Bruno vs. police

7/29/2019 Bruno vs. police

1/25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

.GIUSEPPE BRUNO : Civil Action No. _____________

Plaintiff, ::

vs. ::

CITY OF NEW HAVEN; OFFICER :ANTHONY HOLLOWMAN, in his :individual and official capacities; TOWN :OF EAST HAVEN; OFFICER DANIEL :GILHALY, in his individual and official :capacities; OFFICER DENNIS :SPAULDING, in his individual and :official capacities; SERGEANT JOHN :MILLER, in his individual and official :capacities; LIEUTENANT HENRY :BUTLER, in his individual and official :

capacities. :Defendants. : April 14, 2011

AMENDED COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff, Giuseppe Bruno, through his attorneys, brings this civil

action for violations of his rights secured and protected by the Civil Rights Act of

1871 (42 U.S.C. 1983), the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution, Article First 7, 8, and 9 of the Connecticut Constitution,

Case 3:11-cv-00599-SRU Document 1 Filed 04/15/11 Page 1 of 25


2/25

2

and under the laws of the State of Connecticut, for which he seeks

compensatory and punitive damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, as well

as attorneys fees and costs.

JURISDICTION

1. Jurisdiction in this matter is premised on 28 U.S.C. 1331, in that this

District Court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

2. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs state law

claims in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1367.

VENUE

3. Venue in the District of Connecticut is proper in accordance with 28

U.S.C. 1391, in that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving

rise to the claim occurred in this judicial district.

4. The Plaintiff, Giuseppe Bruno (hereinafter, the Plaintiff) is a resident of

the Town of Branford, Connecticut.



3/25

3

5. Upon information and belief, the Defendant City of New Haven, is and

was at all times relevant hereto a municipal corporation, incorporated

and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut.

6. Upon information and belief, the Defendant Office Anthony Hollowman,

is and was at all times relevant hereto an officer with the New Haven

Police Department, he is being named in his individual and official

capacity, and was at all times relevant hereto acting under the color of

law during the course of and within the scope of his employment with the

City of New Haven and/or the New Haven Police Department.

7. Upon information and belief, the Defendant Town of East Haven, is and

was at all times relevant hereto a municipal corporation, incorporated

and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut.

8. Upon information and belief, the Defendant Officer Gilhaly, is and was at

all times relevant hereto an officer with the East Haven Police

Department, he is being named in his individual and official capacity, and

was at all times relevant hereto acting under the color of law during the



4/25

4

course of and within the scope of his employment with the Town of East

Haven and/or the East Haven Police Department.

9. Upon information and belief, the Defendant Office Spaulding, is and was

at all times relevant hereto an officer with the East Haven Police

Department, he is being named in his individual and official capacity, and

was at all times relevant hereto acting under the color of law during the



10. Upon information and belief, the Defendant Sergeant Miller, is and was

at all times relevant hereto a sergeant of the East Haven Police

Department, being named in his individual and official capacity, and was

at all times relevant hereto acting under the color of law during the



11. Upon information and belief, the Defendant Lieutenant Henry Butler, is

and was at all times relevant hereto a lieutenant of the East Haven

Police Department, being named in his individual and official capacity,



5/25

5

and was at all times relevant hereto acting under the color of law during

the course of and within the scope of his employment with the Town of

East Haven and/or the East Haven Police Department.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

12. On or about April 15, 2009, at or about 8:00 p.m., the Plaintiff was

operating a Ford Contour motor vehicle traveling westbound on Main

Street in East Haven, Connecticut.

13. On or about said date at or about said time, the Plaintiff exited the Ford

Contour motor vehicle and entered Trolley Square Plaza at the

intersection of Main Street and Hemingway Avenue in East Haven,

Connecticut.

14. On or about said date at or about said time, Defendant Officer

Hollowman was present at Trolley Square Plaza at the intersection of

Main Street and Hemingway Avenue in East Haven, Connecticut.

15. On or about said date at or about said time, Defendant Officer Gilhaly

was present at Trolley Square Plaza at the intersection of Main Street

and Hemingway Avenue in East Haven, Connecticut.



6/25

6

16. On or about said date at or about said time, Defendant Officer Spaulding



17. On or about said date at or about said time, Defendant Sergeant Miller



18. On or about said date at or about said time, Defendant Lieutenant Butler



19. Upon entering Trolley Plaza the Defendants violently tackled the Plaintiff

to the ground.

20. Upon being tackled to the ground, the Plaintiff put his arms over his head

and exclaimed, Im done. Im having a heart attack.

21. The Defendants then attacked him without cause and repeatedly struck

the Plaintiffs head and upper body.

22. The Defendants also tasered the Plaintiff with an electroshock weapon

and continued to viciously assault him.



7/25

7

23. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the City of New

Haven, Officer Hollowman, the Town of East Haven, Officer Gilhaly,

Officer Spaulding, Sergeant Miller and Lieutenant Butler, the Plaintiff has

suffered personal injuries including but not limited to a injuries to his

head, jaw, neck, shoulder, facial lacerations, fractured clavicle and left

eye erythema. Some of these injuries are permanent in nature.

FIRST COUNT Officer Hollowman 42 U.S.C. 1983 / Fourth andFourteenth Amendments to the United State Constitution; Article First7, 8, and 9 of the Connecticut Constitution

1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Preliminary

Statement are hereby reincorporated and realleged as if fully restated

herein as paragraphs 1 through 23 of the First Count.

24. Officer Hollowman violated the Plaintiffs rights secured and protected by

the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution, Article First 7, 8, and 9 of the Connecticut Constitution, in

one or more of the following ways:

a. in using excessive force upon the Plaintiff.



8/25

8

25. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant Officer

Hollowman, the Plaintiff has suffered property damage, loss of gainful

employment, loss of earning capacity, personal injuries, emotional

distress, some of which injuries are permanent in nature.

SECOND COUNT Officer Hollowman in Common Law



herein as paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Second Count.

24. Officer Hollowman violated the Plaintiffs common law rights in one or

more of the following ways:

a. in that Officer Hollowman was negligent in conducting himself in

that he should have been aware of a substantial an unjustifiable

risk that his conduct would violate the Plaintiffs rights;

b. in that Officer Hollowman was reckless in conducting himself in

that he consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk

that his actions would violate the Plaintiffs rights;



9/25

9

c. in that Officer Hollowman assaulted and/or battered the Plaintiff in

that his conduct caused harmful or offensive contact with the

Plaintiff, and that immediately before the battery his conduct

caused imminent apprehension of harmful or offensive contact;

d. in that Officer Hollowman negligently inflicted emotional distress

upon the Plaintiff in that he should have realized that his conduct

involved an unreasonable risk of causing emotional distress and

that distress, might result in illness or bodily harm, further the fear

or distress experienced by the Plaintiff was reasonable in light of

the conduct; and/or

e. in that Officer Hollowman intentionally inflicted emotional distress

upon the Plaintiff in that he (1) intended to inflict emotional

distress upon the Plaintiff or that he knew or should have known

that emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct; (2) that

his conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) that his conduct was

the cause of the Plaintiff's distress; and (4) that the emotional

distress sustained by the Plaintiff was severe.



10/25

10


Hollowman, the Plaintiff has suffered property damage, loss of gainful



THIRD COUNT Officer Gilhaly 42 U.S.C. 1983 / Fourth and FourteenthAmendments to the United State Constitution; Article First 7, 8, and 9 of

the Connecticut Constitution




24. Officer Gilhaly violated the Plaintiffs rights secured and protected by the

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,

Article First 7, 8, and 9 of the Connecticut Constitution, in one or more

of the following ways:



Gilhaly, the Plaintiff has suffered property damage, loss of gainful



11/25

11



FOURTH COUNT Officer Gilhaly in Common Law




24. Officer Gilhaly violated the Plaintiffs common law rights in one or more


a. in that Officer Gilhaly was negligent in conducting himself in that

he should have been aware of a substantial an unjustifiable risk

that his conduct would violate the Plaintiffs rights;

b. in that Officer Gilhaly was reckless in conducting himself in that he

consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that

his actions would violate the Plaintiffs rights;

c. in that Officer Gilhaly assaulted and/or battered the Plaintiff in that

his conduct caused harmful or offensive contact with the Plaintiff,



12/25

12

and that immediately before the battery his conduct caused

imminent apprehension of harmful or offensive contact;

d. in that Officer Gilhaly negligently inflicted emotional distress upon

the Plaintiff in that he should have realized that his conduct




the conduct; and/or

e. in that Officer Gilhaly intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon

the Plaintiff in that he (1) intended to inflict emotional distress

upon the Plaintiff or that he knew or should have known that

emotional distress was the likely result of his conduct; (2) that his

conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) that his conduct was




Gilhaly, the Plaintiff has suffered property damage, loss of gainful



13/25

13



FIFTH COUNT Officer Spaulding 42 U.S.C. 1983 / Fourth andFourteenth Amendments to the United State Constitution; Article First7, 8, and 9 of the Connecticut Constitution




24. Officer Spaulding violated the Plaintiffs rights secured and protected by






Spaulding, the Plaintiff has suffered property damage, loss of gainful





14/25

14

SIXTH COUNT Officer Spaulding in Common Law




24. Officer Spaulding violated the Plaintiffs common law rights in one or


a. in that Officer Spaulding was negligent in conducting himself in



b. in that Officer Spaulding was reckless in conducting himself in that

he consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that


c. in that Officer Spaulding assaulted and/or battered the Plaintiff in






15/25

15

d. in that Officer Spaulding negligently inflicted emotional distress





the conduct; and/or

e. in that Officer Spaulding intentionally inflicted emotional distress








Spaulding, the Plaintiff has suffered property damage, loss of gainful





16/25

16

SEVENTH COUNT Sergeant Miller 42 U.S.C. 1983 / Fourth andFourteenth Amendments to the United State Constitution; Article First7, 8, and 9 of the Connecticut Constitution




24. Sergeant Millerviolated the Plaintiffs rights secured and protected by the

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,

Article First 7, 8, and 9 of the Connecticut Constitution, in one or more



25. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendant

Sergeant Miller, the Plaintiff has suffered property damage, loss of

gainful employment, loss of earning capacity, personal injuries,

emotional distress, some of which injuries are permanent in nature.



17/25

17

EIGHTH COUNT Sergeant Miller in Common Law




24. Sergeant Miller violated the Plaintiffs common law rights in one or more


a. in that Sergeant Miller was negligent in conducting himself in that

he should have been aware of a substantial an unjustifiable risk

that his conduct would violate the Plaintiffs rights;

b. in that Sergeant Miller was reckless in conducting himself in that



c. in that Sergeant Miller assaulted and/or battered the Plaintiff in






18/25

18

d. in that Sergeant Miller negligently inflicted emotional distress upon

the Plaintiff in that he should have realized that his conduct




the conduct; and/or

e. in that Sergeant Miller intentionally inflicted emotional distress








Sergeant Miller, the Plaintiff has suffered property damage, loss of





19/25

19

NINTH COUNT Lieutenant Butler 42 U.S.C. 1983 / Fourth andFourteenth Amendments to the United State Constitution; Article First7, 8, and 9 of the Connecticut Constitution




24. Lieutenant Butlerviolated the Plaintiffs rights secured and protected by






Lieutenant Butler, the Plaintiff has suffered property damage, loss of





20/25

20

TENTH COUNT Lieutenant Butler in Common Law




24. Lieutenant Butlerviolated the Plaintiffs common law rights in one or


a. in that Lieutenant Butler was negligent in conducting himself in



b. in that Lieutenant Butler was reckless in conducting himself in that



c. in that Lieutenant Butler assaulted and/or battered the Plaintiff in






21/25

21

d. in that Lieutenant Butler negligently inflicted emotional distress





the conduct; and/or

e. in that Lieutenant Butler intentionally inflicted emotional distress








Lieutenant Butler, the Plaintiff has suffered property damage, loss of





22/25

22

ELEVENTH COUNT City of New Haven - Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-557n;Conn. Gen. Stat. 7-465



herein as paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Tenth Count.

24. The City of New Haven is liable to the Plaintiff in accordance with one or

more of the following statutes:

a. Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-557n in that a municipal employee(s)

negligence caused damage to the Plaintiff, who was at all times

relevant hereto an identifiable victim that was subjected to

immanent harm; and/or

b. Conn Gen. Stat. 7-465 in that the municipality is required to

indemnify municipal employee(s) who cause physical injury and/or

violate an individuals civil rights.

25. Officer Hollowman is a municipal employee of the City of New Haven.

26. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the municipal

employee of the City of New Haven, the Plaintiff has suffered property

damage, unjust prosecution, loss of gainful employment, loss of earning



23/25

23

capacity, personal injuries, and emotional distress. Some of these

injuries are permanent in nature.

TWELFTH COUNT Town of East Haven - Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-557n;Conn. Gen. Stat. 7-465



herein as paragraphs 1 through 23 of the Tenth Count.

24. The Town of East Haven is liable to the Plaintiff in accordance with one

or more of the following statutes:

a. Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-557n in that a municipal employee(s)

negligence caused damage to the Plaintiff, who was at all times

relevant hereto an identifiable victim that was subjected to

immanent harm; and/or

b. Conn Gen. Stat. 7-465 in that the municipality is required to

indemnify municipal employee(s) who cause physical injury and/or

violate an individuals civil rights.

25. Officer Gilhaly, Officer Spaulding, Sergeant Miller, and Lieutenant Butler

are all municipal employees of the Town of East Haven.



24/25

24

26. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the municipal

employee of the Town of East Haven, the Plaintiff has suffered property

damage, unjust prosecution, loss of gainful employment, loss of earning

capacity, personal injuries, and emotional distress. Some of these

injuries are permanent in nature.

JURY DEMAND

The plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial.



25/25

25

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands:

1. A trial by a jury of his peers;

2. Punitive damages;

3. Compensatory damages;

4. Attorneys fees and costs;

5. Injunctive relief;

6. Any and all other equitable relief in accordance with the claims of the

Plaintiff, as the Court deems appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

\s\ ct28054 .

Patrick T. Battersby, Jr. (ct 28054)Fazzano & Tomasiewicz, LLC96 Oak StreetHartford, CT 06106Phone: (860) 231-7766Fax: (860) [email protected]


Bruno vs. police

Documents