Mike Ross

c/o 1209 West Madison Street
Phoenix, Arizona
85007

 

Plaintiff, In Pro Per

In the United States District Court

In and for the District of the State of Arizona

Mike Ross

            Plaintiff,

      vs.

Arizona Department of Public Safety

 

              Defendant                                        

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.:

 

COMPLAINT

(Jury Trial Demanded)

 

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Mike Ross, and for his complaint alleges and avers as follows.

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.                This action arises the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America and Article II, §§ 4, 8, 10, 32, and 33 of the Constitution for the State of Arizona. Jurisdiction is conferred upon the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jurisdiction over the state pendant claims is conferred upon the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1337.

2.                Venue is proper in this District Court as the Defendant is believed to reside within this district and all acts alleged occurred within this District

II. PARTIES

3.                The plaintiff is a single man and can be found in Maricopa County, Arizona.

4.                The defendant is an unknown man believed to be a resident of the State of Arizona and are further believed to be a Police Officer in the Arizona Department of Public Safety probably works in the unit that provides protection for the Governor.

III. GENERAL STATEMENT

5.                On October 30, 2002, the Plaintiff went to the governor’s debate sponsored by the Goldwater Institute at Ritz Carleton Hotel on 24th Street and Camelback in Phoenix. The Plaintiff had made reservations with the Goldwater Institute to attend the debate.

6.                Prior to the debate in the parking lot of the Ritz Carleton Hotel the defendant told the plaintiff that he was not welcome at the Ritz Carleton Hotel and the plaintiff responded that he was attending the governor’s debate. The defendant did not give any reason why he told the plaintiff why he was not welcome.

7.                While the debate was advertised in the media as open to the public for free the plaintiff had specifically made reservations by e-mail to attend the event thru a RSVP to the Goldwater Institute.

8.                The Plaintiff left the debate room to get some water and wander around and as the plaintiff was going back to the debate room the defendant told the plaintiff he was not invited to the debate and could not attend and had to leave.

9.                The defendant told the plaintiff that he was not free to leave and could not go back to the debate area. The plaintiff assumed that he was under arrest and was not free to leave.

10.             The plaintiff told the defendant that he had made reservations by e-mail to attend the debate and that if he had questions he could contact Darcy who runs the Goldwater Institute and who was running this event.

11.            Normally the plaintiff when he deals with law enforcement personnel he take the Firth Amendment and refuses to answer their questions but in this case the plaintiff told the defendant his name was Mike Ross but the plaintiff did refuse to tell the defendant his date of birth.

12.            The defendant made no attempt to verify that the plaintiff was invited to the event and continued to tell the plaintiff that he was not invited to the event.

13.            The defendant looked at one of the sign in sheets that was in the lobby and told the plaintiff that because his name was not on the sign in sheet he was not invited to the debate and could not attend the debate. At other Goldwater Institute events these sign in sheets are meaningless and used by the Goldwater Institute to collect names for their mailing lists.

14.            Although technically the Goldwater Institute asks people to RSVP for their events the events are open to the public and this event had several press releases run for it which said it was open to the public so even if the plaintiff was not specifically invited the event was open to the public.

15.             The defendant accused the plaintiff of having a backpack which he left in the debate area. The plaintiff denied that.

16.            The defendant also accused the plaintiff of being with someone else. The plaintiff denied that too.

17.            The defendant told the plaintiff that he lad to leave the debate or would be arrested.

18.            The plaintiff asked to be allowed to pick up his belongings in the debate area but the defendant told the plaintiff he could not.

19.            The plaintiff left the debate with out picking up his belongings.

IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Rights

20.            The Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 19 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.

21.            As is more fully described the Plaintiff was detained, arrested, restrained of his liberty without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and without due process of law, and the plaintiff was prevented from listening to the governors debate, all in violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution for the United States of America.

V. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

False Arrest

22.            The Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 19 of this complaint as if fully set forth herein.

23.             As is more fully described the Plaintiff was falsely detained, arrested, restrained of his liberty by the Defendant who knew full at the time that he had committed the detention, arrest and restraint without cause to believe that the Plaintiff had committed the offense of trespassing.

WHEREFORE the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

A.                            Proceed with a trial by jury upon issues so triable; and,

B.                            Award the Plaintiff’s damages of no less than $1,000,000.00; and

C.                            Award the Plaintiff’s costs and fees incurred for the prosecution of this action;

D.                            Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

      RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this ______day of October, 2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mike Ross

C/o 1209 West Madison Street
Phoenix, Arizona
85007

Plaintiff, In Pro Per

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 VERIFICATION

 

     

      I, Mike Ross verify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, that I am the Plaintiff herein, that I have read the foregoing Complaint, and that the same is true and correct that, based upon my knowledge, information, and belief, it is well-grounded as fact, is warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and is not interposed for any improper purpose.

 

 

Dated ________________________      ______________________________

                                    Mike Ross