SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT – 1
Jeffrey S. Jackson
Attorneys’ Business Address
City, ST ZIP Code
Phone | Fax
Email
Plaintiff in pro per

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JEFFREY S. JACKSON,
Plaintiff,

vs.
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, MAYOR
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, THE BUREAU OF
NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC, NEW YORK
STATE, ONONDAGA COUNTY,
ONONDAGA COUNTY DA, OSWEGO
COUNTY, OSWEGO COUNTY DA, NEW
YORK STATE TROOPER LUKE VISCONTI,
NEW YORK STATE TROOPER AMIDON,
NEW YORK STATE TROOPER JANE DOE,
ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPUTY MIKE
MAGUET, OSWEGO COUNTY DEPUTY
EMILIE MULLEN, OSWEGO COUNTY
DEPUTY JANE DOE, OSWEGO COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY JANE DOE,

Defendants.

Case No.: Number

PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT

NOW COMES Jeffrey S. Jackson, Plaintiff, and files this Memorandum of Law in Support of
Complaint, and for cause would show this Honorable Court as follows:

Main Causes of Action

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT – 2
1. False Arrest
2. Warrantless search
3. Retaliation
4. Monell
5. Deprivation of rights and privileges
6. Abuse of power and abuse of process under New York State Law
7. Malicious Prosecution

The Law in Relation to the Facts
42 U.S.C Code § 1983, False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution and Abuse
of Process
To prevail on a Section 1983 claim against a municipal entity, a plaintiff
must show: "(1) actions taken under color of law; (2) deprivation of a
constitutional or statutory right; (3) causation; (4) damages; and (5) that an
official policy of the municipality caused the constitutional injury." Roe v. City of
Waterbury, 542 F.3d 31 see also Connick, — U.S. —, 131 S. Ct. at 1359
("Plaintiffs who seek to impose liability on local governments under Section 1983
must prove that ‘action pursuant to official municipal policy’ caused their injury."
(quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 691, 98 S. Ct. 2018)); Humphries, 562 U.S. 29, 131
S. Ct. at 452 ("[A] municipality may be held liable when execution of a
government’s policy or custom . . . inflicts the injury."
The Court liberally construes the Complaint to alleged, pursuant to Section
1983, that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights in three
respects: 1) by entering his house; 2) by arresting him without a warrant; and 3)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT – 3

by using excessive force during the arrest. "In order to state a cause of action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that some person acting under
color of state law deprived him of a federal right." Washington v. James, 782
F.2d 1134, 1138 (2d Cir.1986). [Morse v. Fitzgerald, 10-CV-6306 CJS
(W.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2013)]

42 U.S.C. § 1983, False Arrest

Under New York law, to succeed on a false arrest/false imprisonment claim,
Plaintiff must prove that; (1) the defendant intended to confine him, (2) Plaintiff
was conscious of the confinement, (3) Plaintiff did not consent to the
confinement, and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged. Johnson v.
Kings County District Attorney’s Office, 308 A.D.2d 278, 285- 86 (2d Dep’t
2003). Here, the first three elements of the false arrest claim are readily satisfied.
The finding of the Albany County Court, however, disproves the fourth element
— whether the confinement was otherwise privileged. [Hogan v. Caputo,
02-CV-1040 (LEK/RFT) (N.D.N.Y. June 21, 2004)]
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e3.
To establish a claim here, the plaintiff must allege the prongs necessary to prove a
prima facie case. They include: 1) that plaintiff engaged in a protected activity
known to the defendant, 2) suffered an adverse employment action, and 3) there
exists a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse
employment action. See Gordon v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 232 F.3d 111,
116 (2d Cir. 2000).
Here, the Amended Complaint clearly alleges the second element, namely, that he

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT – 4

suffered an adverse employment action. See Morris v. Lindau, 196 F.3d 102, 110
(2d Cir. 1999) (providing that an adverse employment action may include
"discharge, refusal to hire, refusal to promote, demotion, reduction in pay, and
reprimand."). Plaintiff was discharged in February 2005. [Carmody v. the City of
New York, No. 05 Civ. 8084 (HB) (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2006)]42 U.S.C. § 1983 –

Retaliation

The remaining and decisive inquiry is whether Walker’s initial grievance was a
"substantial or motivating factor" in the decision to transfer him out of Building
21A. While temporal proximity can raise an inference of causal connection (see
cases cited at page 15 above), here, defendants concede that the housing move
was caused by Walker’s initial grievance, but deny any improper motive, arguing
that the decision to transfer Walker was an "accommodation" to Walkers concerns
as expressed in his grievance. (Dkt. No. 31: Defs. Br. at 8-9; see also discussion at
page 4 above.)
Defendants argue that Deputy Superintendent Ercole’s decision to transfer Walker
was motivated by the desire to resolve Walker’s complaint that he felt
"uncomfortable" when C.O. Woodard was on duty and to avoid a "possibly
volatile situation." (Defs. Br. at 9, 11; see also page 4 above.) [Walker v. Joseph
Pataro, No. 99 Civ. 4607 (GBD) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2002)]42 U.S.C. §

1983 – Monell

Although a warrantless search is per se unreasonable, it can be justified "where
exigent circumstances demand that law enforcement agents act without delay."
United States v. MacDonald, 916 F.2d 766, 769 (2d Cir. 1990) (en banc), cert.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT – 5

denied, 498 U.S. 1119, 111 S.Ct. 1071, 112 L.Ed.2d 1177 (1991). Probable cause
is not sufficient to justify a warrantless search. Kirk v. Louisiana, 536 U.S. 635,
122 S.Ct. 2458, 153 L.Ed.2d 599 (2002). "Absent exigent circumstances, the firm
line at the entrance to the house may not reasonably be crossed without a
warrant." Kirk, 536 U.S. at 636 (quoting Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590
(1980)). "[T]he exigent circumstances exception in the context of a home entry
should rarely be sanctioned when there is probable cause to believe that only a
minor offense . . . has been committed. "Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 753
(1984). [Abdella v. O’Toole, 343 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D. Conn. 2004)]
42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges
If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the
highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either
directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the
laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws… [and] . [and] if one
or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of
the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or
property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen
of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the
recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or
more of the conspirators. [ 42 U.S.C. § 1985]- "In order to make out a Section
1985(3) claim, the plaintiff must allege and prove four elements: (1) a conspiracy;
(2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT – 6

of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and
immunities under the laws; and (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; (4)
whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any
right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.
42 U.S.C. § 1986- Abuse of Power and Abuse of Process under New York

State Law

This question of whether the issuance of the appearance ticket can itself qualify as
legal process" turns out to be a slightly tangled area of case law. In Parkin v.
Cornell Univ., Inc., 78 N.Y.2d 523, 577 N.Y.S.2d 227, 583 N.E.2d 939 (1991),
the New York Court of Appeals observed that nothing in its holdings "would
seem to preclude an abuse of process claim based on the issuance of the process
itself." Id. at 530, 577 N.Y.S.2d 227, 583 N.E.2d 939. Courts in this circuit appear
split over the applicability of Parkin ’s suggestion. Mangino, 739 F. Supp. 2d at
231 n.23 (cataloguing the uncertainty). On the one hand, some trial courts have
dismissed Parkin as dicta. See, e.g., Gilman v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. ,
868 F. Supp. 2d 118, 131 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). On the other, the Second Circuit has
more recently cited Parkin ’s language with approval, albeit in an unpublished
order. Manhattan Enter. Grp., LLC v. Higgins, 816 F. App’x 512, 514 (2d Cir.
2020) (summary order). [Wagner v. Hyra, 518 F. Supp. 3d 613 (N.D.N.Y. 2021)]

42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Malicious Prosecution

To state a claim for malicious prosecution under both federal and New York law,
a plaintiff must allege "(1) the commencement or continuation of a criminal

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT – 7

proceeding against her, (2) the termination of the proceeding in her favor, (3) that
there was no probable cause for the proceeding; and (4) that the proceeding was
instituted with malice." Mitchell v. City of New York, 841 F.3d 72, 79 (2d Cir.
2016) (quoting Kinzer v. Jackson, 316 F.3d 139, 143 (2d Cir. 2003)); Ramos v.
City of New York, 15 Civ. 6085 (ER), 2017 WL 3267736, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July
31, 2017) ("The elements of malicious prosecution under Section 1983 are
substantially the same as the elements under New York Law; the analysis of the
state and the federal claims is identical.")
For a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must additionally allege "a sufficient post-
arraignment liberty restraint to implicate the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment
rights." Rohman v. New York City Transit Auth., 215 F.3d 208, 215 (2d
Cir. 2000). Like a claim for false arrest, probable cause is a complete defense to a
malicious prosecution claim. See Manganiello v. City of New York, 612 F.3d
149, 161- 62 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Savino v. City of New York, 331 F.3d 63, 72
(2d Cir. 2003)). [Lawton v. Town of Orchard Park, 14-CV-867S (W.D.N.Y.
Aug. 18, 2017)]

42 U.S. Code § 1981 provides for equal rights under the law.
The preceding provision expressly states as follows:
“All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the
same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to
sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws
and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT – 8

white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties,
taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other……the rights
protected by this section are protected against impairment by
nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State
law.”
Accordingly, the claim of deprivation of rights is based on the preceding
provision. The Plaintiff is entitled to equal rights under the law and non-
discrimination based on color. Hence the Plaintiff’s complaint is merited.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 expressly provides for civil action for the deprivation of rights.
The provision states:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or
other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,
shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or
other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought
against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s
judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a
declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable.
For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable
exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute
of the District of Columbia.”

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT – 9

The officers had without evidence or proof of war crossed the threshold of the
Plaintiff’s home hence a violation of his right to privacy. They also used a false
statement to pursue the Plaintiff for a crime he had not committed thus being
denied the right to presumed innocent until proven guilty. As per 42 U.S.C. §
1983, the Plaintiff has a right to bring a civil action against the police officers that
breached his Fourth Amendment rights in three main respects: by entering his
house, arresting him without a warrant, and using unreasonable and excessive
force during the arrest. Hence the officers, being under color of state law deprived
him of his federal rights and thus entitled to bring forth a complaint.
Further, with regard to the deprivation of the Plaintiff’s rights or privileges, 42
U.S.C. § 1985 (3) provides:
“If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in
disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of
depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of
the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities
under the laws… [and] if one or more persons engaged therein do, or
cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy,
whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of
having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United
States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the
recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against
any one or more of the conspirators.”

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT – 10

Accordingly, the Plaintiff complaint and evidence procured has proven that the
police officers have conspired to deprive the Plaintiff of his fundamental rights
under the Fourth Amendment. The Plaintiff is thus entitled to institute the current
complaint against the officers for recovery of damages for any injury he has
incurred as a result of the deprivation of his rights.
The Plaintiff, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 also has the right to bring a claim of false
arrest. From his complaint it is evident that the police officers intended to confine him, the
Plaintiff was conscious of the confinement, and the Plaintiff did not consent to the confinement.
The preceding elements are established in the case of Johnson v. Kings County District
Attorney’s Office, 308 A.D.2d 278, 285- 86 (2d Dep’t 2003).
PLAINTIFF’S MAIN COMPLAINTS
The Plaintiff’s complaint expresses all the preceding elements hence:
(1) a conspiracy;
(2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class
of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the
laws;

3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy
(4) whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any

right or

the privilege of a citizen of the United States.
It is evident that the police officers, proceeding on false statements, conspired
against the Plaintiff to deprive him of his federal rights of privacy and being presumed innocent
until heard and proven guilty.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT – 11

Prayer for Relief
REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully
requests this Honorable Court to accept and deem this Memorandum of Law as filed, award
Plaintiff all requested damages and reliefs requested in the Complaint, and award Plaintiff such
further reliefs as this Court deems necessary and proper.

Dated this ____ day of May, 2022.

Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
Jeffrey S. Jackson,
Plaintiff in pro per

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT – 12

VERIFICATION
I, Jeffrey S. Jackson, being duly sworn depose and say that I have read the
foregoing Memorandum of Law in Support of Complaint and know the contents thereof. That
the same is true of my own knowledge except as to those matters and things stated upon
information and belief, and as to those things, I believe them to be true.

_________________________________
(Sign in the presence of a Notary Public)

Sworn to and subscribed before me this ___ day of May, 2022.
______________________________
Notary Public
________________________________________
(Printed name of Notary Public)
My Commission Expires: ____________________

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )