Complaint- Alicia Lyons

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DAUPHIN COUNTY

PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION

ALICIA LYONS,

                                       Plaintiff

vs. 

TROOPER CHARLES WOODS,

                                       Defendant

 CASE N.O: 

 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, ALICIA LYONS, pro se, for her Complaint at Law and in Equity against Defendant alleges the following:

INTRODUCTION

  1. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant claiming malicious prosecution and abuse of process. 
  2. Defendant maliciously instituted a charge against Plaintiff, without probable cause and good reason.   
  3. Consequential and incidental to Defendant’s action, Plaintiff has been subjected to humiliation, and emotional hurt. 

 

PARTIES

  1. At all times mentioned herein, the Plaintiff were and is a citizen of the State of [ENTER STATE], residing in the County of [ENTER COUNTY], at the address as listed:

[ENTER ADDRESS]

 

  1. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant, TROOPER CHARLES WOODS was, at the time of the incidences alleged herein, an officer in the Pennsylvania State Police Department. Said Defendant’s address is listed as:

 

[ENTER ADDRESS]

 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

  1. Plaintiff first had contact with Defendant on or about 2017 when Defendant called Plaintiff’s mother, Donna Lyons, threatening her that Plaintiff was going to jail if Plaintiff did not drive to Harrisburg Pennsylvania to give Defendant a statement.
  2. Consequently, Defendant harassed Plaintiff’s mother multiple times thereafter with multiple threats.
  3. Defendant then called Plaintiff, who told him (Defendant) to stop calling her. Defendant responded by stating “You don’t want to come down to speak to me, then I’m going to put the whole case on you and say that you are head of the organization.” 
  4. Thereafter, Defendant brought a Racketeering charge against Plaintiff, joining her as co-defendant in the case. 
  5. A year after the phone call, Plaintiff received a fugitive warrant of arrest.

 

CAUSES OF ACTION

First Cause of Action:  MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

  1. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations of paragraph “1” through “10” of this Complaint, as though set forth in this paragraph at length.
  2. Defendant’s acts amount to malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
  3. Plaintiff was prosecuted without probable cause, thus violating her liberty.
  4. Defendant’s statement, to wit, “You don’t want to come down to speak to me, then I’m going to put the whole case on you and say that you are head of the organization,” clearly shows Defendant’s intention to institute a charge without sufficient evidence of Plaintiff’s guilt.  This conduct amounts to a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which states thus:

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[.] 

 

  1. Defendant lacked probable cause to bring the charge against Plaintiff. “Probable cause is a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficient to warrant that an ordinary prudent person in the same situation could believe a party is guilty of the offense charged.” La Frankie v. Miklich, 618 A.2d 1145, 1148 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (en banc). In the instant case, Defendant only charged Plaintiff because Plaintiff refused to heed to Defendant’s request to make the statement. 
  2. Plaintiff’s prosecution deprived her liberty since she had to respond to the arrest warrant and had to face the ravages and complexities of a criminal trial.  
  3. Defendant cannot claim qualified immunity in the foregoing circumstances. State officials performing discretionary acts enjoy “qualified immunity” from civil damages in § 1983 causes of action when their conduct does not violate “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights of which a “reasonable person” would have been aware at the time the incident occurred. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009); Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle, 544 Fed. App’x 129, 133–34 (3d Cir. 2013). (Emphasis added). 
  4. Plaintiff avers that none of her conduct satisfied the elements of a Racketeering charge, and that the Defendant lacks evidence to that effect. To prove that an accused person was involved in racketeering, the prosecution must prove the following, that: 
  1. there was a criminal enterprise; 
  2. the accused was associated with the criminal enterprise; 
  3. the accused agreed, knowingly, to participate in the criminal enterprise; 
  4. the enterprise’s actions affected interstate commerce; 
  5. the accused, and another conspirator, agreed to commit two racketeering acts to further the criminal enterprise.

 

18 U.S.C.A. § 1961(4) (West 1984). 

  1. There lacks direct evidence pointing Plaintiff to any criminal offenses charged against her. According to United States v. Phillips, to be found guilty of violating the R.I.C.O. statute, the government must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
  2. The witnesses who testified in the case could not positively identify Plaintiff. 
  3. The aforesaid conduct of Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to humiliation, and emotional hurt. 
  4. Defendant, by reason of the alleged conduct, is liable for all the harm caused to Plaintiff proximately caused by the said conduct. 

 

Second Cause of Action:  ABUSE OF PROCESS

  1. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraph “1” through “22”

of this Complaint, as though set forth in this paragraph at length.

  1. Defendant’s conduct amounted to a violation of due process. The word “process” as used in the tort of abuse of process has been interpreted broadly to encompass the entire range of procedures incident to the litigation process, which would include filing of a Praecipe and the execution of a judgment. Rosen v. Am. Bank of Rolla, 426 Pa. Super. 378, 627 A.2d 190, 192 (1993). 
  2. Defendant was driven by ulterior motives when he brought the charge against Plaintiff. An action for abuse of process arises when legal process, whether civil or criminal, is used against another to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed. Prosser on Torts, § 100, p. 667 (2d ed.). Therefore, it is not clear why Defendant charged Plaintiff. Besides, Defendant had threatened to accuse Plaintiff of the alleged offense, if Plaintiff failed to follow Defendant’s request to appear and make a statement. 
  3. Defendant’s action satisfies all the elements of a claim for abuse of process. Stated seriatim the essential elements of abuse of process are the following:
  1. An ulterior motive either at the initiation of process or thereafter;
  2. A willful or improper act in the use of process contrary to what is regular in the conduct of such a proceeding; and
  3. A seizure of the person or property of the plaintiff.

 

  1. In the instant case, as alleged above, Defendant brought the charge against Plaintiff because Plaintiff refused to appear for making a statement. The ulterior motive is seen when Defendant made threats to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s mother, demanding that Plaintiff should testify. Defendant should have gathered sufficient evidence against Plaintiff, before instituting the charge against her. Lastly, Defendant’s conduct amounted to seizure under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as already alleged hereinabove, and when an arrest warrant was issued against Plaintiff. 
  2. The aforesaid conduct of Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to humiliation, and emotional hurt. 
  3. Defendant, by reason of the alleged conduct, is liable for all the harm caused to Plaintiff proximately caused by the said conduct. 

 

WHEREFORE, upon the aforesaid Causes of Action, Plaintiff seeks Judgment in Plaintiff’s favor, and that the Court grants the following relief:

  1. Compensatory damages for harm caused to Plaintiff by Defendant’s action(s), in a sum to be agreed by the court;
  2. Punitive damages;
  3. Costs and other court expenses;
  4. Any other remedy that the court deems just. 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                            

DATED:    ____________ 

 

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

I, ALICIA LYONS, certified on this ________ day of ________ 2021, I deposited a true copy of the above to the defendant by placing the documents with prepaid postage in the United States mailbox address to the said person.

 

[ENTER DEFENDANT’S ADDRESS]

 

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, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.