Frank Morrison Lawsuit

8/11/2019 Frank Morrison Lawsuit

1/8

1-

2

3

4

q

6

1

8

9

10

1 l

1"2

13

74

15

16

77

1B

19

20

2I

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

}4IDHP[L. JEANES

Clerk

of

ttre

9uperiorCourt

HyCaroen

rdraial'

DeFUB

Date Ul5/2014ise

r.,:59:49

Ibsription

tuflfirt

ssH

cusl4-01104?

-----

CIUIL

ffi

fl}ftNiliT

SABINUS

A. MEGWA, ESQ.

The

Megwa Larv

Office

681

SouthCentral

Avenue

Phoenix,

Arizona

85042

Telephone

602)

243

61

5 1

StateBar Number:OlL266

Attorney for Plaintiff

TNTHE SUPERIORCOURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE

COUNTY OF MARICOPA

FRANKMoRRTSoN,

)

No.

nv2014_0i1A47

)

- t

Plaintifl

)

)

VS.

)

COMPLAINT

)

(Tort/Non-Motor

Vehicle; and42U.S.C.

)

CIry OF PHOENIX, a

public

entity; PHOENIX

)

1983)

POLICE

OFFICERS OHNDOES I-3,

)

individually and

n their

official

capacity

as a

I

City

of PhoenixPolice

Officersand JANE

{

DOES

l-3,

husbands nd

wives;

)

)

Defendants,

)

)

Plaintifl Frank

Morrison

by and through his attorneyundersigned, nd for

his

causeof action

against

Defendants, lleges

s ollorvs:

JT]RISDICTION AND VENU

E

l. Plaintiffbring

this action against

Defendantsor his

42 U.S.C.

$

1983,

or violations

of

his

rights under

he Fourth and

UnitedStatesConstitution.

T0rf;-

l$ffi 3r9.m

ktliFt$ 239ffi54

state

ar."

claims and

pursuant

Fourter:nth

mendmentsof

2. Jurisdiction

nd

venue

are proper

n this court

as all

parties

are residents

f M

County, Arizona,

and

the

events

underlying this

larvsuitoccurred

n Maricopa

County.

- 1 -

i19.CCI


2/8

L

z

3

4

q

A

7

U

Y

-LU

l -1

72

13

L4

15

15

L7

18

Y

20

2L

22

23

24

25

z o

21

2B

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff

incorporates

he allegations

n the

paragraphs

above

as if set

forth

full

herein.

4.

At

all times alleged

herein,Plaintiff

and the individual

det-endants

Phoenix

OfEcers John

Does I

-3)

were

ndividuals

residing n Maricopa

County.

5.

At the time

of the incident

giving

rise

to

this lawsuit,

Del'endants hoenix

Officers John

Does -3

were PoliceOfficers,

agentsand

employees

f the Cityof

Phoenixwho,

the

time

of the events complained

of

herein,

were

acting rvithin

the course

and scope of thei

employment.

PhoenixPolice

Officers

John Does -3 are

suedboth in their official

capacity or

purposes f Plaintiffls state aw claims and in their individual capacity r.r:purposes f PlaintifP

claims

under42 U.S.C.

$

1983.

6. Phoenix

PoliceOfficers

JohnDoes -3 and Jane

Does -3

are

married

couplesand

all

residing

n

Maricopa

County,Arizona.

All of

PhoenixPolice

OfficersJohn -)oes

-3's

allegedacts

rvere

done or

the benefit and

urtherance

of

their respective

marital

community. The

true

namesof

Defendants

hoenixPolice

OfficersJohn

Does1-3

and heir

wives

JaneDoes l-3 areunknorvn

o

Plaintiffat

this

time, and Plaintiffhereby

brings.this

ause

f

action

against aidDefendants

y such

fictitiousname

and

will

ask eave

of this court

o

amend

his complaint o shcrw

heir true names,

capacity

and elationships

o eachother.

7.

Defendant

Ciry

of Phoenix, ncluding all

of

its

departments,

ubdivisions,

agents,

and ernployees

s a

public

municipal

corporation ormed

and designated

as such

pursuant

Title

9 of

the Arizona Revised

Statutes.

As such, he

City is

subject o ci.,'il

suit and may

be

liable

both independently

and vicariously, as

permitted

by

federal and stare

aw, for

the wro

conduct

of

its

Police Officers,

employees,

gents,

districts, and

divisions,sub-divisions,

ncludi

(without

imitation)

members f the

City of PhoenixPolice

Department.

FACTUAL

BASIS

OF CLAIMS

FOR

RELIEF

APPLICABLE

'I-O

ALL

CLAIMS

8. Plaintiff

incorporates the

allegations

in the

paragraphs

above

as if set forth

full

herein.

- 2 -


3/8

I

2

3

"4

5

5

1

B

9

10

11

1,2

13

T4

15

16

I 1

I O

19

20

2L

22

23

24

25

26

21

2B

9. That

on

August26,2013, Plaintiffwas

residing n

a Chirrch

pioperty

ocated

at

302

East

SouthernAvenue

n Phoenix

Arizona

and that early

moming he felt

rveak

so

he decided o

go

outside

and o

get

Some reshair

and rest.

10. As Piaintiffwas outside standing

and eaning on a

pole,

on thc Church

property

where

he

resided

andworked,about

hreePhoenixPoliceOfficers

hereinafter

Phc,enix

Police

Officer J

Does

l-3")drove

up on the church

property

and

drew their

guns

and

all of thri:e

of them

pointed

their

gun

at

Plaintiffand told

him to freeze.

11. Plaintiff

obeyed

he PhoenixPolice

officersJohn

Does -3's

command,

owever

Plaintiffwas

so

scared, hocked

and froze

and as

he

tried to

put

his handsup he

was

unable

o do so

andhe specifically

old the Police

Officers

hat he was

not feelingwell and hat herewas something

wrong with

his health.

12. Without

provocation

and no

probable

cause, he three Phoenir

Police Officers John

Does l-3

then

grabbed

Plaintiff,

pushed

him and slammedhirn into a City of PhoenixPolice

Patrol

Car and old him

to stop es isting rresteven houghdue o

his medicalcond.:ionPlaintiffrvas

to do anything.

13. That

at all time during he ncident,Phoenix

PoliceOffrcersJohnDoes

-3

did not

inform Plaintiffas to why

they

pointed

heir

guns

at him,

grabbed

nd

pushec

him,

nor

did

they ell

him why

they

proceeded

o

handcuffhim

and

forcefully

pushed

him into the oack of the Patrol car.

14. That after

defendants oliceOfficersJohnDoes

-3 handcuffe'd nd

placed

Plaintiffi

the back of their

Patrolcar,a witness old the Police

Officers

o leave

Plaintiif

aloneand hat Plainti

worked

at the church

premises

and hereafter,Phoenix Police

Officers John

toes l-3,

removed

Plaintifffrom

the back

seatof their Patrol car and hen removed he

handcuff.

off

of him and

at that

time,

Plaintiffs

condition has

gotten

worst and

he

was

unable o standand he fell to the

ground

and

then

passed

ut and bssconsciousness.

15.

That after Plaintifffell

to the

ground

and

passed

ut, Defendarrts olice

Officers

John

Does 1-3 abandoned

laintiffrvhile

he was

on the

ground

unconscious

vithout

endering

ny

assistance

nd hey also failed

to call

paramedics

or him.

-3 -


4/8

1

2

3

:

5

6

7

B

9

10

11

1-2

13

14

15

16

L7

18

19

20

Z L

22

23

24

25

z o

21

28

16.

That Defendants

hoenixPolice

OffrcersJohnDoes -3

never

old

Plaintiffthat

he

was

underarrestand

hey abandoned

laintiffon the

ground

without

providir.ig

laintiffany

information

as o their identities

and or incident

report number and they

also

clid

not

tell

him why

theygrabbed

rim,

pushed nd

slammed im against heir

Patrolvehiclenor

riid

they tell

him why

they

handcufled

and

detainedhim.

17.

That

shortlyafter

he PhoenixPoliceOfficersJohnDoes -3 r:bandoned

laintiff

unattended

fter he

passed

ut, some

neighbors

icked

up Plaintiffand movedhim to his

room

and

severalhours

ater ambulancewas called

and

paramedics

ransported

Plaintif

to Banner

Good

Samaritan

Medical Centerdue to the fact that he

suffered

a

stroke.

18. While

at banner

GoodSamaritanHospital.Plaintiffwas diagn,rsed

ith

Acute

lschemic

Stroke

which plaintiffalleges

herein

was

eithercaused r contributed y the actsor

omissions

f

defendants hoenixPolice

OfiicersJohnDoes -3.

19. That as

of

todayAugust

25,2014,

almost

one

year

after

he

ncident, he Phoenix

PoliceDepartment

id not havea Departmental oliceReportof the ncident,however he only

incident

eportavailableat the PhoenixPolice

Department

s IncidentReport

Number 13001521091

which

doesnot describe he ncidentwith

the PhoenixPoliceOfficers,nor di:l it list the rue nameso

Phoenix

PoliceOfficersJohn Does -3 who

rvere

nvolved n the ncident

giving

rise

o

this

lawsuit.

20.

.

That at all times

relevant

o the incident

giving

rise to this lawsuit, Plaintiff Fr

Morrison complied with Phoenix Police

Officers

John Does 1-3's commands

despite

his

physi

limitations

basedon medical

condition.

21. As a direct result

of

the

actsand

or

omissions

PhoenixPolice

OfficersJohn

Does I

-3

PlaintiffFrank

Morrison sustained evere

ermanent

odily

injuries.

FIRST

CLAIM

FOR

RELIEF

(False

Arrest False mprisonment Negligence.

Gross Neqligencg.

Assluli

and Batterv and

Vicarious

Liablitv)

22. Plaintiffincorporates

he'allegationsn

the

paragraphs

boveas

l'set

forth

fully herein.

- 4 -


5/8

1

2

5

4

5

6

'7

B

9

10

1L

I2

L3

T 4

15

76

L ]

1B

19

20

2I

22

23

24

25

26

21

2B

23. That Plaintiffwas

arvfully

outsidehis residence

tanding

nd

earing

on a

pole,

on

the

Church

property

where

he

residedand

rvorked

and was not

committing any crime and was

not

resisting

an arrest mmediately

during and after Phoenix Police

Officers John D.oes

-3

pointed their

gunson him. grabbedhim, pushedhim, handcuffedhim andslammedhim into their patrol car as hey

falsely

arrested,

etained,

nd.imprisoned

laintiff and

violated

his civil rights

causingPlaintiff

to

sustain

damagesn

an amount o

be

proven

at

trial

herein.

24.T\at

Defendants

hoenixPolice

OfficersJohnDoes -3 usedexccssive

nd unreasonable

forcewhen hey

negligently,

ecklessly ndor with

gross

negligence

rabbed

Plaintiff,pushed

im,

handcuffedhim and

slammedhim

into their

patrol

car and further

caused

Plaintiffto

fall to

the

ground

as

hey

forcefully

removed

him

from

the

patrbl

car and rernoved he hirndcuff.s,

ausing

Plaintiffto

sustain

evere odily injuriesand

damages

ll in an ambunt o

be

proven

at trial

herein.

25.

.

That

Defendants

hoenixPolice

Officers

JohnDoes -3

willfu.ly,

unlawfully and

harmfully and without

lawful

necessity

assaultedPlaintiffcausing

him to sust;rin

severebodily

injuriesand

damages.

26. That

Defendants

hoenixPoliceOfficers

John

Does -3

willfuity,

unlarvfully

and

harmfultyand abandoned

laintiffwithout

getting

him

medicalassistanceausingPlaintiff

to

sustain

severe odily

injuries

and

damages.

27- Defendants

hoenixPolice OfficersJohn Does 1-3

acteddoii'or failed to

act,

despite

knowing or having

reason o know that Plaintiff

Frank Morrison

was

or

rvould

be inappropriatell

subjectedo an

unreasonable

isk of serious

odily injury as

a

result

of thei r actionsand/or

nactions.

28. Defendants

hoenixPoliceOffrcers

John Does -3

subjected

'laintiffFrank

Morrison

to reckless

and excessive

orce,

and/or failed to intervene o

prevent

he

use

ofsuch force, as alleged

above.

29. That a reasonableperson under the same circumstances vould have known thal

Plaintiffwas

nappropriately

ubjectedo the useof

unreasonable

nd

unjustii:ed

orce.

30. At all

times

materialhereto,Defendants hoenixPolice

OfficersJohn Does l-3

were

acting

within

the course

and

scopeof their employment

with

defendant

City

of Phoenix

and

as

such,

Defendant

City of

Phoenix s vicariously iable

for their

acts or omissions

hat caused

njury and

-5 -


6/8

1

2

3

I

5

6

1

I

9

10

11

L2

13

L4

15

16

77

18

" t 9

20

2L

22

23

24

25

26

27

2B

damages

o Plaintiff.

31. That Defendants hoenixPolice

OfficersJohn Does

l-3

werc

reckless

and"/or

negligent

n the handling,

reatment

and

care

of

PlaintiffFrank

Morrison.

32. Defendants

Phoenix Police

Officers John

Does 1-3's brea::hes f

their

duties,

outlined

above,constitute

ross

negligence, hich was

he

proximatecause,rfserious

bodily

injuri

sustained

y

Plaintiff-

33.

As

a direct

and

proximate

esult of

DefendantsPhoenix

Police

Officers

3's wrongful

conduct,

Plaintiff

sustained everebodily injuries

and

damages n an

proven

at

trial.

John Does I

amount to

SECOND CLAIM

FOR

RELIEF

Ontentional

and

Neelieent nfliction

of Severe

Emotioqat

Distre$)

33. Plaintiffrefers o and epleads achand every

allegation

ontainedn above

Paragraphs

f

this

Complaint,

and

by

this reference, ncorporates

ame

hereir,"and makeseacha

part

hereof.

34. Thatas a directandproximate esultof Defendants hoenixP.rliceOfficersJohn

l-3's actsand

or omissions,

laintiffsustained

evere motional

uffering,

hr miliation,mental

distress, tress,anguish,

and

anxiety resulting

from the outrageous nd

unprir

ileged

conductof the

Defendants

nd eachof them

donewith

the ntent o cause uch njury

and

or

reckless

isregard f

the

probability

of

causing

uch njury to

Plaintifl all

in

an amount o

be

proven

at trial

herein.

THIRD

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Phoenlx

Police Officers

John Does

l-3

Violated

Plaintiff

Frank

Morrison's

Rights Under

the Fourth

Amendment

and 42 U.S.C.

S

1983 o be Free From

the Unreasonable

Use of

Force)

35. Plaintiff incorporates

he

allegations n the

iaragraphs

abcve as if

set

forth full

herein.

36. At no time rvere

Phoenix Police

Offrcers John Does

l-3 threatened,

n any

way,

-6 -


7/8

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Y

10

i_1

L2

13

14

15

16

1_'l

18

I9

20

2L

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PlaintiffFrank

Morrison. I

37. PlaintiffFrank

Morrison

was outsidehis residence

tanding nd eaning

on

a

pole,

on

I

the

Church

property

where

he

residedand worked,when hreePhoenix

Policc

OfficersJohnDoes -31

drove up on the church property and drerv heir gunsand all of three of them pointed

heir

gun

at

I

Plaintiffand told

him to freeze

and thereafter, hey

grabbed

him,

pushed

him.

slammed

him and

I

handcuffed

him for no lawful

reason.

38. That at no

point

n time

did Defendants hoenixPoticeOffict:rs

John

Does -3 infond

Plaintiff Frank

Morrison that he was

under arrestand

why.

39-

Phoenix

PoliceOfficer John Does -3's actsor

omission

n

assaulting laintiff bl

pointing

heir

grrns

at him,

grabbing

him, handcuffrng.him

nd forccfully

pushing

and slarnrning il

on their Patrol vehicle

and restraininghis

movement

and freedom, alsell detainingand arrestin$

I

him, and ailing to

provide

him

medical

assistance ere all donewithout

pr,rbable

ause n

violatior{

I

of

PlaintifPs

ConstitutionalRights,

ncluding my 4thand l4d

Amendment

{ights

n

violation

of

+y'

I

u.s.c.

1e83.

I

40. For

the reasons

et

forth above,DefendantsPhoenix

Police Officers

John

Does

I

-31

I

usedexcessiveorceagainst

Plaintiff

in violation

of FrankMorrison'sconsti:utional ights.

I

l

41. The.natureof theseactionsare so extremeand outrageouslat an award of punitiv{

I

damages

s warranted

gainstDefendants hoenixPolice

OfficersJohn Does -3.

I

I

42. As a direct and

proximate

esult

of Defendants hoenixPolice

Officers

John

Does

lJ

3's rvrongfulconduct,PlaintiffFrank

Morrison has

suffereddamages

n

an

amount o be

prorr"n

u{

trial.

I

I

ruRYTRIAL I

I

Plaintiff

hereby

demandsa

trial

by

j,t.y.

I

I

I

I

l

I

I

I

_ 1 _

|

I

I

I


8/8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

B

9

10

11

12

13

I 4

15

16

1.'l

1B

19

20

2L

22

23

24

25

26

27.

2B

PRAYERFOR

RELIEF

WHEREFORE,

laintiffprays

or

damagesorjudgment

gainst efendants

s ollows:

a) Generaldamagesn an amountto be provenat trial, as o the causes f action,

and heories

of

relief

alleged

herein;

Punitive

damages n

an

amount deemed

Phoenix

police

officers John Does

1-3 as

of relief

alleged

herein;

just

and

reasonablc

gainst he

Defendant

to the causes

f actron, laims,

and

b)

c)

d)

e)

0

Costs

and attomeys'

eesagainst he

Defendants s o

the cau:esof action,claims,

theoriesof relief

alleged

hereinunder

he

Constitutionand lirws

of

the United

Sta

pursuant

o 42

U.S.C.

S

1988;

The costsof litigation;

All

remedies

rovided

by

42

U.S.C.

g

1983;and

'Such

other and

further relief which may

seem

just

an

Frank Morrison Lawsuit

Documents

Transcript of Frank Morrison Lawsuit