Case 1:11-cv-02336-WWC Document 1

Filed 12/19/11 Page 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TIMOTHY M. THOMAS Plaintiff VS. DIANA MARIE THOMAS, DAVID M. DOUGHERTY, DANIEL DIEHL, and KATHY JO WINTERBOTTOM, Defendants

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

CIVIL ACTION LAW No. Electronically Filed

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT Introductory Statement 1. This is a civil rights complaint brought for the violation of, inter alia, 14th Amendment substantive due process rights by a Pennsylvania State Trooper. The defendants in this action intentionally interfered in the familial affairs of the plaintiff with the intent to break up and destroy his family. The plaintiff has been unlawfully harassed and investigated and deprived of certain benefits and emoluments of his employment. Plaintiff additionally claims violations of his 1st and 4th Amendment rights.

1

Case 1:11-cv-02336-WWC Document 1

Filed 12/19/11 Page 2 of 13

Jurisdiction and Venue 2. Jurisdiction is conferred on this court by 28 USC §1343 and 28 USC §1343 (a) (3) & (4), and the remedial statute 42 USC §1983. 3. A jury trial is demanded 4. This Court’s supplemental jurisdiction as per 28 USC §1367(c) is also invoked here. 5. Plaintiff requests punitive damages against any individual defendants. 6. Venue is properly in the Middle District of Pennsylvania because all parties, witnesses, and evidence are common to Pennsylvania counties that lie within the jurisdiction of that court. Operative facts 7. On or about December 21, 2009 the defendant Diana Thomas demanded that the plaintiff Timothy Thomas leave their marital home. Plaintiff complied with her demands. 8. The plaintiff Timothy Thomas is a Pennsylvania State Police Trooper. Diana Thomas took the form action because she had been involved in an extramarital affair six years. 9. Diana Thomas called Cpl. Daniel Diehl who is on duty at the PSP Barracks in Chambersburg Pennsylvania, after she had forced Tim to leave the 2

Case 1:11-cv-02336-WWC Document 1

Filed 12/19/11 Page 3 of 13

family home. On information and belief, she knew, and in fact had known, Cpl. Diehl, before she contacted him. 10. At or around the same time Sgt. Kane informed everyone at the PSP barracks roll-call, demonstrating a total disrespect and disregard for Thomas’ privacy and personal rights, telling everyone that Timothy's wife, Diana Thomas, had "kicked him out". 11. With absolutely no reason to do so, but intending to harm and injure Timothy Thomas for whom he possessed considerable subjective animus, Cpl. Daniel Diehl agreed with Diana that he would tell Diana Thomas to flee the residence and go to another location (namely her parents' home). 12. After plaintiff left the marital residence, the defendant Diehl, persisting in a pattern of antagonistic mistreatment of the plaintiff, and demonstrating a hateful, personal animus, with vindictive motives intending to harm the plaintiff in his personal familial relationships, called the Upper Uwchlan Township Police Department and told them that plaintiff was separated from his wife, that his wife had kicked him out, that Timothy Thomas, a Pennsylvania State Police Trooper was a "loose cannon", and a "prime candidate for murder/suicide". There was absolutely no proper basis for Diehl to act in this manner or say these things

3

Case 1:11-cv-02336-WWC Document 1

Filed 12/19/11 Page 4 of 13

13. Not coincidently, Diehl, knowing he was behaving unlawfully, and further knowing that Timothy Thomas displayed no indicia of mental instability or illness, took no actions to even suggest that plaintiff be evaluated or subjected to examination as per state law, thus demonstrating his awareness that his actions and words were baseless. 14. As consequence, the Upper Uwchlan Police Department stationed officers around the residence of Diana Thomas's parents serving Diehl’s intentional effort to create an incident and further humiliate and embarrass Timothy. 15. Meanwhile, the plaintiff, which was well known to Sgt. Kane and Cpl. Diehl, was staying temporarily at the PSP barracks. 16. There were two minor children who were also victimized by the misconduct of the defendants in this matter. 17. Upon information and belief, Diehl engaged in a policy designed to divide the Thomas's and destroy the relationship that held the family together. His divisive and personal misconduct was not justified or required by PSP rules. 18. The defendant Diehl intentionally created an inaccurate and pernicious group of communications and accusations that were intended to create a matrix of domestic relations impediments to communication and any possible resolution of the differences between the Thomas'. 4

Case 1:11-cv-02336-WWC Document 1

Filed 12/19/11 Page 5 of 13

19. Diana Thomas began to intentionally use the misguided credibility that lawyers, law enforcement officers, and domestic relations bureaucrats attach to law enforcement reports, pronouncements, and actions as an unverified and unjustified method of attacking the plaintiff, forcing him to hearings and depriving him of his children. The primary architect of these words and actions was the defendants, David M Dougherty and Diana Thomas, who continued to disingenuously use Diehl's unlawfully engendered words and actions, even after they were totally debunked by the PSP. 20. The litany of wrongful civil actions and legal proceedings has so far cost the plaintiff over $40,000 in legal fees, and was and is also causing him cruel and intentional emotional upset and pain. This pattern of antagonistic mistreatment originated with, and grew out of the dishonest attacks and actions by the defendant Diehl, Sgt. Kane, and later by the defendant Winterbottom who used their badge of state authority to set in motion investigations and actions resulting in unwarranted injuries to the plaintiff and his career, all centering around his personal and protected familial relationships. 21. On or about February of 2009 the plaintiff was approached by Stephen Wise from the PSP IAD division. Wise was reviewing, or initiating, an IAD investigation. 5

Case 1:11-cv-02336-WWC Document 1

Filed 12/19/11 Page 6 of 13

22. The plaintiff asked Wise if he was there to speak to him and Wise said he was there for something else and he would tell Cpl. Devilbiss. 23. At that point the plaintiff pleaded with Wise to "please help me." "I can't see my child because of what you guys are doing. It's being used against me in court." Upon information and belief, Wise took this information back to his IAD superiors. 24. At different times, when plaintiff had attended domestic relations meetings and responded to false PFA's filed against him by Diana Thomas PSP officers had been there to watch and observe. They were in fact using the domestic relations hearings etc., to gather information on the plaintiff. 25. Shortly after Wise returned to IAD the plaintiff received a communication from Cpl. Devilbiss of PSP IAD upon the orders of the defendant Kathy Jo Winterbottom, his supervisor, that if the plaintiff "keeps asking questions." it can be construed as "interference with an investigation", and this included instructions that he was not allowed to ask questions in putting information together for purposes of seeing his kids and for use in defending himself in his domestic court conflicts. 26. The plaintiff had a right to ask questions, particularly to ask questions about an investigation into himself and to complain that the PSP was intentionally 6

Case 1:11-cv-02336-WWC Document 1

Filed 12/19/11 Page 7 of 13

interfering by sitting on investigations in the meantime so that Thomas could be persecuted and harassed in the Chester County Court system. 27. The defendant Kathy Jo Winterbottom, a lieutenant in IAD at the time, was and is responsible for denying plaintiff's First Amendment rights to complain and his right to ask reasonable and common sense questions about what was happening to him and his family so that he could defend himself in court. These are First Amendment violations. 28. Winterbottom is also responsible for violating the plaintiff’s procedural due process rights pursuant to the 14th Amendment. 29. Winterbottom followed an intentional strategy of delaying and extending IAD investigations into the plaintiff, which fact was known and utilized by Diana Thomas, who in turn based her domestic relations attacks on the plaintiff in Chester County upon the false and misleading PSP reports and information generated by Diehl and others in the Pennsylvania State police. Winterbottom was waiting and anticipating damaging court actions in Chester County (which had been created by the PSP abuses described above) to in turn use them to conduct administrative actions against Thomas seeking to damage and destroy his career). 30. Diana Thomas had her children electronically eavesdrop and record conversations with their father Trooper Thomas in violation of both state and 7

Case 1:11-cv-02336-WWC Document 1

Filed 12/19/11 Page 8 of 13

federal wiretapping laws. Diana Thomas has intentionally destroyed, with the help of the Pennsylvania State police, the familial relationship between Trooper Thomas and his children. 31. Only the legal thoroughness and integrity of the Chester County Court of Common Pleas protected the plaintiff from the abuses of the Pennsylvania State police and Diana Thomas. The Chester County courts after appropriate evaluation dismissed the false and misleading PFA's and other false charges against Trooper Thomas. However, this has not prevented defendants Thomas and Dougherty from continuing to use the false and scurrilous accusations that Diehl put in his reports to the local police even though both of these defendants know that Diehl's representations were totally and completely false. 32. This is particularly evident since plaintiff has been totally and completely vindicated regarding the dishonest and misleading PFA's filed against him and the deprivations he has suffered. He is still not been able to see his children on a fair basis. He has not seen his son Ethan since September 29, 2010 because of adverse court orders based upon misinformation provided by the defendants Diana Thomas and David Dougherty.

8

Case 1:11-cv-02336-WWC Document 1

Filed 12/19/11 Page 9 of 13

33. There is no rational or reasonable government purpose that has been served to any degree, in any way, by the actions of the PSP defendants in this matter. 34. The actions of these defendants have interfered in plaintiff's family relationships for no rational or proper purpose. They have resulted in injuries to the plaintiff relationships with his children and with his abilities to resolve his personal domestic problems in the courts. They have amounted to a denial of the plaintiff’s rights to access the courts and will and to petition for redress of grievances. They have amounted to an abuse of process, particularly by attorney Dougherty. 35. The actions of the PSP defendants were carried out for one purpose alone and that was to make a pretense of explaining and justifying what they knew where the unlawful and dishonest words and actions of Cpl. Dan Diehl. COUNT I Plaintiff against the Defendant Daniel Diehl for the Violation of his 14th Amendment Rights

36. Paragraphs one through 35 above are incorporated herein by reference. 37. The defendant Diehl intentionally created documents, initiated

communications, and encouraged hostile actions in third persons such as other police officers for the sole purpose of destroying the plaintiff's private familial 9

Case 1:11-cv-02336-WWC Document 1

Filed 12/19/11 Page 10 of 13

relationships, including his marriage, and depriving him of the company and society of his children. 38. The defendant Diehl knew when he notified the Upper Uwchlan police that there was no basis, including any public policy purpose, in expressing and concluding his vindictive conclusions that Timothy Thomas was a "prime candidate for murder/suicide". 39. Diehl’s actions were unlawful and in violation of the plaintiff’s substantive due process rights to the integrity, privacy and primacy of his familial relationships free of arbitrary and capricious government interference. Diehl knew and intended that his dishonest and damaging actions and words would cause a profusion of consequences damaging to Thomas and his federally guaranteed familial rights. Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment, jointly and severally, of the defendant Diehl for the deprivation of his 14th amendment rights to the privacy and integrity of his familial relationships, a substantive due process right, together with damages for pain and suffering, humiliation and embarrassment, emotional distress, fees, costs, attorneys fees and such other relief as may be deemed appropriate. COUNT II Plaintiff against the Defendant Kathy Jo Winterbottom for the Violation of his 1st and 14th Amendment Rights. 10

Case 1:11-cv-02336-WWC Document 1

Filed 12/19/11 Page 11 of 13

40. Paragraphs 1 through 39 above are incorporated herein by reference. 41. Kathy Jo Winterbottom's threats to Thomas as a PSP/IAD supervisor of Cpl. Devilbiss directed as he was working on the totally unjustified IAD investigation into the plaintiff, that plaintiff was not allowed to gather information or ask questions, constituted a violation of the plaintiff's rights to access the courts, and petition for a redress of grievances under the 1st amendment. Winterbottom knew her activities and orders constituted interference with plaintiff's substantive and procedural due process rights because they prevented Thomas from properly working on his legal rights to see his children. Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment of the defendant Kathy Jo Winterbottom for the deprivation of his 1st and 14th Amendment rights as described above, together with damages for pain and suffering, humiliation and embarrassment, emotional distress, fees, costs, attorneys fees, punitive damages, and such other relief as may be deemed appropriate. COUNT III Plaintiff against the Defendants Diana Thomas and David Dougherty for the Violation of his 1st and 14th Amendment Rights and his rights to be free of unlawful wiretaps

42. Paragraphs 1 through 41 above are incorporated herein by reference. 11

Case 1:11-cv-02336-WWC Document 1

Filed 12/19/11 Page 12 of 13

43. Diana Thomas, knowing representations made by the defendant Diehl were false, including her knowledge that plaintiff had never threatened or abused her (to which she has testified), nevertheless brought false charges against the plaintiff in concert with her lawyer Mr. Dougherty. Misusing Diehl's badge of authority she and her lawyer, the defendant David Dougherty, continued, and still continue, to use Diehl's misrepresentations in court proceedings against Timothy Thomas knowing the same to be false and baseless in an intentional desire to misrepresent. They continue to do this even after they long ago learned that Diehl had been disciplined by the PSP and that his false and improper behavior had been completely debunked i.e., Dougherty and Diana Thomas used Daniel Diehl's original false and exaggerated reports to the Upper Uwchlan Police Department to make false and dishonest representations in various court proceedings seeking to injure the plaintiff while knowing the same to be inaccurate and incorrect. They continue to do this even though Tim's domestic relations lawyer has insisted they not do this. This constitutes an abuse of process for which Tim Thomas claims redress in the form of attorney's fees and other damages. 44. This misconduct by the defendants Diana Thomas and David Dougherty constitute an abuse of process (14th Amendment), a violation of plaintiff's First

12

Case 1:11-cv-02336-WWC Document 1

Filed 12/19/11 Page 13 of 13

Amendment rights to access the courts and petition for a redress of grievances, and an unlawful use of civil proceedings. 45. Additionally, Diana Thomas unlawfully wiretapped the plaintiff in violation of both Pennsylvania and federal anti-wiretapping laws. 46. Despite knowing that Diana Thomas blatantly violated the

aforementioned statutes, the Upper Uwchlan Township Police Department and the PSP will not take action. Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment jointly and severally of the defendants Diana Thomas and David Dougherty for the violation of his 1st and 14th Amendment rights (together with damages for the violations of his rights under state and federal wiretap laws from Diana Thomas based upon both state and federal statutes) all together with damages for pain and suffering embarrassment and humiliation, emotional distress, punitive damages, fees, costs, attorneys fees, and such other relief as may be deemed appropriate. Respectfully Submitted,

By:

/s/Don Bailey, Esquire PAID# 23786 4311 N. 6th Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717 221-9500 13

December 19, 2011

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.