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 Issues for Determination
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. Equal rights under the law
2. Deprivation of Rights
3. Unlawful intrusion.
4. False arrest.
5. Warrantless search
The Law in Relation to the Facts
42 U.S. Code § 1981 provides for equal rights under the law. It 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 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
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
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.”
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
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
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.”
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).
42 U.S.C. § 1983 also supports the Plaintiff’s claim of a warrantless search.
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. 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
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
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)]. Thus, in the present case, the police officers
were proceeding based on false statements hence a probable cause that was inadequate to justify
a warrantless search.
Moreover, 42 U.S.C. § 1985 expressly 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.”
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
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
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.
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 – 7
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 )