IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JEFFREY JACKSON, §
Plaintiff, §
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO.
v. §
§
§
§
DEPUTY JOHN DOE, DEPUTY MIKE
MAGUET, JEFF MOSS, MARK MONICA, §
MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG, ONONDAGA §
COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT §
STF SERVICES CORPORATION §
§
Defendants. §
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Jeffrey Jackson, Plaintiff, complaining of Defendants, Deputy John Doe, Deputy
Mike Maguet, Jeff Moss, Mark Monica, Michael R. Bloomberg, Onondaga, County Sheriff’s
Department, Stf Services Corporation and for cause would show the Honorable Court as follows:
I. NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is an action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants, for false arrest,
malicious prosecution, abuse of process, false arrest, deprivation of rights and privileges
protected under the U.S Constitution, and unlawful search and seizure and the
consequential impact of being denied loans and grants by the government under Sections
1983, 1985, and 1981.
2. The Plaintiff thus brings this action for injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and
money damages to remedy discrimination based on disability, retaliation and constructive
discharge in the terms, conditions, and privileges of Employment, and Lawful United
States Citizenship in violation of United States 34 U.S.C. § 12601,. et seq. and 42 U.S.C.
§ 12131
II. PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Jeffrey Jackson is a male adult of sound mind and a resident of the County of
Onondaga, State of New York.
4. Defendant Bloomberg L.P. is a registered corporation under the virtue of the laws of the
state of New York. The preceding defendant also has a place of business located
at 1801 South Bell Street. Arlington, VA 22202.
5. Defendant Bloomberg L.P. is an employer within the meaning of U.S. Code Title 29 §
152 (2) and employs supervisors with the meaning of U.S. Code Title 29 § 152.
6. Defendants Deputy John Doe, Deputy Mike Maguet, Jeff Moss, Mark Monica, Michael
Onondaga, County Sheriff’s Department, and Stf Services Corporation aided and abetted
Defendant Bloomberg L.P to perpetrate the heinous acts against the Plaintiff.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. Jurisdiction exists in this court since a substantial part of the acts giving rise to the action
were committed within the United States of America, in the State of New York, and
within the State of Virginia venue is properly lodged in the Court. The Plaintiff alleges he
has traveled to Bloomberg L.P. owned headquarters in Arlington, VA at least once during
his employment. Moreover, Jurisdiction is proper because 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C.
and § 1985, 42 U.S.C. § 1986 are a Federal Questions, thus the court has subject matter
jurisdiction over the proceedings. Jurisdiction is proper because at least one of the
Defendants is in Virginia, which meets the first requirement for diversity of jurisdiction.
Venue is proper because a substantial part of the acts giving rise to the action were
committed within the United States of America, in the State of New York in the County
of Onondaga and in the County of Oswego wherein the District Court is located
IV. FACTS
8. Defendant BLOOMBERG L.P. is a registered corporation under the virtue of the laws of
the state of New York.
9. Defendant BLOOMBERG L.P. unconstitutionally allowed policies that violated the 4th
amendment and 14 amendment of the PLAINTIFF.
10. Defendant BLOOMBERG L.P. has a place of business located at 1801 South Bell Street.
Arlington, VA 22202.
11. Defendant BLOOMBERG L.P. is an employer within the meaning of U.S. Code Title 29
§ 152 (2). The term employer includes any person acting as an agent of an employer,
directly, or indirectly
12. Defendant BLOOMBERG L.P. employs supervisors within the meaning of U.S. Code
Title 29 § 152 (11). The term supervisor means any individual having authority, in the
interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall promote etc…”
13. The DEFENDANT BLOOMBERG L.P. had reason to believe that supervisors who were
in violation of civil rights of other individuals not contained herein the complaint.
14. BLOOMBERG L.P. did not take action to rectify the situation causing imminent danger
for individuals in their custody.
15. The PLAINTIFF was arrested in his home by ONONDAGA COUNTY SHERIFF’s
DEPARTMENT on information provided by an ex-coworker employed by an agency
owned by BLOOMBERG L.P., PLAINTIFFS employer.
16. The PLAINTIFF expressed frustration following being escorted off property and being
spit on while at STF Services Corp. The PLAINTIFF filed a complaint with the agents of
BLOOMBERG L.P. and requested accommodations and understanding while the
PLAINTIFF attended Alcoholics Anonymous.
17. The PLAINTIFF was put on a performance review in 2017 because he made a complaint
about hostile behavior and sexual behavior put on by DEFENDANT supervisors and
senior members of the DEFENDANT corporation
18. The PLAINTIFF was denied access to his bonus check in February of 2017. The Human
Resources and Payroll Department told him “His Check Was in Mail,” while others
received their cheques on time.
19. The PLAINTIFF was threatened by a Director employed by agency owned by
BLOOMBERG L.P., which he would be hit by a bus.
20. The PLAINTIFF was arrested in connection to complaint filed by an agent of an agency
owned by BLOOMBERG L.P. The corporation has a pattern of violating 4 th & 14 th
amendment rights of individuals under their direction and control.
21. PLAINTIFF was arrested in his home in violation of the fourth amendment. The arrest
was contrived in a retaliatory action by an agent of the agency owned by BLOOMBERG
L.P. The PLAINTIFF was unlawfully arrested without a warrant by ONONDAGA
COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT inside his confines of the four walls of his home.
22. The PLAINTIFF was targeted and subjected to a hostile work environment and/or
adverse treatment because he had knowledge and information regarding the ongoing
harassment of employees supervised by agents of the agency owned by BLOOMBERG
L.P.
23. The PLAINTIFF was unlawfully targeted under 42 U.S. Code § 12131 and 29 U.S.C. §
794.
24. The PLAINTIFF had his fourth amendment violated during an in-home arrest that took
place without a warrant.
25. The PLAINTIFF at no-time from April 2019 to august of 2019 was subject of an arrest
warrant.
26. The PLAINTIFF was home and unable to hear any indication of police or sheriff office
when the officer knocked on the door
separate occasions without warrants.
27. The PLAINTIFF owned the home and the sole benefit of the lease at all times when his
home was entered.
28. At no time during any arrest was there a search warrant, bench warrant, or arrest warrant
for the plaintiff.
V. CAUSE OF ACTION
1. 42 U.S.C. § 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)
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)]
2. 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)]
3. 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
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)]
4. 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 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 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.
5. Failure to Train and Inadequate Training
"[A] claim of inadequate training will trigger municipal liability only where ‘the
failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights’ of those with
whom municipal employees will come into contact." Walker v. City of New York,
974 F.2d 293, 297 (2d Cir. 1992) (quoting City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378,
388 (1989)).
The deliberate indifference standard is stringent and requires "proof that a
municipal actor disregarded a known or obvious consequence of his action."
Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 61 (2011). The test for liability for a failure
to train employees requires a showing that: (1) the defendant knows to a moral
certainty that her employees will confront a given situation; (2) the situation either
presents the employee with a difficult choice of the sort that training, or
supervision will make less difficult or that there is a history of employees
mishandling the situation; and (3) the wrong choice by the city employee will
frequently cause the deprivation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. [Molina v.
City of Elmira, 12-CV-6310 EAW (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2015)]
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant the following
reliefs:
a. Grant PLAINTIFF declaratory judgment that the acts, policies, practices, and procedures
complained of herein violated Plaintiff’s rights as secured by the New York City
Administrative Code, § 8-101, and the New York State Executive Law § 296 and such
other statutes that provide protection against discrimination; A declaration that the
Plaintiff is eligible for unemployment benefits from the Defendants;
b. Grant PLAINTIFF preliminary and permanent injunctions, prohibiting the
DEFENDANTS, their agents, successors, employees, and those acting in concert with
them and at their direction from engaging in any of the practices set forth above and any
other practice shown to be unlawful or retaliatory or discriminatory on the basis of sex
and age with respect to compensation, terms, conditions and privileges of employment or
from continuing or maintaining a policy, practice, custom or usage of denying, abridging,
withholding, conditioning, limiting or otherwise interfering with the rights of
PLAINTIFF to enjoy equal employment opportunities secured by law; Award the
Plaintiff punitive damages, pre and post judgment interests, costs of this suit and attorney
fees as allowed by law;
c. Compensatory damages for emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, humiliation,
loss of reputation and opportunity to be granted loans and grants from the government.
d. Liquidated damages in an amount to awarded at trial;
e. Punitive damages in an amount to be awarded at trial;
f. Attorney’s fees, costs and disbursements;
g. Interest; and
h. Such additional relief to PLAINTIFF as the Honorable Court deems necessary and
proper.
Respectfully Submitted,
______________________________
Jeffrey Jackson
Insert Phone Number
Insert Email
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 )