Case 5:15-cv-00474-OLG Document 1 Filed 06/08/15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION THOMAS MATHIEU § § v § § CIVIL ACTION NO: 5:15-cv-474 CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS; § JURY TRIAL JUAN CAMPACOS, Individually; and § PATRICK THOMAS, Individually § PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: NOW COMES Plaintiff, Thomas Mathieu, filing this, his Plaintiff's Original Complaint, and bringing this action against the City of San Antonio, Texas, Juan Campacos, Individually, and Patrick Thomas, Individually, as said Defendants, jointly and severally, have denied Plaintiff's rights ‘guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America and/or the State of Texas. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) (civil rights). This court also has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C, § 1367 to hear the state claims that will be set forth in this complaint. Venue is proper in the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, as this is the district where the claim arose in accordance to 29 U.S.C.§ 1391(b). PARTIES 2, Plaintiff'Thomas Mathieu (hereinafter “Mr. Mathieu” and/or Plaintiff”), who brings this suit in his own behalf, is a resident of Bexar County, Texas, 3. Defendant City of San Antonio, Texas, (hereinafter “City”), is a political subdivision of the State of Texas and can be served with summons upon City of San Antonio, Texas, Mayor JulianCase 5:15-cv-00474-OLG Document 1 Filed 06/08/15 Page 2 of 11 Castro, 3" Floor, City Hall, 100 S. Flores St., San Antonio, Texas 78205. 4. Defendant Juan Campacos (hereinafter “Campacos”) was, at all times material to this suit, an officer employed by the San Antonio Police Department. Each of the acts complained of herein arise from the conduct of Defendant while acting under color of state law, and was committed within the scope of his employment and authority with the San Antonio Police Department, Defendant ‘may be served with summons at his place of employment, SAN ANTONIO POLICE DEPARTMENT, 214 E. Nueva St., San Antonio, Texas 78217. 5. Defendant Patrick Thomas (hereinafter “Thomas”) was, at all times material to this suit, an officer employed by the San Antonio Police Department. Each of the acts complained of herein arise from the conduct of Defendant while acting under color of state law, and was committed within the scope of his employment and authority with the San Antonio Police Department. Defendant nay be served with summons at his place of employment, SAN ANTONIO POLICE DEPARTMENT, 214 E, Nueva St,, San Antonio, Texas 78217. EACTS 6 Onorabout January 13,2014, Mr. Mathieu was leaving the hospital where his wife had just had surgery. Mr. Mathieu, a diabetic, and he left the hospital after his wife had been admitted into herroom. Upon leaving, Mr. Mathieu began to drive on his way home. While driving, Mr. Mathieu began to feel ill and deci led to pull to the side of the road on Evers and 410. Mr. Mathieu put his car in park, thinking he was safe and surely someone would see him and come help. Mr. Mathieu sat there with his door unlocked, is hands firmly on the wheel - and at some point lost consciousness. During this period, Defendant Campacos and Defendant Thomas arrived at the scene. Defendant Campacos approached Mr. Mathieu’s vehicle and opened the unlocked door, and without asking what was wrong told Mr. Mathieu to get out or he is going to pull him out. Mr. Mathieu 2Case 5:15-cv-00474-OLG Document 1 Filed 06/08/15 Page 3 of 11 confused and awakening from a diabetic episode was not thinking clearly. Defendant Campacos then attempted to pull Mr. Mathieu from the vehicle, Mr. Mathieu was seared and confused and pulled away from Defendant Campacos. Defendant Thomas came to the driver’s side and began assisting Defendant Campacos in attempting to remove Mr. Mathieu. Defendant Campacos began punching Mr. Mathieu in the face repeatedly. Finally Defendants Campacos and Thomas forcibly removed Mr, Mathieu from the vehicle and threw him face down on the ground. Mr Mathieu still, confused and not sure what was occurring, tured over. Defendants Campacos and Thomas began telling Mr. Mathieu “turn over” and Officer Campacos kept repeating “I don’t want to hit you no more.” Defendant Campacos once again began striking Mr. Mathieu numerous times and was finally able to tun him over. Once Defendants Campacos and Thomas forcibly turned Mr. Mathieu face down while he was handcuffed behind his back they asked ifhe wanted to sit up. All this time ‘Mr. Mathieu is pleading “don’t hurt me anymore.” Defendant Campacos then asked Mr. Mathieu “how much have you had to drink tonight” to which Mr. Mathieu replied “nothing.” Defendant ‘Campacos kept asking Mr. Mathieu “how much did you have to drink” and when he replied nothing Defendant Campacos said “are you sure then why were you asleep with the car running.” Defendant ‘Campacos then asked Mr. Mathieu “what is your name,” to which Defendant Thomas replied “his driver's license is in the front seat.” Defendant Campacos approached the vehicle and returned and at that time finally asked Mr. Mathieu are you diabetic?” To which Mr. Mathieu replied yes. Defendant Campacos requested EMS to the scene and was informed that Mr. Mathieu's blood sugar was extremely low. Atall times Mr. Mathieu, an elderly diabetic man was having a diabetic episode uring the incident 7. As aresult of Defendants Campacos and Thomas’ actions, Mr. Mathieu sustained serious injuries to his person, including but not limited to, trauma to his chest, abdomen and shoulder, 3Case 5:15-cv-00474-OLG Document 1 Filed 06/08/15 Page 4 of 11 swelling and numerous bruises and lacerations to his head, back, chest, abdomen, and extremities, and two fractured ribs. 8. As it applies to Plaintiff's federal causes of action, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that in committing said acts and/or omissions, the individual Defendants were the agent and/or employee of Defendant City and was acting under color of state law. 9, Moreover, the acts of Defendants Campacos and Thomas amount to an excessive and/or unnecessary use of force, Said excessive/unnecessary use of force is objectively unreasonable as no reasonable police officer and/or law enforcement officer given the same or similar circumstances would have initiated such a brutal and life threatening attack on any person in the position of Mr.Mathieu, who was unaware of his actions due to a diabetic epsisode, was seized and in the position of Mr. Mathieu, who was in custody and/or control of law enforcement. 10. Furthermore, said excessive force committed against Plaintiff by Defendants Campacos and ‘Thomas was not performed in good faith to maintain or restore discipline, but was performed maliciously, intentionally, and sadistically for the very purpose of punishing and causing harm to Plaintiff. W As it applies to Plaintiff's federal causes of action, Defendant City and/or the San Antonio Police Department authorized and/or ratified the wrongful and tortious acts and/or omissions described herein. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEI $1983 12, The allegations contained in Paragraphs 6 through 11 are herein incorporated by reference, the same as if fully set forth verbatim for any and all purposes of this pleading, 13. The Civil Rights of 1871, now codified as 42 U.S.C.S. §1983 as federal law provides: 4Case 5:15-cv-00474-OLG Document 1 Filed 06/08/15 Page 5 of 11 "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any state or tertitory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or any other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any laws, 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." 42 U.S.C.S. §1983. 14, Thestateaction requirement forstanding under 42 U.S.C.S. §1983 has more commonly been referred to as "color of state law," from the statute itself. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon allege that in committing said acts and/or omissions, Defendants were the agent and employee of each other Defendant and was acting within such agency and employment and that each Defendant was acting under color of state law. 15, 42. U.S.C. § 1983 requires that the conduct complained of must have deprived the person, of some privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. As such, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, jointly and/or severally deprived him of his Fourth Amendment rights and those rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution incorporated and applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendants violated this provision by the following actions, inier alia, and/or omissions: a) by using excessive force in the course of Defendant’s custody of Plaintiff, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and its "reasonableness" standard. Said actions resulted directly and only from the use of force that was clearly excessive to the need, and the excessiveness of which was objectively unreasonable. 16. § 1983 - Excessive Force. Plaintiff pleads that Defendants used excessive force and/or deadly force in the course of the officer's supposed arrest, and/or investigatory stop, and/or other "seizure" of fice citizens, such as Plaintiff, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and its "reasonableness" standard. Plaintifftherefore pleads that he was unlawfully assaulted, and physicallyCase 5:15-cv-00474-OLG Document 1 Filed 06/08/15 Page 6 of 11 beaten by Defendants Campacos and Thomas. Said actions resulted directly and only from the use of force that was clearly excessive to the need, and the excessiveness of which was objectively ‘unreasonable. 17. Such actions and/or omissions are “objectively unreasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting Plaintiff without regard to his underlying intent or motivation. Clearly, careful attention to the facts and circumstances of this particular case demonstrates the ‘unreasonableness of said actions. For these reasons, itis objectively unreasonable for Defendants ‘Campacos and Thomas to beat Plaintiff. 18. § 1983 - Municipal liability. It is also well-established that counties are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional torts that are in compliance with the county's customs, practices, policies or procedures. A city is liable for constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to governmental custom even though such custom has not received formal approval through the body's official decision making channels. In this case, Defendant City is liable because it sanctioned the custom, practice and/or policy or procedure of illegal seizures, ex‘ sive force. Defendants Campacos and Thomas’ actions were a customary practice and/or policy or procedure that was sanctioned by Defendant City out of which deprived Plaintiff of his civil rights by statute and by both the Texas and United States Constitutions. Liability for Defendant City is established under § 1983. because the assault, beating, and severe injury to citizens, with little or no justification, is a persistent, widespread practice of city employees -- namely police officers -- that, although not authorized by officially adopted policy, is so common and well settled as to constitute a custom that fairly represents official county policy, Defendant City’s actual or constructive knowledge of this practice, custom, and/or policy or procedure and of numerous prior incidents of police officers using excessive force upon citizens establishes custom and accession to that custom by the their policy 6Case 5:15-cv-00474-OLG Document 1 Filed 06/08/15 Page 7 of 11 makers. Defendant City’s unspoken policy of assaulting citizens is a decision thatreflects deliberate indifference to the risk that a violation of a particular constitutional or statutory rights will follow the decision. In the alternative, Defendant City is liable under §1983 for failure to adopt a policy precluding officers from beating/assaulting citizens because such failure to adopt sucha policy is one of intentional choice. 19, Moreover, Defendant City is liable for inadequate training of police officers under §1983. Liability attaches to Defendant City because its failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of the persons with whom these officers come in contact. In particular, Plaintiff alleges ‘that the training program in relation to the tasks the particular officer must perform is inadequate in the respect that the program fails to teach new police persons that beating and/or using excessive force against citizens violates citizens’ constitutional rights and/or in failing to recognize serious medical issues. As such, the deficiency in training actually caused Defendants Campacos and Thomas to violate Plaintiff's constitutional rights. 20. $1983 - Qualified Good Faith Immunity. Qualified good faith immunity stands for the proposition that even though the civil rights of a complainant may have been violated, ifthe officer engaged in the conduet in good faith there is no liability for that individual, ‘The standard by which an officer's entitlement to good faith qualified immunity is objective not subjective. Defendants Campacos and Thomas’ actions judged by such objective standard protects, “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” The determination of objective reasonableness must be based on a version of the facts most favorable to the Plaintiff. To the extent that credibility questions exist, a fact-finder continues to be necessary. In the instant case, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Campacos and Thomas are not entitled to claim “qualified good faith immunity.” Importantly, Defendants Campacos and Thomas never had a good faith belief in their 7Case 5:15-cv-00474-OLG Document 1 Filed 06/08/15 Page 8 of 11 conduct because they acted in a manner demonstrating that they were plainly incompetent and knowingly violated Plaintiff's civil rights. When the facts are taken in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, itis clear that Plaintiff was merely in a diabetic “coma” and had pulled over on the side of the road when he was assaulted by Defendants Campacos and Thomas simply because he could not answer them. Any reason given by Defendants Campacos and Thomas for their unlawful actions and/or omissions does not warrant the application of qualified good faith immunity because they were never in danger nor were any other persons in the vicinity in danger of Plaintiff. Plaintiff has asserted violations of his constitutional rights, and these rights were clearly established at the time of Defendant Campacos and Thomas” actions. Moreover, Defendants Campacos and Thomas’ actions were objectively unreasonable in the sense that they knew or reasonably should have known that the actions taken within their authority or responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of Plaintiff. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIE] ‘Texas - - Assault & Battery 21. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 6 through 1 are herein incorporated by reference, the same as if fully set forth verbatim for any and all Purposes of this pleading. Furthermore, the claims brought by Plaintiff under this section only apply to Defendants Campacos and Thomas, Any reference to “Defendants” in this section only applies to Defendants Campacos and Thomas and does not include Defendant City, 22, Asa pendent state cause of action, at all times material and relevant herein, Defendants Campacos and Thomas, by acts and/or omissions and under color of state law did then and there by acts and/or omissions, intentionally, knowingly and/or recklessly caused severe personal injury to Plaintiff through uncontested physical contact with Plaintiff. 23. Under Texas law, the cause of action for excessive force is: ‘simply one for assault and battery. 8Case 5:15-cv-00474-OLG Document 1 Filed 06/08/15 Page 9 of 11 Consequently, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Campacos and Thomas committed an assault upon hhim when they intentionally, knowingly, and/or recklessly beat, kicked and tazed Plaintiff. At no time Plaintiff consent. Said assaultive conduct of Defendants Campacos and ‘Thomas was committed intentionally, knowingly, and/or recklessly and was the proximate cause of bodily and emotional injuries to Plaintiff. Said injuries were the direct and immediate consequence of Defendants Campacos and Thomas’ wrongful act and a natural and direct result of said assault, 24, Atno time was Defendants Campacos and Thomas privileged to take the action as force was not necessary. Moreover, Defendants Campacos and Thomas’ assault and battery of Plaintiff was not objectively reasonable when balancing the amount of force used against the need for the force. Put differently, at no time was Plaintiff fleeing or about to flee, nor was anyone (including Defendants Campacos and Thomas) ever in danger. DAMAGES 25. _Asaresult ofthe foregoing unlawful and wrongful acts of Defendants, jointly and severally, Plaintiff has been caused to suffer general damages which include but are not ed to the following: both physical and emotional injury, including but not limited to - - pain and suffering, ‘emotional and mental distress, and personal humiliation and shock, along with severe emotional distress. 26. Said injuries have caused Plaintiffto incur special damages which include butare not limited to: past medical expenses, lost income, lost wages and the occurrence of attomeys’ fees associated with criminal charges. 27. Pursuant to the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 1988, a prevailing Party in a § 1983 case is entitled to recover his attorney's fees. Hence, Plaintiff further prays for all costs and attorney fees associated with bringing the present case to trial, 9