pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b).
V.
 
THE PARTIES

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->