Case 3:13-cv-30161-MGM Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
WESTERN DIVISION
Case No. ______________
OLIVER RICH,
Plaintiff,
v.

COMPLAINT

TOWN OF GREENFIELD,
MASSACHUSETTS
DAVID GUILBALT,
Former Chief of Police of the Greenfield
Police Department;
TODD CLARK, TODD DODGE, JASON
HASKINS, JASON KRATZ, KEVIN
ROWELL, CHAD SUMNER, SCOTT
WEST, and MARK WILLIAMS,
Employees of the Greenfield Police
Department

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, Oliver Rich, by undersigned counsel, brings this action against the Defendants
and allege as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This action alleges federal civil rights violations and other tortious acts by members of
the Greenfield Police Department during and after the arrest of Oliver Rich on October
20, 2010. Mr. Rich was tased multiple times by multiple officers, including once in the
chest and near his groin, kicked in his groin, and generally subjected to the use of
excessive force by multiple Greenfield Police officers. Following the arrest, Greenfield
Police officers removed the taser prongs without medical supervision and denied Mr.

Case 3:13-cv-30161-MGM Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 2 of 17

Rich medical care in violation his civil rights and proper safety procedures. Mr. Rich
suffered injuries as result of the officers actions. The Greenfield Police officers use of
the tasers and post-tasering actions departed dramatically from proper taser safety
standards and were consistent with unconstitutional policy and practices of Greenfield
Police Department. The Town of Greenfield, the Chief of Police, and others with
supervisory responsibilities, failed to adequately supervise and train its officers in the
administration of force, particularly the use of taser guns and allowed various
unconstitutional and unsafe policies and practices to prevail at the time of this incident.
Plaintiff brings this action in order to secure fair compensation for his injuries and to
deter these Defendants from unsafe, injurious and potentially deadly, and unconstitutional
use of taser guns and excessive force in the future.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs federal claims pursuant to
42 U.S.C. 1983, and has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs Massachusetts statelaw claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a).
3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over all defendants under Mass. Gen. Laws Ch.
223A, 2 because all Defendants are either domiciled in or organized under the laws of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over
defendants who commit acts or omissions within Massachusetts that cause tortuous
injuries to Plaintiffs under Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 223, 3.
4. Venue is proper in the District of Massachusetts under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) because a
substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in this district.

Case 3:13-cv-30161-MGM Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 3 of 17

PARTIES
PLAINTIFF
5. Plaintiff Oliver Rich is a resident of Hatfield, Massachusetts in Hampshire County.
DEFENDANTS
6. Defendant Town of Greenfield (City) is a unit of local government organized under the
laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Defendant Town of Greenfield is a
person under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and at all times relevant to this case acted under color
of law.
7. Defendant David Guilbalt was at all times relevant to this action employed by the Town
of Greenfield as Chief of Police and acting under color of law. Defendant is a person
under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and at all times relevant to this case acted under color of law. He
is sued in both his individual and official capacities.
8. Defendant Todd Clark was at all times relevant to this action employed by the Town of
Greenfield as a police officer and acting under color of law. Defendant is a person
under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and at all times relevant to this case acted under color of law. He
is sued in both his individual and official capacities.
9. Defendant Todd Dodge was at all times relevant to this action employed by the Town of
Greenfield as a police officer and acting under color of law. Defendant is a person
under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and at all times relevant to this case acted under color of law. He
is sued in both his individual and official capacities.
10. Defendant Jason Haskins was at all times relevant to this action employed by the Town
of Greenfield as a police officer and acting under color of law. Defendant is a person
under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and at all times relevant to this case acted under color of law. He

Case 3:13-cv-30161-MGM Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 4 of 17

is sued in both his individual and official capacities.

11. Defendant Jason Kratz was at all times relevant to this action employed by the Town of
Greenfield as a police officer and acting under color of law. Defendant is a person
under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and at all times relevant to this case acted under color of law. He
is sued in both his individual and official capacities.
12. Defendant Kevin Rowell was at all times relevant to this action employed by the Town of
Greenfield as a police officer and acting under color of law. Defendant is a person
under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and at all times relevant to this case acted under color of law. He
is sued in both his individual and official capacities.
13. Defendant Chad Sumner was at all times relevant to this action employed by the Town of
Greenfield as a police officer and acting under color of law. Defendant is a person
under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and at all times relevant to this case acted under color of law. He
is sued in both his individual and official capacities.
14. Defendant Scott West was at all times relevant to this action employed by the Town of
Greenfield as a police officer and acting under color of law. Defendant is a person
under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and at all times relevant to this case acted under color of law. He
is sued in both his individual and official capacities.
15. Defendant Mark Williams was at all times relevant to this action employed by the Town
of Greenfield as a police officer and acting under color of law. Defendant is a person
under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and at all times relevant to this case acted under color of law. He
is sued in both his individual and official capacities.

Case 3:13-cv-30161-MGM Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 5 of 17

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
The Incident
16. On September 20, 2010 at approximately 7:53 PM in the evening, Plaintiff was driving
home to Hatfield after having dinner with his wife and 22-month old son in Greenfield,
Massachusetts.
17. Plaintiff was alone in his car, while his wife and son traveled behind in the familys
second car.
18. Plaintiff was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
19. On the way home, Plaintiff stopped his vehicle on the side of the road at the southbound
entrance ramp of I-91 from the Route 2 rotary in Greenfield to assist a couple he
recognized walking along the side of the road and offer them a ride.
20. While the Plaintiff got out of his vehicle to make room for the couple, Defendant
Greenfield Police Officer Scott West parked his cruiser behind the Plaintiffs stopped car.
21. Defendant West got out of his vehicle and requested to see the Plaintiffs drivers license
and registration.
22. The Plaintiff complied and gave Officer West his license and registration.
23. During this period of time, the Plaintiffs wife, Emily Rich, drove by with the couples
baby in her vehicle.
24. She inquired as to the situation and the Plaintiff reassured his wife that everything was
fine and told her to continue home to put the baby to bed and that he would be home
soon.
25. Defendant West returned to Plaintiffs vehicle and informed him that he was driving
illegally and that his license had expired.

Case 3:13-cv-30161-MGM Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 6 of 17

26. Defendant West told the Plaintiff that he had five minutes to get someone to drive his
vehicle home.
27. Plaintiff told Defendant West that his wife had just left the scene and could return shortly.
28. Plaintiff told Defendant West that he had no idea that his license had been suspended, and
he had been to the DMV that day and asked Defendant West to re-check his records.
29. Defendant West stated that he would recheck and commanded the Plaintiff to stay in his
vehicle while he returned to his cruiser.
30. Plaintiff complied.
31. Defendant West returned to the Plaintiffs vehicle and again told him that his license had
expired and refused to allow Plaintiff to examine his license.
32. Plaintiff reiterated that his wife was just up the road with their young son, and she could
return to the scene within a few minutes.
33. Defendant West then ordered Plaintiff out of his vehicle and he complied.
34. As Plaintiff exited his vehicle, Defendant West drew his TASER gun and aimed it at the
Plaintiff.
35. Defendant West told the Plaintiff that he was under arrest and ordered the Plaintiff to
raise his hands and move to the back of his vehicle.
36. Plaintiff once again complied.
37. As the Plaintiff moved to the back of his vehicle with his hands raised, he questioned
Defendant West again as to why he was not allowed to examine his license and why he
was under arrest.
38. Defendant West began screaming at Plaintiff and threatening him with his TASER
weapon.

Case 3:13-cv-30161-MGM Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 7 of 17

39. Defendant Kratz arrived at the scene and got out of his cruiser with his hand on his gun.
40. Plaintiff tried pleading with Defendant Kratz that he did not understand what was
happening.
41. Defendant Kratz refused to offer an explanation to the Plaintiff for the police behavior.
42. At no time did the Plaintiff make any threatening statements or gestures towards
Defendant West or the other Defendant Officers.
43. At that time, Defendants Kratz and West descended upon Plaintiff.
44. They kicked Plaintiffs feet apart, aimed their Tasers at close range at Plaintiffs groin
and fired.
45. The Plaintiff yelled out in pain and distress.
46. Defendants West and Kratz continued their attack on the Plaintiff.
47. During the course of this incident, several additional Greenfield Police officers, including
Defendants Sumner, Clark, Williams, Rowell, and Haskins arrived at the scene.
48. Defendant Officers involved in the attack on Plaintiff including Defendants West,
Sumner, Clark, Williams, and Kratz, had been issued Taser guns by the Greenfield Police
Department.
49. All of the Defendant Officers on the scene descended upon Plaintiff while he was on the
ground, wounded from the Taser attack and after being kneed to the groin and other areas
of his body.
50. Defendant West and the other Defendant Officers Tasered Plaintiff multiple times,
putting their Taser guns to the Plaintiffs body and firing.
51. Defendant Officers deployed the Taser against Plaintiff in dart mode.
52. Plaintiff was Tasered on his chest, wrist, back, shoulder, forearms, and groin.

Case 3:13-cv-30161-MGM Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 8 of 17

53. In addition to the Taser attack, Plaintiff was kneed in the groin, thigh and legs and struck
multiple times by Defendant police officers.
54. Plaintiff sustained Taser wounds to his wrist, back, shoulder, forearms and groin.
55. Plaintiff was Tasered by the Defendant Officers multiple times while on the ground and
even after being put in handcuffs.
56. During the attack, Plaintiff was on the ground in writhing in pain, physically unable to
comply with any orders to stand or submit to being handcuffed and arrest.
57. At no time did the Plaintiff present a threat to the Police Officers.
58. Defendant West and the other Defendant Officers continued their attack on the Plaintiff.
59. Plaintiff was yelling out in pain for the officers to stop the attack indicating that he
represented no threat to them.
60. Plaintiff feared for his life while being attacked and Tasered by Defendant Officers.
61. Following the attack, Defendant West tore the Taser prongs from Plaintiffs chest by
yanking on the leads.
62. Defendant police officers then threw Plaintiff into a police cruiser.
63. In the cruiser, Defendant Kravitz asked the Plaintiff if he had any probes on him as they
would then have to take the Plaintiff to the emergency room to get them removed.
64. Plaintiff indicated the he still had electrical probes on him and requested to be taken to
the emergency room.
65. Defendant Kratz refused, over multiple requests by Plaintiff, to take him to the
emergency room and instead brought him directly to the Greenfield police station for
booking.

Case 3:13-cv-30161-MGM Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 9 of 17

66. While at the police station, a Defendant police officer pulled a Taser prong from
Plaintiffs wrist causing him more pain and panic.
67. Defendant Officers continued to ridicule Plaintiff at the police station.
68. Defendant Kratz noted injuries to the plaintiffs left side of his face, forearms, wrists,
chest and left shoulder.
69. Plaintiff also told Defendant Kratz that he was having trouble breathing, had a dry mouth,
and felt winded.
70. Plaintiff also had severe pain to his groin area after being kneed and Tasered in that area.
71. Plaintiff was put into a holding cell after being booked.
72. Plaintiff was in such severe pain and panic in the cell that he rang for help several times,
but received no response.
73. Plaintiffs wife came with their son to the police station at 10:30 PM to seek Plaintiffs
release.
74. Plaintiff went directly to the Emergency Room from the Police Station.
75. Plaintiff was given an EKG and treated for multiple Taser wounds as well as other
injuries on his body and face.
76. On September 20, 2010, Defendant Todd Dodge was assigned Watch Commander and
had various supervisory duties of other Defendant Officers.
77. Plaintiff has received ongoing care and treatment from a neurologist and his primary care
physician for the injuries he sustained at the hands of Defendant Officers.
78. The police failed record the incident despite having the capacity at all times to film and
record the event.

Case 3:13-cv-30161-MGM Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 10 of 17

Policies and Practices of the Greenfield Police Department

79. On September 20, 2010, Defendant Town of Greenfields policy authorizing the use of
Taser weapons was articulated in the Greenfield Police Departments General Order
(General Order) dated October 18, 2004 and reviewed in part on October 18, 2005.
80. General Order 1.20, stated that [t]he X26 Taser will be placed at the Restraint
Techniques level of the Greenfield Police Departments Use of Force continuum. The
X26 Taser will be used when the subject's actions constitute Active Resistance. The X26
Taser may be deployed whenever a situation arises when the use of force techniques
exposes the officer, the subject or the public to unnecessary danger, or when other force
techniques have been or may be ineffective.
81. General Order 1.01(II) specified a policy that [o]fficers use only the force that is
reasonably necessary to make a lawful arrest, to place a person into protective custody, to
effectively bring an incident under control, or to protect the lives or safety of the officer
and others.
82. General Order 1.01(IV)(C) specified [a]n officer should exhaust every reasonable means
of employing the minimum amount of force before escalating to a more severe
application of force, except where the officer reasonably believes that lesser means would
not be adequate in a particular situation and the use of force is necessary to accomplish
his lawful objective or to protect himself or another from serious physical injury or
death.
83. General Order 1.01(IV)(C) further specified that prior to utilization of Tasers to achieve
compliance, officers should use verbalization, physical strength/hand control, and Take

Case 3:13-cv-30161-MGM Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 11 of 17

Down and Control Holds.

84. General Order 1.01(IV)(D) stated, in pertinent part, that [a]fter any level of force is
used, the officer shall immediately evaluate the need for medical attention or treatment
for that person upon which force was used and arrange for such treatment when:
a. That person has a visible injury; or
b. [not relevant]
c. That person complains of injury or discomfort and requests medical attention.
d. In the event the X-26 TASER is deployed, an examination of the individual will
be conducted by medical personnel. Removal of TASER leads will, in all cases,
be done by medical personnel at the local emergency facilities.
85. General Order 1.01(IV)(D)(1) specifically noted: Any person requesting and/or deemed
in need of immediate medical attention shall be transported (in accordance with the
departmental policy on Transporting Prisoners to the appropriate hospital or medical
facility. All medical treatment received shall be noted in the officers report.
86. General Order 1.01(IV)(D)(2) stated that:
a. The officer shall promptly notify his/her immediate supervisor of the incident.
b. The officer shall attempt to locate and identify all witnesses, and obtain and
document their statements.
c. The officer shall prepare and submit all required reports. If more than one officer
is involved in a use of force incident resulting in an injury, each officer shall
complete a report outlining his/her actions and observations in the incident.
87. General Order 1.01(IV)(D)(3) assigned to the Watch Commander the following
responsibilities:

Case 3:13-cv-30161-MGM Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 12 of 17

a. If available, the Watch Commander shall immediately respond to the scene of any
incident where, as the result of the application of physical force, an officer is
injured, or a prisoner has a visible injury, or complains of injury or discomfort and
requests medical attention, and
b. [S]he shall:
i.

Ensure that officers receive any necessary assistance, including medical

treatment, and that any injuries to officers are properly documented;

ii. Ensure that the need for medical treatment for the prisoner is properly
evaluated and provided;
iii. Determine if a detective should respond to the scene and the level of
investigative services to be utilized (including photos, measurements and
diagrams). If an injury or complaint of pain exists, supervisors are
encouraged to obtain photographs; and
iv. File a report on the incident and his/her observations with the officer-incharge of the police station.
88. Defendant Town of Greenfield revised its policies and procedures regarding the use of
Tasers in 2011.
89. The new policies and procedures specified, among other things:
a. Tasers should only be fired or deployed in dart mode as a defensive tactic in
response to an assaultive person.
b. Frontal Taser deployments should target the lower torso and avoid the genital
area.
c. It is forbidden to Taser a handcuffed or secured prisoner, absent overtly

Case 3:13-cv-30161-MGM Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 13 of 17

assaultive behavior that cannot be reasonably dealt with in any other less intrusive
fashion.
d. Officers should be aware that an energized subject may not be able to respond to
commands during or immediately following exposure.
e. The officer shall energize the subject the least number of times and no longer than
necessary to accomplish the legitimate operational objective.
90. The new policies and procedures specify that medical attention should be sought where:
a. A person who requests medical attention.
b. A person who has been energized more than three times.
c. A person who has had more than one Taser effectively used against him or her in
any given incident.
d. A person who has been subjected to a continuous energy cycle of fifteen (15)
seconds or more.
91. The new policies and procedures further specify that a person who has been Tasered
should be transported to a medical facility as soon as possible if:
a.

He or she is struck by a probe in the neck, throat, face, female breasts, or groan;

b. Medical personnel on the scene have difficulty removing the probes;

c. The barb separates from the probe upon removal.
92. On September 20, 2010, Defendant Officers had a pattern and practice of deploying
Tasers in manners contrary to Greenfield Police Department policies existing at that time.
93. On September 20, 2010, Defendant officers and Defendant Galbault had a pattern and
practice of failing to supervise and ensure proper training of Defendant Officers.
94. Defendant Town of Greenfield s policies and practices regarding the use of Tasers,

Case 3:13-cv-30161-MGM Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 14 of 17

promulgated and enforced by Defendant Galbault, that were in place on September 20,
2010 were unsafe and unconstitutional.
95. On September 20, 2010, Defendant Town of Greenfield and Defendant Galbault had
notice of Defendant Officers unsafe and unconstitutional policies, procedures, and
practices surrounding the use of Tasers.
96. On September 12,2012, Plaintiff sent a demand letter in compliance with the
requirements of M.G.L.c. 258 to the Mayor, William Martin, Provisional Police Chief
Joseph Burge, and clerk Maureen T.Winseck, all of the city of Greenfield.
COUNT I
42 U.S.C. 1983
FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION CLAIM
97. Plaintiff repeats and alleges Paragraphs 1 through 96 and incorporates them herein by
reference.
98. The Defendants, at all material times acting under color of law, deprived Plaintiff of
rights, privileges, and immunities secured to him by the United States Constitution,
including the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures contained in the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by utilizing excessive
force against Plaintiff, employing unconstitutional policy, procedures, and practices
against Plaintiff, failing to supervise Defendant Officers resulting in violations of
Plaintiffs civil rights, and unconstitutionally searching and seizing Plaintiffs person and
property, among other violations.
99. Due to Defendants tortious conduct, Plaintiff has suffered damages.

Case 3:13-cv-30161-MGM Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 15 of 17

COUNT II
MASS. GEN. LAWS CH.12, 11I
MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIM
100.

Plaintiff repeats and alleges Paragraphs 1 through 96 and incorporates them

herein by reference.
101.

The Defendants, at all material times acting under color of law, deprived Plaintiff

of rights, privileges, and immunities secured to him by the United States Constitution,
including the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures contained in the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Massachusetts
Declaration of Rights by utilizing excessive force against Plaintiff, employing
unconstitutional policy, procedures, and practices against Plaintiff, failing to supervise
Defendant Officers resulting in violations of Plaintiffs civil rights, and unconstitutionally
searching and seizing Plaintiffs person and property, among other violations.
102.

Due to Defendants tortious conduct, Plaintiff has suffered damages.

COUNT III
COMMON LAW ASSAULT AND BATTERY

103.

Plaintiff repeats and alleges Paragraphs 1 through 96 and incorporates them

herein by reference.
104.

Defendants did intentionally contact Plaintiff in a harmful or offensive manner.

105.

Due to Defendants tortious conduct, Plaintiff has suffered damages.

Case 3:13-cv-30161-MGM Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 16 of 17

COUNT IV
COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE
106.

Plaintiff repeats and alleges Paragraphs 1 through 96 and incorporates them

herein by reference.
107.

Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff to supervise and train Defendant Officers

regarding safe and constitutional use of force and deployment of Tasers and breached this
duty.
108.

Due to Defendants tortious conduct, Plaintiff has suffered damages.

109.

By their acts and omission, the Defendants,

a. Either intended to inflict emotional distress or knew or should have known that
emotional distress was the likely result of their conduct.
b. Defendants engaged in conduct that was extreme and outrageous beyond all
possible bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
c. Plaintiff experienced emotional distress caused by Defendant.
d. The emotional distress sustained by Plaintiff was severe.

110.

Due to Defendants tortious conduct, Plaintiff has suffered damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants and that he be compensated
for his damages as follows:
i. Compensatory damages as provided by relevant law to the Plaintiff against
the Defendants, jointly and severally, and;
ii. Punitive damages as provided by relevant law to the Plaintiff against the
Defendants, jointly and severally, and;
iii. Attorneys fees and costs, and;
iv. Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Case 3:13-cv-30161-MGM Document 1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 17 of 17

Respectfully Submitted,
Oliver Rich, PLAINTIFF,
By his attorney,
/s/Marissa Elkins
Marissa Elkins (BBO#668840)
30 Pleasant Street, #4
Northampton, MA 01060
melkins@marissaelkinslaw.com
(413) 341-6944

Case 3:13-cv-30161-MGM Document 1-1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 1 of 2

-65HY

CIVIL COVER SHEET

7KH-6FLYLOFRYHUVKHHWDQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQFRQWDLQHGKHUHLQQHLWKHUUHSODFHQRUVXSSOHPHQWWKHILOLQJDQGVHUYLFHRISOHDGLQJVRURWKHUSDSHUVDVUHTXLUHGE\ODZH[FHSWDV
SURYLGHGE\ORFDOUXOHVRIFRXUW7KLVIRUPDSSURYHGE\WKH-XGLFLDO&RQIHUHQFHRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVLQ6HSWHPEHULVUHTXLUHGIRUWKHXVHRIWKH&OHUNRI&RXUWIRUWKH
SXUSRVHRILQLWLDWLQJWKHFLYLOGRFNHWVKHHW(SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

Rich, OLIVER

Town of Greenfield; Guilbalt, David; Clark, Todd; Dodge, Todd

Haskins, Jason; Kratz, Jason; Rowell, Kevin; Sumner, Chad
&RXQW\RI5HVLGHQFHRI)LUVW/LVWHG'HIHQGDQW

Hampshire

(b)&RXQW\RI5HVLGHQFHRI)LUVW/LVWHG3ODLQWLII

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

Franklin

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

127( ,1/$1'&21'(01$7,21&$6(686(7+(/2&$7,212)
7+(75$&72)/$1',192/9('

$WWRUQH\V(If Known)

(c)$WWRUQH\V(Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

Marissa Elkins, Esq.
30 Pleasant Street, #4
Northampton, MA 01060 (413) 341-6944

Defendants, cont. West, Scott; Williams, Mark.

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION(Place an X in One Box Only)

u  86*RYHUQPHQW
3ODLQWLII

u  )HGHUDO4XHVWLRQ
(U.S. Government Not a Party)

u  86*RYHUQPHQW
'HIHQGDQW

u  'LYHUVLW\
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
&LWL]HQRI7KLV6WDWH
u 

DEF
u 

and One Box for Defendant)

PTF
DEF
,QFRUSRUDWHGor3ULQFLSDO3ODFH
u 
u 
RI%XVLQHVV,Q7KLV6WDWH

&LWL]HQRI$QRWKHU6WDWH

u 

u 

,QFRUSRUDWHGand3ULQFLSDO3ODFH
RI%XVLQHVV,Q$QRWKHU6WDWH

u 

u 

&LWL]HQRU6XEMHFWRID
)RUHLJQ&RXQWU\

u 

u 

)RUHLJQ1DWLRQ

u 

u 

IV. NATURE OF SUIT(Place an X in One Box Only)

CONTRACT
u
u
u
u
u

TORTS

u
u
u
u

,QVXUDQFH
0DULQH
0LOOHU$FW
1HJRWLDEOH,QVWUXPHQW
5HFRYHU\RI2YHUSD\PHQW
 (QIRUFHPHQWRI-XGJPHQW
0HGLFDUH$FW
5HFRYHU\RI'HIDXOWHG
6WXGHQW/RDQV
([FOXGHV9HWHUDQV
5HFRYHU\RI2YHUSD\PHQW
RI9HWHUDQV%HQHILWV
6WRFNKROGHUV6XLWV
2WKHU&RQWUDFW
&RQWUDFW3URGXFW/LDELOLW\
)UDQFKLVH

u
u
u
u
u
u

REAL PROPERTY
/DQG&RQGHPQDWLRQ
)RUHFORVXUH
5HQW/HDVH (MHFWPHQW
7RUWVWR/DQG
7RUW3URGXFW/LDELOLW\
$OO2WKHU5HDO3URSHUW\

u
u
u

 PERSONAL INJURY

u $LUSODQH
u $LUSODQH3URGXFW
/LDELOLW\
u $VVDXOW/LEHO
6ODQGHU
u )HGHUDO(PSOR\HUV
/LDELOLW\
u 0DULQH
u 0DULQH3URGXFW
/LDELOLW\
u 0RWRU9HKLFOH
u 0RWRU9HKLFOH
3URGXFW/LDELOLW\
u 2WKHU3HUVRQDO
,QMXU\
u 3HUVRQDO,QMXU\
0HGLFDO0DOSUDFWLFH
CIVIL RIGHTS
u 2WKHU&LYLO5LJKWV
u 9RWLQJ
u (PSOR\PHQW
u +RXVLQJ
$FFRPPRGDWLRQV
u $PHUZ'LVDELOLWLHV
(PSOR\PHQW
u $PHUZ'LVDELOLWLHV
2WKHU
u (GXFDWLRQ

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

PERSONAL INJURY
u 3HUVRQDO,QMXU\
3URGXFW/LDELOLW\
u +HDOWK&DUH
3KDUPDFHXWLFDO
3HUVRQDO,QMXU\
3URGXFW/LDELOLW\
u $VEHVWRV3HUVRQDO
,QMXU\3URGXFW
/LDELOLW\
 PERSONAL PROPERTY
u 2WKHU)UDXG
u 7UXWKLQ/HQGLQJ
u 2WKHU3HUVRQDO
3URSHUW\'DPDJH
u 3URSHUW\'DPDJH
3URGXFW/LDELOLW\
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
u $OLHQ'HWDLQHH
u 0RWLRQVWR9DFDWH
6HQWHQFH
u *HQHUDO
u 'HDWK3HQDOW\
Other:
u 0DQGDPXV 2WKHU
u &LYLO5LJKWV
u 3ULVRQ&RQGLWLRQ
u &LYLO'HWDLQHH
&RQGLWLRQVRI
&RQILQHPHQW

u 'UXJ5HODWHG6HL]XUH
RI3URSHUW\86&
u 2WKHU

BANKRUPTCY
u $SSHDO86&
u :LWKGUDZDO
86&
PROPERTY RIGHTS
u &RS\ULJKWV
u 3DWHQW
u 7UDGHPDUN

u
u
u
u
u
u

LABOR
)DLU/DERU6WDQGDUGV
$FW
/DERU0DQDJHPHQW
5HODWLRQV
5DLOZD\/DERU$FW
)DPLO\DQG0HGLFDO
/HDYH$FW
2WKHU/DERU/LWLJDWLRQ
(PSOR\HH5HWLUHPHQW
,QFRPH6HFXULW\$FW

u
u
u
u
u

SOCIAL SECURITY
+,$II
%ODFN/XQJ
',:&',::J
66,'7LWOH;9,
56,J

FEDERAL TAX SUITS

u 7D[HV863ODLQWLII
RU'HIHQGDQW
u ,567KLUG3DUW\
86&

OTHER STATUTES
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u

)DOVH&ODLPV$FW
6WDWH5HDSSRUWLRQPHQW
$QWLWUXVW
%DQNVDQG%DQNLQJ
&RPPHUFH
'HSRUWDWLRQ
5DFNHWHHU,QIOXHQFHGDQG
&RUUXSW2UJDQL]DWLRQV
&RQVXPHU&UHGLW
&DEOH6DW79
6HFXULWLHV&RPPRGLWLHV
([FKDQJH
2WKHU6WDWXWRU\$FWLRQV
$JULFXOWXUDO$FWV
(QYLURQPHQWDO0DWWHUV
)UHHGRPRI,QIRUPDWLRQ
$FW
$UELWUDWLRQ
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH3URFHGXUH
$FW5HYLHZRU$SSHDORI
$JHQF\'HFLVLRQ
&RQVWLWXWLRQDOLW\RI
6WDWH6WDWXWHV

IMMIGRATION
u 1DWXUDOL]DWLRQ$SSOLFDWLRQ
u 2WKHU,PPLJUDWLRQ
$FWLRQV

V. ORIGIN(Place an X in One Box Only)

u  2ULJLQDO
3URFHHGLQJ

u  5HPRYHGIURP
6WDWH&RXUW

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

u 

5HPDQGHGIURP
$SSHOODWH&RXUW

u  5HLQVWDWHGRU
5HRSHQHG

u  7UDQVIHUUHGIURP
$QRWKHU'LVWULFW
(specify)

u  0XOWLGLVWULFW
/LWLJDWLRQ

&LWHWKH86&LYLO6WDWXWHXQGHUZKLFK\RXDUHILOLQJ(Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity)

42 U.S.C. 1983
%ULHIGHVFULSWLRQRIFDXVH

Use of Excessive Force and related civil rights violations and common law torts.

u &+(&.,)7+,6,6$CLASS ACTION
VII. REQUESTED IN
81'(558/()5&Y3
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
-8'*(
'$7(

&+(&.<(6RQO\LIGHPDQGHGLQFRPSODLQW
u <HV
u 1R
JURY DEMAND:

DEMAND $

'2&.(7180%(5

6,*1$785(2)$77251(<2)5(&25'

/s/Marissa Elkins

09/20/2013
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
5(&(,37

$02817

$33/<,1*,)3

-8'*(

0$*-8'*(

-65HYHUVH5HY

Case 3:13-cv-30161-MGM Document 1-1 Filed 09/20/13 Page 2 of 2

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

$XWKRULW\)RU&LYLO&RYHU6KHHW
7KH-6FLYLOFRYHUVKHHWDQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQFRQWDLQHGKHUHLQQHLWKHUUHSODFHVQRUVXSSOHPHQWVWKHILOLQJVDQGVHUYLFHRISOHDGLQJRURWKHUSDSHUVDV
UHTXLUHGE\ODZH[FHSWDVSURYLGHGE\ORFDOUXOHVRIFRXUW7KLVIRUPDSSURYHGE\WKH-XGLFLDO&RQIHUHQFHRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVLQ6HSWHPEHULV
UHTXLUHGIRUWKHXVHRIWKH&OHUNRI&RXUWIRUWKHSXUSRVHRILQLWLDWLQJWKHFLYLOGRFNHWVKHHW&RQVHTXHQWO\DFLYLOFRYHUVKHHWLVVXEPLWWHGWRWKH&OHUNRI
&RXUWIRUHDFKFLYLOFRPSODLQWILOHG7KHDWWRUQH\ILOLQJDFDVHVKRXOGFRPSOHWHWKHIRUPDVIROORZV
I.(a)

(b)

(c)

Plaintiffs-Defendants.(QWHUQDPHVODVWILUVWPLGGOHLQLWLDORISODLQWLIIDQGGHIHQGDQW,IWKHSODLQWLIIRUGHIHQGDQWLVDJRYHUQPHQWDJHQF\XVH

RQO\WKHIXOOQDPHRUVWDQGDUGDEEUHYLDWLRQV,IWKHSODLQWLIIRUGHIHQGDQWLVDQRIILFLDOZLWKLQDJRYHUQPHQWDJHQF\LGHQWLI\ILUVWWKHDJHQF\DQG
WKHQWKHRIILFLDOJLYLQJERWKQDPHDQGWLWOH
County of Residence.)RUHDFKFLYLOFDVHILOHGH[FHSW86SODLQWLIIFDVHVHQWHUWKHQDPHRIWKHFRXQW\ZKHUHWKHILUVWOLVWHGSODLQWLIIUHVLGHVDWWKH
WLPHRIILOLQJ,Q86SODLQWLIIFDVHVHQWHUWKHQDPHRIWKHFRXQW\LQZKLFKWKHILUVWOLVWHGGHIHQGDQWUHVLGHVDWWKHWLPHRIILOLQJ127(,QODQG
FRQGHPQDWLRQFDVHVWKHFRXQW\RIUHVLGHQFHRIWKHGHIHQGDQWLVWKHORFDWLRQRIWKHWUDFWRIODQGLQYROYHG
Attorneys.(QWHUWKHILUPQDPHDGGUHVVWHOHSKRQHQXPEHUDQGDWWRUQH\RIUHFRUG,IWKHUHDUHVHYHUDODWWRUQH\VOLVWWKHPRQDQDWWDFKPHQWQRWLQJ
LQWKLVVHFWLRQVHHDWWDFKPHQW

II.

Jurisdiction.7KHEDVLVRIMXULVGLFWLRQLVVHWIRUWKXQGHU5XOHD)5&Y3ZKLFKUHTXLUHVWKDWMXULVGLFWLRQVEHVKRZQLQSOHDGLQJV3ODFHDQ;
LQRQHRIWKHER[HV,IWKHUHLVPRUHWKDQRQHEDVLVRIMXULVGLFWLRQSUHFHGHQFHLVJLYHQLQWKHRUGHUVKRZQEHORZ
8QLWHG6WDWHVSODLQWLII-XULVGLFWLRQEDVHGRQ86&DQG6XLWVE\DJHQFLHVDQGRIILFHUVRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDUHLQFOXGHGKHUH
8QLWHG6WDWHVGHIHQGDQW:KHQWKHSODLQWLIILVVXLQJWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVLWVRIILFHUVRUDJHQFLHVSODFHDQ;LQWKLVER[
)HGHUDOTXHVWLRQ7KLVUHIHUVWRVXLWVXQGHU86&ZKHUHMXULVGLFWLRQDULVHVXQGHUWKH&RQVWLWXWLRQRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDQDPHQGPHQW
WRWKH&RQVWLWXWLRQDQDFWRI&RQJUHVVRUDWUHDW\RIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV,QFDVHVZKHUHWKH86LVDSDUW\WKH86SODLQWLIIRUGHIHQGDQWFRGHWDNHV
SUHFHGHQFHDQGER[RUVKRXOGEHPDUNHG
'LYHUVLW\RIFLWL]HQVKLS7KLVUHIHUVWRVXLWVXQGHU86&ZKHUHSDUWLHVDUHFLWL]HQVRIGLIIHUHQWVWDWHV:KHQ%R[LVFKHFNHGWKH
FLWL]HQVKLSRIWKHGLIIHUHQWSDUWLHVPXVWEHFKHFNHG. 6HH6HFWLRQ,,,EHORZ; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.

III.

Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties.7KLVVHFWLRQRIWKH-6LVWREHFRPSOHWHGLIGLYHUVLW\RIFLWL]HQVKLSZDVLQGLFDWHGDERYH0DUNWKLV

VHFWLRQIRUHDFKSULQFLSDOSDUW\

IV.

Nature of Suit.3ODFHDQ;LQWKHDSSURSULDWHER[,IWKHQDWXUHRIVXLWFDQQRWEHGHWHUPLQHGEHVXUHWKHFDXVHRIDFWLRQLQ6HFWLRQ9,EHORZLV
VXIILFLHQWWRHQDEOHWKHGHSXW\FOHUNRUWKHVWDWLVWLFDOFOHUNVLQWKH$GPLQLVWUDWLYH2IILFHWRGHWHUPLQHWKHQDWXUHRIVXLW,IWKHFDXVHILWVPRUHWKDQ
RQHQDWXUHRIVXLWVHOHFWWKHPRVWGHILQLWLYH

V.

Origin.3ODFHDQ;LQRQHRIWKHVL[ER[HV
2ULJLQDO3URFHHGLQJV&DVHVZKLFKRULJLQDWHLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVGLVWULFWFRXUWV
5HPRYHGIURP6WDWH&RXUW3URFHHGLQJVLQLWLDWHGLQVWDWHFRXUWVPD\EHUHPRYHGWRWKHGLVWULFWFRXUWVXQGHU7LWOH86&6HFWLRQ
:KHQWKHSHWLWLRQIRUUHPRYDOLVJUDQWHGFKHFNWKLVER[
5HPDQGHGIURP$SSHOODWH&RXUW&KHFNWKLVER[IRUFDVHVUHPDQGHGWRWKHGLVWULFWFRXUWIRUIXUWKHUDFWLRQ8VHWKHGDWHRIUHPDQGDVWKHILOLQJ
GDWH
5HLQVWDWHGRU5HRSHQHG&KHFNWKLVER[IRUFDVHVUHLQVWDWHGRUUHRSHQHGLQWKHGLVWULFWFRXUW8VHWKHUHRSHQLQJGDWHDVWKHILOLQJGDWH
7UDQVIHUUHGIURP$QRWKHU'LVWULFW)RUFDVHVWUDQVIHUUHGXQGHU7LWOH86&6HFWLRQD'RQRWXVHWKLVIRUZLWKLQGLVWULFWWUDQVIHUVRU
PXOWLGLVWULFWOLWLJDWLRQWUDQVIHUV
0XOWLGLVWULFW/LWLJDWLRQ&KHFNWKLVER[ZKHQDPXOWLGLVWULFWFDVHLVWUDQVIHUUHGLQWRWKHGLVWULFWXQGHUDXWKRULW\RI7LWOH86&6HFWLRQ
:KHQWKLVER[LVFKHFNHGGRQRWFKHFNDERYH

VI.

Cause of Action.5HSRUWWKHFLYLOVWDWXWHGLUHFWO\UHODWHGWRWKHFDXVHRIDFWLRQDQGJLYHDEULHIGHVFULSWLRQRIWKHFDXVHDo not cite jurisdictional

statutes unless diversity. ([DPSOH86&LYLO6WDWXWH86&%ULHI'HVFULSWLRQ8QDXWKRUL]HGUHFHSWLRQRIFDEOHVHUYLFH

VII.

Requested in Complaint.&ODVV$FWLRQ3ODFHDQ;LQWKLVER[LI\RXDUHILOLQJDFODVVDFWLRQXQGHU5XOH)5&Y3
'HPDQG,QWKLVVSDFHHQWHUWKHDFWXDOGROODUDPRXQWEHLQJGHPDQGHGRULQGLFDWHRWKHUGHPDQGVXFKDVDSUHOLPLQDU\LQMXQFWLRQ
-XU\'HPDQG&KHFNWKHDSSURSULDWHER[WRLQGLFDWHZKHWKHURUQRWDMXU\LVEHLQJGHPDQGHG

VIII. Related Cases.7KLVVHFWLRQRIWKH-6LVXVHGWRUHIHUHQFHUHODWHGSHQGLQJFDVHVLIDQ\,IWKHUHDUHUHODWHGSHQGLQJFDVHVLQVHUWWKHGRFNHW

QXPEHUVDQGWKHFRUUHVSRQGLQJMXGJHQDPHVIRUVXFKFDVHV
Date and Attorney Signature.'DWHDQGVLJQWKHFLYLOFRYHUVKHHW

Case 3:13-cv-30161-MGM Document 1-2 Filed 09/20/13 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
1. Title of case (name of first party on each side only) Oliver Rich v. Town of Greenfield, DAVID GUILBALT, TODD Cla
TODD DODGE, JASON HASKINS, JASON KRATZ, KEVIN ROWELL, CHAD SUMNER, SCOTT WEST, and MARK WILLIAMS,
2. Category in which the case belongs based upon the numbered nature of suit code listed on the civil cover sheet. (See local
rule 40.1(a)(1)).

I.

410, 441, 470, 535, 830*, 891, 893, 895, R.23, REGARDLESS OF NATURE OF SUIT.

II.

110, 130, 140, 160, 190, 196, 230, 240, 290,320,362, 370, 371, 380, 430, 440, 442, 443, 445, 446, 448, 710, 720,
740, 790, 820*, 840*, 850, 870, 871.

III.

120, 150, 151, 152, 153, 195, 210, 220, 245, 310, 315, 330, 340, 345, 350, 355, 360, 365, 367, 368, 375, 385, 400,
422, 423, 450, 460, 462, 463, 465, 480, 490, 510, 530, 540, 550, 555, 625, 690, 751, 791, 861-865, 890, 896, 899,
950.
*Also complete AO 120 or AO 121. for patent, trademark or copyright cases.

3. Title and number, if any, of related cases. (See local rule 40.1(g)). If more than one prior related case has been filed in this
district please indicate the title and number of the first filed case in this court.

4. Has a prior action between the same parties and based on the same claim ever been filed in this court?
YES

NO

5. Does the complaint in this case question the constitutionality of an act of congress affecting the public interest?
2403)
YES

NO

YES

NO

If so, is the U.S.A. or an officer, agent or employee of the U.S. a party?

(See 28 USC

6. Is this case required to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges pursuant to title 28 USC 2284?
YES

NO

7. Do all of the parties in this action, excluding governmental agencies of the united states and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (governmental agencies), residing in Massachusetts reside in the same division? - (See Local Rule 40.1(d)).
YES
A.

NO

If yes, in which division do all of the non-governmental parties reside?

Eastern Division

B.

Central Division

Western Division

If no, in which division do the majority of the plaintiffs or the only parties, excluding governmental agencies,
residing in Massachusetts reside?
Eastern Division

Central Division

Western Division

8. If filing a Notice of Removal - are there any motions pending in the state court requiring the attention of this Court? (If yes,
submit a separate sheet identifying the motions)
YES

NO

(PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT)

ATTORNEY'S NAME Marissa Elkins
ADDRESS 30 Pleasant Street, #4 Northampton, MA 01060
TELEPHONE NO. (413) 341-6944
(CategoryForm12-2011.wpd - 12/2011)