On September 8th, 2005, defendants, acting under color of State law in an official capacity, and in violation of federal and state law, wrongfully trespassed on premises legally occupied by plaintiff at [address withheld], and committed the following additional torts against plaintiff, her person and her property:
a) Assault and battery, including using excessive force under the circumstances;
b) False imprisonment by illegally taking plaintiff into custody and transporting her to South Carolina, from which she did not return to New Orleans until October 13th, 2005;
c) Intentional infliction of emotional distress; and
d) Conversion of legally owned property, to wit, a chrome 32 caliber Colt Revolver, with a pearl handle, which has not been returned to plaintiff.
By virtue of having committed the above-identified torts against plaintiff and her property, defendents violated rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to plaintiff under the Second, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, all in violation of 42 USC 1983.
In addition, certain of the defendents conspired to deprive plaintiff of rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to plaintiff by the United States Constitution, all in violation of 42 USC 1985.
Further, certain of the defendants, who had full knowledge of their colleagues' conspiring to violate, and actually violating, plaintiff's constitutional rights, and committing torts against plaintiff's person and property, failed to intervene, all in violation of 42 USC 1986.
Defendants' acts and omissions were practiced with malice and/or with reckless disregard for plaintiff's federally protected rights, as well as her rights under state law.
As a direct result of the above-described tortious and illegal conduct by defendants, plaintiff sustained severe and disabling personal injuries, including injuries to her face, nose, left eye, left shoulder, left arm, and chest, among other injuries to her mind and body, for which surgery may be necessary, and causing plaintiff excruciating pain, suffering, mental anguish, humiliation, and embarassment.
Y'know, just as a hunch, I don't think letting the news cameras in to record the incident was wise of the officers involved.
The defendents in the case are:
Folks, we have a jackbooted-thugs-gun-confiscation case headed to court with a sympathetic plaintiff making 2nd Amendment claims.
Let me say that again. The significance may not be immediately clear.
HAVE A SECOND AMENDMENT CLAIM AGAINST JACKBOOTED THUGS KICKING
DOWN DOORS AND CONFISCATING LEGALLY-OWNED FIREARMS FROM LITTLE OLD
LADIES ON CAMERA.
Why, yes, I will be following this case in detail.
And speaking of which, the complaint (which was filed 11/30/2005) is
not the only action in the case. The court has issued a summons
for the defendants.
The case is before Judge Martin Feldman and Magistrate Judge Daniel Knowles III.