In The United States District Court For The District of Massachusetts

Case 1:16-cv-11118 Document 1 Filed 06/15/16 Page 1 of 30
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
ANGEL ECHAVARRIA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No. 1:16-cv-11118
v. )
)
J. MICHAEL ROACH, JOHN GARVIN, )
RAYMOND GUILLERMO, JOSEPH )
ROWE, NORMAN ZUK, RUSSELL )
GOKAS, CHARLES LUISE, JOHN )
SCANNELL, MICHAEL COONEY, )
JOHN HOLLOW, UNKNOWN )
OFFICERS OF THE LYNN POLICE )
DEPARTMENT, UNKNOWN )
OFFICERS OF THE )
MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE )
and the CITY OF LYNN, )
Massachusetts, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Plaintiff, ANGEL ECHAVARRIA, by his attorneys LOEVY &
LOEVY and RUTH GREENBERG, and complaining of Defendants J. MICHAEL
ROACH, JOHN GARVIN, RAYMOND GUILLERMO, JOSEPH ROWE, NORMAN
ZUK, RUSSELL GOKAS, CHARLES LUISE, JOHN SCANNELL, MICHAEL
COONEY, JOHN HOLLOW, UNKNOWN OFFICERS OF THE LYNN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, UNKNOWN OFFICERS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE
POLICE and the CITY OF LYNN, Massachusetts, states as follows:

INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff Angel Echavarria was wrongly convicted of the murder of
Daniel Rodriguez. The crime occurred in Lynn, Massachusetts, in 1994. Plaintiff did
not commit the crime, and there was not one piece of legitimate evidence connecting
him to the killing.
2. The only evidence that tied Plaintiff to the crime were false eyewitness
identifications of Plaintiff by Isidoro Rodriguez, the brother of the victim, and Gary
Sevinor, who had purportedly been present at the scene of the crime. Both
identifications were wholly fabricated by Defendants.
3. In addition to fabricating false identifications of Plaintiff, Defendants
suppressed the fact that Isidoro Rodriguez had unequivocally identified a different
man named Mariano Bonifacio as the person who had shot and killed Daniel
Rodriguez. Not only did Isidoro Rodriguez identify Bonifacio as the perpetrator
prior to identifying Plaintiff, but he did so on two occasions, including on the night
of the murder.
4. To make matters worse, Bonifacio was a criminal known to
Defendants. Defendants knew Bonifacio because they had arrested him just two
months before the murder of Daniel Rodriguez for a similar shooting, which took
place just blocks from the apartment where Daniel Rodriguez was killed.
2
5. Instead of investigating Bonifacio’s obvious involvement in the murder
of Daniel Rodriguez, Defendants concealed everything they knew about Bonifacio’s
recent criminal activity and likely involvement in the crime; they suppressed the
truth about Isidoro Rodriguez’s identification of Bonifacio; and they pinned the
crime on Plaintiff, even though there was no legitimate evidence suggesting that
Plaintiff had been involved.
6. Based on the force of the false witness identifications and false witness
testimony fabricated by Defendants, Plaintiff was charged, prosecuted, and wrongly
convicted of murder. He was sentenced to life in prison.
7. Twenty-one years after he was wrongly arrested for the murder of
Daniel Rodriguez, the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
granted Plaintiff a new trial. On June 15, 2015, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts dropped all charges against Plaintiff.
8. Plaintiff walked out of prison a free man, having served half of his life
behind bars for a crime he did not commit.
9. Plaintiff now seeks justice for the harm that Defendants have caused
and redress for the loss of liberty and the terrible hardship that Plaintiff has
endured and continues to suffer as a result of Defendants’ misconduct.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Massachusetts
law to redress Defendants’ tortious conduct and their deprivation of Plaintiff’s
rights secured by the U.S. Constitution.
3
11. This Court has jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s federal claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction of his state-law claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1367.
12. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). On information and belief,
the majority of Defendants reside in this judicial district, and the events and
omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred within this judicial district.
PARTIES
13. Plaintiff Angel Echavarria is a man who spent 21 years in prison for a
crime he did not commit.
14. Defendants J. Michael Roach, Raymond Guillermo, Joseph Rowe,
Russell Gokas, Charles Luise, John Scannell, John Hollow, and Unknown Officers
of the Lynn Police Department are current or former officers of the Lynn Police
Department. These Defendants were responsible for investigating crimes, including
the crime at issue in this case, and for supervising other police officer Defendants.
These Defendants committed, facilitated, and approved the constitutional violations
at issue in this case.
15. Defendants John Garvin, Norman Zuk, Michael Cooney, and
Defendant Unknown Officers of the Massachusetts State Police are current or
former officers of the Massachusetts State Police. These Defendants were
responsible for investigating crimes, including the crime at issue in this case, and
for supervising other police officer Defendants. These Defendants committed,
facilitated, and approved the constitutional violations at issue in this case.
4
16. Defendant City of Lynn, Massachusetts, is a municipality of the State
of Massachusetts, which oversees the Lynn Police Department. Each of the
Defendants referenced above was employed by the City of Lynn or was acting as an
agent of the City of Lynn and the Lynn Police Department while conducting the
investigation described in this Complaint. Defendant City of Lynn is therefore liable
for all torts committed by these Defendants pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat
superior. Defendant City of Lynn is additionally responsible for the policies and
practices of the Lynn Police Department, which were implemented by Defendants in
this case. Finally, Defendant City of Lynn is responsible under Massachusetts law
for any judgment entered against Defendants.
17. At all times relevant to the events described in this Complaint, each of
the individual Defendants acted under color of law, within the scope of his
employment, and as an investigator. Each of the individual Defendants is sued in
his individual capacity, unless otherwise noted.
FACTS
The Murder of Daniel Rodriguez
18. In January 1994, Daniel Rodriguez was shot and killed in an
apartment in Lynn, Massachusetts.
19. Daniel Rodriguez and his brother, Isidoro Rodriguez, had returned to
the apartment shortly before the shooting, where they found two armed men
holding a number of people hostage in the apartment.1
1 Daniel Rodriguez and Isidoro Rodriguez are referred to by their first names below.
5
20. Daniel was a known drug dealer, and the apartment was known as a
place where individuals could buy drugs.
21. The two armed men tied Isidoro up with a phone cord and put him in a
bedroom. Daniel was taken to the bathroom, where he was shot in the head. Isidoro
survived the incident unharmed.
22. None of the physical evidence at the crime scene suggested that
Plaintiff had anything to do with the crime. No witness present at the crime scene
gave police any information to suggest that Plaintiff had been involved. On the
contrary, the evidence that was collected, including biological evidence and
statements from witnesses, made clear that Plaintiff could not have been involved
in the murder.
23. To this day, the crime remains unsolved. By focusing on Plaintiff,
Defendants have let the real killer remain at large for more than two decades.
Isidoro Identifies Mariano Bonifacio as the Murderer
24. On the night of the murder, in an effort to identify the perpetrators of
the crime, Defendants showed Isidoro books full of mugshots. From these books,
Isidoro picked the photograph of Mariano Bonifacio and identified him as one of the
killers.
25. Shortly thereafter, Defendants obtained a second photo of Bonifacio.
They showed that photo to Isidoro as part of a photo array. Again, Isidoro picked
out Bonifacio as one of the killers.
6
26. Almost immediately after the photo array, Defendants inexplicably
worked to undermine Isidoro’s identification of Bonifacio. They did not record
Isidoro’s unequivocal identifications of Bonifacio in their police reports or their
investigative notes. Instead, as their investigation continued, Defendants
misrepresented the true circumstances of Isidoro’s identification of Bonifacio. They
prompted Isidoro to state falsely that he had never actually identified Bonifacio as
the perpetrator of the crime, and they falsely reported and testified that Bonifacio
had never actually been identified as one of the perpetrators of the crime.
27. Defendants concealed the true circumstances of Isidoro’s identification
from Plaintiff, his criminal defense attorneys, and state prosecutors. Defendants’
efforts to suppress Isidoro’s identification of Bonifacio continue to the present day.
Defendants Conceal Mariano Bonifacio’s Criminal

Background and Likely Involvement in the Murder of Daniel Rodriguez
28. Defendants’ concealment of the true circumstances of Isidoro’s
identification of Bonifacio is even more shocking because Defendants knew at the
time of Isidoro’s identification that Bonifacio was a likely perpetrator of the murder
of Daniel Rodriguez.
29. They knew this because just weeks before Daniel’s shooting,
Defendants had arrested Bonifacio on charges of attempted murder in connection
with the shooting of a man named Victor Batista. In both crimes, the victims were
known drug dealers shot during home invasions; the modus operandi of the two
crimes was the same; and the shootings took place no more than a half-mile apart.
7
30. Instead of investigating whether Bonifacio had killed Daniel,
Defendants concealed everything they knew about Bonifacio’s likely involvement.
They withheld from Plaintiff, his criminal defense attorneys, and state prosecutors
the fact that they had arrested Bonifacio—the person who Isidoro had identified as
Daniel’s killer on the night of the crime—for a different attempted murder in
connection with a shooting almost identical to the crime of which Plaintiff was
wrongly convicted. Defendants suppressed this powerful evidence of Plaintiff’s
innocence, which could have been used to both to exonerate Plaintiff and to impeach
prosecution witnesses against Plaintiff, throughout Plaintiff’s wrongful conviction.
Defendants Arrest Plaintiff for the Murder
31. More than a week after Daniel was killed, Plaintiff was at a Lynn
barbershop with his friend Juan Rodriguez. Isidoro happened to be there as well.
Plaintiff did not know Isidoro, but Isidoro approached Plaintiff and asked his name.
They exchanged pleasantries, and then Isidoro left the barbershop.
32. Later that the same day, Plaintiff and Juan Rodriguez ate dinner at a
Lynn restaurant. They were approached there by Defendants, who asked Plaintiff
and Juan Rodriguez to step outside the restaurant.
33. Plaintiff and Juan Rodriguez cooperated completely with the police.
Outside on the sidewalk, Defendants asked Plaintiff and Juan Rodriguez whether
they had been involved in Daniel’s shooting. They both denied any involvement in
or knowledge of the crime.
8
34. Defendants took personal information from Plaintiff and Juan
Rodriguez, and let them go on their way. There was no probable cause to suspect
that Plaintiff or Juan Rodriguez had been involved in Daniel’s murder. Plaintiff and
Juan Rodriguez paid their bill at the restaurant and then went home.
35. The next morning, without any additional investigation, Defendants
came to arrest Plaintiff at his home. According to Defendants, Plaintiff purportedly
had been identified by Isidoro as one of the men who had killed Daniel.
36. Isidoro’s false identifications implicating Plaintiff in the crime were
manufactured by Defendants. In addition, Defendants wrote false police reports
that intentionally misrepresented the circumstances of Isidoro’s false identification
and of Plaintiff’s arrest.
37. Based on the false identification, Defendants filed a criminal complaint
accusing Plaintiff of Daniel’s murder. Plaintiff’s friend Juan Rodriguez was also
accused of the crime. Defendants filed the charges without any evidence that either
Plaintiff or Juan Rodriguez had been involved.
Defendants Procure Additional Identifications of Plaintiff from Isidoro
38. To shore up their false charges against Plaintiff, Defendants took a
photo of Plaintiff and presented it to Isidoro as part of a photo array. The photo
array was unduly suggestive, and Defendants made clear to Isidoro who he should
pick. Isidoro picked Plaintiff.
9
39. Shortly thereafter, Defendants conducted a live lineup to further
cement Isidoro’s false identification of Plaintiff. The live lineup was also unduly
suggestive. Again because of Defendants’ suggestion, Isidoro falsely identified
Plaintiff.
40. Defendants pressed Isidoro to make these identifications of Plaintiff
despite the fact that Isidoro had provided them a description of the perpetrator that
looked completely unlike Plaintiff and that Isidoro had conclusively identified a
different person—Bonifacio—as the perpetrator.
41. To secure the false identifications of Plaintiff, Defendants took
advantage of Isidoro’s cognitive limitations, a pronounced language barrier, and
Isidoro’s drug intoxication. To say the least, Isidoro was an obviously unreliable
witness who could be manipulated, and Defendants knew it.
Evidence of Plaintiff’s Innocence Ignored
42. At the same time that they worked to implicate Plaintiff falsely in
Daniel’s murder, Defendants willfully ignored and acted to undermine strong
evidence that Plaintiff had nothing to do with the crime.
43. Defendants disregarded that none of the physical evidence collected at
the crime scene connected Plaintiff to the killing. Moreover, they disregarded that
none of the evidence gathered during a search of Plaintiff’s house connected
Plaintiff to the killing.
10
44. Defendants also disregarded all of the information they had received
from witnesses that excluded Plaintiff as a suspect. For example, eyewitnesses to
the crime, including Isidoro, described that the crime had been committed by
individuals who looked nothing like Plaintiff and who spoke with accents very
different from Plaintiff’s accent.
45. In addition, Plaintiff had a verifiable alibi. On the night of Daniel’s
murder, Plaintiff was at home with family and friends in Lynn. Witnesses who were
with him there could verify his alibi. Defendants ignored Plaintiff’s alibi and
instead manufactured false witness testimony to undermine his alibi.
Defendants Fabricate an Additional Eyewitness Identification of Plaintiff
46. In 1995, more than a year after the crime occurred, Plaintiff was still
incarcerated awaiting trial. Without any obvious reason for doing so, Defendants
suddenly went to visit a man named Gary Sevinor in prison.
47. Sevinor had allegedly been present in the apartment at the time of
Daniel’s murder, but in the aftermath of the crime and during Defendants’
investigation, Sevinor had not provided any useful information. He had never before
identified any person as a participant in the crime. In fact, in their reports drafted
close in time to the crime, Defendants did not even mention Sevinor as a witness
who had seen the perpetrators.
11
48. Nevertheless, Defendants went to visit Sevinor in prison, and they
showed him a photo array that included a photograph of Plaintiff. Again,
Defendants used unduly suggestive techniques to convince Sevinor to falsely
identify Plaintiff as one of Daniel’s killers.
49. After this identification, Defendants worked with Sevinor to prepare
false testimony for trial in which he repeated his false identification of Plaintiff.
50. Defendants concealed from Plaintiff, his criminal defense attorneys,
and state prosecutors that they had fabricated Sevinor’s identification of Plaintiff.
Sevinor’s false identification of Plaintiff was critical evidence in the case against
Plaintiff because it “corroborated” Isidoro’s equally false identification. Without
Sevinor’s false identification, Plaintiff would not have been prosecuted or convicted.
Plaintiff’s Wrongful Conviction and Imprisonment
51. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct, Plaintiff was tried by a jury in
1996. Plaintiff’s friend Juan Rodriguez was tried at the same time.
52. During the trial, Isidoro initially refused to show up to testify. After a
bench warrant was issued, Defendants went to find Isidoro. They brought him to
court so that he could provide the false testimony about his identifications of
Plaintiff, which Defendants had helped him to prepare.
53. After a two-week trial, a jury convicted Plaintiff of first-degree murder
and other crimes. The trial judge acquitted Juan Rodriguez of all charges. Plaintiff
was sentenced to life in prison.
12
54. Without Defendants’ fabrication of false witness identifications of
Plaintiff and false witness testimony against him, Plaintiff never would have stood
trial and never would have been convicted of the murder of Daniel Rodriguez.
Without this false evidence, there was nothing to support a criminal proceeding
against Plaintiff.
55. In addition, without Defendants’ suppression of crucial evidence about
the identifications of Plaintiff, the identifications of Bonifacio, and Bonifacio’s
identity as the real perpetrator—all of which could have been used to exonerate
Plaintiff and to impeach witnesses against him at his criminal proceeding—Plaintiff
never would have been charged, prosecuted, or convicted.
56. Plaintiff was in his mid-twenties, in the prime of his life, at the time
that he was wrongly convicted. He was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for no
good reason at all. Plaintiff would spend the next two decades imprisoned for
something he had not done.
57. Plaintiff’s whole life was turned upside down without any warning. A
substantial portion of his adulthood has been consumed by the horror of his
wrongful imprisonment.
58. Plaintiff was taken away from his mother, siblings, children, other
relatives, and friends. Because of Defendants’ misconduct, Plaintiff has missed out
on the lives of his family and friends. While Plaintiff was wrongly imprisoned, his
mother died. He missed the opportunity to raise his own children.
13
59. Plaintiff was deprived of opportunities to engage in meaningful labor,
to develop a career, and to pursue his interests and passions. Plaintiff has been
deprived of all of the basic pleasures of human experience, which all free people
enjoy as a matter of right, including the freedom to live one’s life as an autonomous
human being.
60. During his decades of wrongful imprisonment, Plaintiff was detained
in harsh and dangerous conditions in maximum security prisons.
61. In addition to the severe trauma of wrongful imprisonment and
Plaintiff’s loss of liberty, Defendants’ misconduct continues to cause Plaintiff
extreme physical and psychological pain and suffering, humiliation, constant fear,
anxiety, deep depression, despair, rage, and other physical and psychological effects.
Plaintiff’s Exoneration
62. On April 30, 2015, the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts concluded that Plaintiff’s conviction could not stand and that he was
entitled to a new trial.
63. On June 15, 2015, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts entered a
nolle prosequi, dropping all charges against Plaintiff.
64. Plaintiff walked out of prison at age 48, a free man for the first time in
more than 21 years.
14
COUNT I
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Due Process
65. Plaintiff incorporates each paragraph of this Complaint as if fully
restated here.
66. In the manner described more fully above, Defendants, while acting as
investigators, individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with one another, as well as
under color of law and within the scope of their employment, deprived Plaintiff of
his constitutional right to a fair trial.
67. Defendants deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence from Plaintiff
and from state prosecutors, among others, thereby misleading and misdirecting the
criminal prosecution of Plaintiff.
68. Defendants fabricated and solicited false evidence, including testimony
that they knew to be false, implicating Plaintiff in the crime, obtained Plaintiff’s
conviction using that false evidence, and failed to correct fabricated evidence that
they knew to be false when it was used against Plaintiff at his criminal trial. In
addition, Defendants produced a series of false and fraudulent reports and related
documents, which they inserted into their file and presented to state prosecutors
and judges. These documents, which were used to show Plaintiff’s purported
connection to the crime, contained statements and described events that were
fabricated and that Defendants knew to be false. Defendants signed these reports,
both as investigators and as supervisors, despite their knowledge that the
information contained in those reports was false.
15
69. Defendants also procured supposed eyewitnesses identifications of
Plaintiff, implicating him in the crime, by using unduly suggestive identification
techniques during photo identifications and in a live lineup. Defendants used the
resulting false identifications to taint Plaintiff’s criminal trial.
70. In addition, Defendants concealed and fabricated additional evidence
that is not yet known to Plaintiff.
71. Defendants who were supervisors charged with overseeing the
investigation of Daniel Rodriguez’s murder and the other individual Defendants
knew full well of this misconduct, the suppression of exculpatory evidence, and the
fabrication of a false case against Plaintiff. These supervisors nevertheless
intentionally ignored Defendants’ misconduct, and decided to make Plaintiff
responsible for a crime he did not commit, rather than directing the officers to go
out and find the person who had killed Daniel.
72. Defendants’ misconduct directly resulted in the unjust criminal
conviction of Plaintiff, thereby denying his constitutional right to a fair trial
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Absent this misconduct, the prosecution
of Plaintiff could not and would not have been pursued.
73. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable
and was undertaken intentionally, with malice, with reckless indifference to the
rights of others, and in total disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s clear innocence.
16
74. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count, Plaintiff
suffered loss of liberty, great mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical
and emotional pain and suffering, and other grievous and continuing injuries and
damages as set forth above.
75. Plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the official policies of Defendant City
of Lynn and the Lynn Police Department, by the practices and customs of
Defendant City of Lynn and the Lynn Police Department, as well as by the actions
of final policymaking officials for Defendant City of Lynn and the Lynn Police
Department.
76. At all times relevant to the events described in this Complaint and for
a period of time prior thereto, Defendant City of Lynn promulgated rules,
regulations, policies, and procedures governing witness interviews, photo lineups,
live lineups, preservation and disclosure of investigative materials and evidence,
questioning of criminal suspects, in-court testimony, preparation and presentation
of witness testimony, and training, supervision, and discipline of employees and
agents of the City of Lynn, including employees and agents of the Lynn Police
Department.
77. These rules, regulations, policies, and procedures were implemented by
employees and agents of Defendant City of Lynn, including the individual
Defendants, who were responsible for conducting investigations of crimes in and
around Lynn, Massachusetts.
17
78. In addition, at all times relevant to the events described in this
Complaint and for a period of time prior thereto, Defendant City of Lynn had notice
of a widespread practice by its officers and agents under which individuals
suspected of criminal activity, such as Plaintiff, were routinely deprived of
exculpatory evidence, were subjected to criminal proceedings based on false
evidence, and were deprived of their liberty without probable cause, such that
individuals were routinely implicated in crimes to which they had no connection
and for which there was scant evidence to suggest that they were involved.
79. These widespread practices were allowed to flourish because the
leaders, supervisors, and policymakers of Defendant City of Lynn directly
encouraged and were thereby the moving force behind the very type of misconduct
at issue by failing to adequately train, supervise, and discipline their officers,
agents, and employees who withheld material evidence, fabricated false evidence
and witness testimony, and pursued wrongful prosecutions and convictions.
80. The above-described widespread practices, which were so well settled
as to constitute the de facto policy of the City of Lynn, were allowed to exist because
municipal policymakers with authority over the same exhibited deliberate
indifference to the problem, thereby effectively ratifying it.
18
81. The misconduct described in this Count was undertaken pursuant to
the policy and practices of Defendant City of Lynn in that the constitutional
violations committed against Plaintiff were committed with the knowledge or
approval of persons with final policymaking authority for the City of Lynn and the
Lynn Police Department, or were actually committed by persons with such final
policymaking authority.
82. The policies, practices, and customs set forth above were the moving
force behind the numerous constitutional violations in this case and directly and
proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer the grievous and permanent injuries and
damages set forth above.
83. Plaintiff’s injuries were caused by officers, agents, and employees of
the City of Lynn and the Lynn Police Department, including but not limited to the
individually named Defendants, who acted pursuant to the policies, practices, and
customs set forth above in engaging in the misconduct described in this Count.
COUNT II
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Federal Malicious Prosecution
restated here.
85. In the manner described above, Defendants, acting as investigators,
individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with one another, as well as under color of
law and within the scope of their employment, accused Plaintiff of criminal activity
and exerted influence to initiate, continue, and perpetuate judicial proceedings
19
against Plaintiff without any probable cause for doing so and in spite of the fact that
they knew Plaintiff was innocent.
86. In doing so, Defendants caused Plaintiff to be unreasonably seized
without probable cause and deprived of his liberty, in violation of Plaintiff’s rights
secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
87. The false judicial proceedings against Plaintiff were instituted and
continued maliciously, resulting in injury.
88. Defendants deprived Plaintiff of fair state criminal proceedings,
including the chance to defend himself during those proceedings, resulting in a
deprivation of his liberty, and Massachusetts law does not provide an adequate
state-law tort remedy to redress that harm.
89. In addition, Defendants subjected Plaintiff to arbitrary governmental
action that shocks the conscience in that Plaintiff was deliberately and intentionally
framed for a crime of which he was totally innocent, through Defendants’
fabrication and suppression of evidence and their use of unduly suggestive
identification procedures.
20
92. On June 15, 2015, the judicial proceedings against Plaintiff were
terminated in his favor, in a manner indicative of his innocence, when the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts entered a nolle prosequi.
93. Defendants’ misconduct described in this Count was undertaken
pursuant to the policies, practices, and customs of Defendant City of Lynn, and by
Defendants who were final policymakers for Defendant City of Lynn, in the manner
more fully described above.
COUNT III
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Conspiracy to Deprive Constitutional Rights
restated here.
95. After the murder of Daniel Rodriguez, Defendants, acting in concert
with other co-conspirators, known and unknown, reached an agreement among
themselves to frame Plaintiff for the murder of Daniel Rodriguez, a crime he did not
commit, and thereby to deprive him of his constitutional rights, all as described in
the various paragraphs of this Complaint.
21
96. In so doing, these co-conspirators conspired to accomplish an unlawful
purpose by an unlawful means. In addition, these co-conspirators agreed among
themselves to protect one another from liability for depriving Plaintiff of these
rights.
97. In furtherance of their conspiracy, each of these co-conspirators
committed overt acts and were otherwise willful participants in joint activity.
Defendants who were final policymakers for Defendant City of Lynn, in the manner
COUNT IV
42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Failure to Intervene
restated here.
22
102. In the manner described above, during the constitutional violations
described herein, one or more of Defendants stood by without intervening to prevent
the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, even though they had the
opportunity to do so.
103. As a result of Defendants’ failure to intervene to prevent the violation
of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Plaintiff suffered pain and injury, as well as
emotional distress. These Defendants had ample, reasonable opportunities to
prevent this harm but failed to do so.
and was undertaken intentionally, with malice, reckless indifference to the rights of
others, and in total disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s clear innocence.
Defendant who were final policymakers for Defendant City of Lynn, in the manner
COUNT V
State-Law Claim – Malicious Prosecution
restated here.
23
108. In the manner described above, Defendants, acting as investigators,
individually, jointly, or in conspiracy with one another, as well as within the scope
of their employment, accused Plaintiff of criminal activity and exerted influence to
initiate and to continue and perpetuate judicial proceedings against Plaintiff
without any probable cause for doing so and in spite of the fact that they knew
Plaintiff was innocent.
109. In so doing, these Defendants caused Plaintiff to be subjected
improperly to judicial proceedings for which there was no probable cause. These
judicial proceedings were instituted and continued maliciously, resulting in injury.
112. On June 15, 2015, the judicial proceedings against Plaintiff were
terminated in his favor, in a manner indicative of his innocence, when the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts entered a nolle prosequi.2
2 Plaintiff presented his state-law claims included in this Complaint to Defendants, as

required by Massachusetts law, on June 14, 2016.
24
COUNT VI
State-Law Claim – Negligence
restated here.
114. Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to refrain from framing him for a
crime he had not committed and to conduct a legal and thorough investigation of
the murder of Daniel Rodriguez that resulted in the accurate identification, arrest,
and prosecution of criminal suspects.
115. In the manner described more fully above, the actions, omissions, and
conduct of Defendants breached this duty.
and was undertaken in total disregard of the truth and Plaintiff’s clear innocence.
COUNT VII
State-Law Claim – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
restated here.
119. The actions, omissions, and conduct of Defendants as set forth above
were extreme and outrageous. These actions were rooted in an abuse of power and
authority and were undertaken with the intent to cause, or were in reckless
25
disregard of the probability that their conduct would cause, severe emotional
distress to Plaintiff, as is more fully alleged above.
120. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff
suffered and continues to suffer physical injury, emotional distress and other
grievous and continuing injuries and damages as set forth above.
COUNT VIII
State-Law Claim – Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
restated here.
122. Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to refrain from framing him for a
crime he had not committed and to conduct a legal and thorough investigation of
the murder of Daniel Rodriguez that resulted in the accurate identification, arrest,
and prosecution of criminal suspects.
123. In the manner described more fully above, the actions, omissions, and
conduct of Defendants breached this duty.
124. The misconduct described in this Count was objectively unreasonable.
It was reasonably foreseeable that Defendant’s actions would cause any reasonable
person, including Plaintiff, emotional distress.
125. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff
suffered and continues to suffer physical injury, emotional distress, and other
grievous and continuing injuries and damages as set forth above. His distress is
manifested in symptoms such as insomnia, deep depression, and anxiety.
26
COUNT IX
State-Law Claim – Mass. Gen. Laws, Ch. 12, § 11I
restated here.
127. Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s exercise and enjoyment of rights
guaranteed to him by the U.S. Constitution and the constitution and laws of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts by coercing witnesses into fabricating false
identifications against him.
128. Defendants’ misconduct deprived Plaintiff of his rights under federal
and state law by use of threats, intimidation, and coercion, thereby violating the
Massachusetts Civil Rights Act.
COUNT X
State-Law Claim – Civil Conspiracy
restated here.
130. As described more fully in the preceding paragraphs, Defendants,
acting in concert with other co-conspirators, known and unknown, reached an
agreement among themselves to frame Plaintiff for a crime he did not commit and
conspired by concerted action to accomplish an unlawful purpose by an unlawful
means. In addition, these co-conspirators agreed among themselves to protect one
another from liability for depriving Plaintiff of these rights.
131. In furtherance of their conspiracy, each of these co-conspirators
committed overt acts and were otherwise willful participants in joint activity.
27
COUNT XI
State-Law Claim – Respondeat Superior
restated here.
135. While committing the misconduct alleged in the preceding paragraphs,
Defendants were employees, members, and agents of the City of Lynn, acting at all
relevant times within the scope of their employment.
136. Defendant City of Lynn is liable as principal for all torts committed by
its agents.
COUNT XII
State-Law Claim – Indemnification
restated here.
138. Massachusetts law provides that public entities are to pay tort
judgments for which employees are liable within the scope of their employment
activities.
28
139. Defendants were employees, members, and agents of the City of Lynn,
acting at all relevant times within the scope of their employment in committing the
misconduct described herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, ANGEL ECHAVARRIA, respectfully requests that
this Court enter a judgment in his favor and against Defendants J. MICHAEL
ROACH, JOHN GARVIN, RAYMOND GUILLERMO, JOSEPH ROWE, NORMAN
ZUK, RUSSELL GOKAS, CHARLES LUISE, JOHN SCANNELL, MICHAEL
COONEY, JOHN HOLLOW, UNKNOWN OFFICERS OF THE LYNN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, UNKNOWN OFFICERS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE
POLICE and the CITY OF LYNN, Massachusetts, awarding compensatory
damages, attorneys’ fees and costs against each Defendant, punitive damages
against each of the individual Defendants, and any other relief this Court deems
just and appropriate.
29
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff, ANGEL ECHAVARRIA, hereby demands a trial by jury pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) on all issues so triable.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
ANGEL ECHAVARRIA
BY: /s/ Ruth Greenberg

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys
Arthur Loevy Ruth Greenberg

Jon Loevy 505 Paradise Rd., #166
Mark Loevy-Reyes Swampscott, MA 01907
Steven Art (781) 632-5959
LOEVY & LOEVY ruthgreenberg44@aol.com
312 N. May St., Ste. 100 Bar No. 563783
Chicago, IL 60607
(312) 243-5900
steve@loevy.com
30
Case 1:16-cv-11118 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/16 Page 1 of 2
JS 44 (Rev. 11/15) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

Angel Echavarria Lt. J. Michael Roach, Officer Raymond Guillermo, Trooper John
Garvin, City of Lynn, as-yet-unidentified Officers of the Lynn Police
Department and Massachussetts State Police
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Essex County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Ruth Greenberg
505 Paradise Rd., #166, Swampscott, MA 01907
781-632-5959
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
u 1 U.S. Government u 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State u 1 u 1 Incorporated or Principal Place u 4 u 4
of Business In This State
u 2 U.S. Government u 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State u 2 u 2 Incorporated and Principal Place u 5 u 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a u 3 u 3 Foreign Nation u 6 u 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
u 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY u 625 Drug Related Seizure u 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 u 375 False Claims Act
u 120 Marine u 310 Airplane u 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 u 423 Withdrawal u 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
u 130 Miller Act u 315 Airplane Product Product Liability u 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
u 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability u 367 Health Care/ u 400 State Reapportionment
u 150 Recovery of Overpayment u 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS u 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury u 820 Copyrights u 430 Banks and Banking
u 151 Medicare Act u 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability u 830 Patent u 450 Commerce
u 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability u 368 Asbestos Personal u 840 Trademark u 460 Deportation
Student Loans u 340 Marine Injury Product u 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) u 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations
u 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY u 710 Fair Labor Standards u 861 HIA (1395ff) u 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits u 350 Motor Vehicle u 370 Other Fraud Act u 862 Black Lung (923) u 490 Cable/Sat TV
u 160 Stockholders’ Suits u 355 Motor Vehicle u 371 Truth in Lending u 720 Labor/Management u 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) u 850 Securities/Commodities/
u 190 Other Contract Product Liability u 380 Other Personal Relations u 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange
u 195 Contract Product Liability u 360 Other Personal Property Damage u 740 Railway Labor Act u 865 RSI (405(g)) u 890 Other Statutory Actions
u 196 Franchise Injury u 385 Property Damage u 751 Family and Medical u 891 Agricultural Acts
u 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act u 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice u 790 Other Labor Litigation u 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS u 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
u 210 Land Condemnation u 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act u 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff u 896 Arbitration
u 220 Foreclosure u 441 Voting u 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) u 899 Administrative Procedure
u 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment u 442 Employment u 510 Motions to Vacate u 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of
u 240 Torts to Land u 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
u 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations u 530 General u 950 Constitutionality of
u 290 All Other Real Property u 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - u 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: u 462 Naturalization Application
u 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - u 540 Mandamus & Other u 465 Other Immigration
Other u 550 Civil Rights Actions
u 448 Education u 555 Prison Condition
u 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
u 1 Original u 2 Removed from u 3 Remanded from u 4 Reinstated or u 5 Transferred from u 6 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation
(specify)
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
42 USC 1983
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Plaintiff wrongfully convicted, imprisoned for 21 years; counts of deprivation of due process, malicious prosecution
VII. REQUESTED IN u CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. Compensatory, punitive damages JURY DEMAND: u Yes u No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
06/13/2016 /s/ Ruth Greenberg
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 11/15) Case 1:16-cv-11118 Document 1-1 Filed 06/15/16 Page 2 of 2
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than
one nature of suit, select the most definitive.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407.
When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
Case 1:16-cv-11118 Document 1-2 Filed 06/15/16 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
1. Title of case (name of first party on each side only) Echavarria, Angel v. Roach, J. Michael
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? (See 28 USC
§2403)
YES NO ✔

If so, is the U.S.A. or an officer, agent or employee of the U.S. a party?
YES NO
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 ✔
NO
A. If yes, in which division do all of the non-governmental parties reside?
Eastern Division ✔ Central Division Western Division

B. 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 Ruth Greenberg
ADDRESS 505 Paradise Rd., #166, Swampscott, MA 01907

TELEPHONE NO. 781-632-5959
(CategoryForm9-2014.wpd )

In The United States District Court For The District of Massachusetts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In The United States District Court For The District of Massachusetts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

In The United States District Court For The District of Massachusetts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:16-cv-11118 Document 1 Filed 06/15/16 Page 1 of 30

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NOW COMES Plaintiff, ANGEL ECHAVARRIA, by his attorneys LOEVY &

LOEVY and RUTH GREENBERG, and complaining of Defendants J. MICHAEL

ROACH, JOHN GARVIN, RAYMOND GUILLERMO, JOSEPH ROWE, NORMAN

ZUK, RUSSELL GOKAS, CHARLES LUISE, JOHN SCANNELL, MICHAEL

COONEY, JOHN HOLLOW, UNKNOWN OFFICERS OF THE LYNN POLICE

DEPARTMENT, UNKNOWN OFFICERS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE

POLICE and the CITY OF LYNN, Massachusetts, states as follows:

1. Plaintiff Angel Echavarria was wrongly convicted of the murder of

him to the killing.

identifications were wholly fabricated by Defendants.

3. In addition to fabricating false identifications of Plaintiff, Defendants

4. To make matters worse, Bonifacio was a criminal known to

5. Instead of investigating Bonifacio’s obvious involvement in the murder

of Daniel Rodriguez, Defendants concealed everything they knew about Bonifacio’s

Plaintiff had been involved.

testimony fabricated by Defendants, Plaintiff was charged, prosecuted, and wrongly

convicted of murder. He was sentenced to life in prison.

7. Twenty-one years after he was wrongly arrested for the murder of

Daniel Rodriguez, the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

granted Plaintiff a new trial. On June 15, 2015, the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts dropped all charges against Plaintiff.

behind bars for a crime he did not commit.

endured and continues to suffer as a result of Defendants’ misconduct.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Massachusetts

law to redress Defendants’ tortious conduct and their deprivation of Plaintiff’s

rights secured by the U.S. Constitution.

11. This Court has jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s federal claims pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction of his state-law claims pursuant to 28

12. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). On information and belief,

crime he did not commit.

14. Defendants J. Michael Roach, Raymond Guillermo, Joseph Rowe,

Department. These Defendants were responsible for investigating crimes, including

These Defendants committed, facilitated, and approved the constitutional violations

at issue in this case.

15. Defendants John Garvin, Norman Zuk, Michael Cooney, and

Defendant Unknown Officers of the Massachusetts State Police are current or

former officers of the Massachusetts State Police. These Defendants were

for supervising other police officer Defendants. These Defendants committed,

facilitated, and approved the constitutional violations at issue in this case.

16. Defendant City of Lynn, Massachusetts, is a municipality of the State

of Massachusetts, which oversees the Lynn Police Department. Each of the

investigation described in this Complaint. Defendant City of Lynn is therefore liable

practices of the Lynn Police Department, which were implemented by Defendants in

for any judgment entered against Defendants.

employment, and as an investigator. Each of the individual Defendants is sued in

his individual capacity, unless otherwise noted.

The Murder of Daniel Rodriguez

18. In January 1994, Daniel Rodriguez was shot and killed in an

apartment in Lynn, Massachusetts.

holding a number of people hostage in the apartment.1

place where individuals could buy drugs.

survived the incident unharmed.

23. To this day, the crime remains unsolved. By focusing on Plaintiff,

Isidoro Identifies Mariano Bonifacio as the Murderer

24. On the night of the murder, in an effort to identify the perpetrators of

25. Shortly thereafter, Defendants obtained a second photo of Bonifacio.