Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fred Runyon v. Manchester Police Department

February 4, 2013

FRED RUNYON
v.
MANCHESTER POLICE DEPARTMENT



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Landya McCafferty United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Before the court is the initial complaint (doc. no. 1) and addenda to the complaint (doc. nos. 8-18), hereinafter construed to be the complaint in this action for all purposes, filed by Fred Runyon, asserting violations of his federal constitutional rights by the defendants.*fn1 Because Runyon is incarcerated and proceeding pro se,*fn2 the matter is before the court for preliminary review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and United States District Court District of New Hampshire Local Rule ("LR") 4.3(d)(2).

Background

Runyon claims that Manchester Police Department ("MPD") officers arrested him on an unspecified date in 2011, shocked him with a stun gun multiple times, and hit and kicked him in the ribs, chest, and head. Runyon states that he cannot recall the date of the incident, which he characterizes as "police brutality," because he was shocked with a stun gun so many times.

Runyon further asserts that there was "no charge whatsoever" pending against him, and that the officers "trumped up a charge" for "no reason." Runyon further asserts that the officers failed to read him his Miranda rights, and that after he was formally charged, MPD officers caused him to be convicted on the false charge. Runyon also alleges that the New Hampshire Public Defender's Office failed to prevent the state from obtaining an "illegal[] conviction," which resulted in Runyon's "false imprisonment."

Runyon further asserts that the MPD "disposed of [his] driver's license illegally" after his arrest, and allowed a "prostitute" to drive his new car and use his social security number and credit cards to purchase items in Runyon's name, without his authorization, thus harming his credit.

Upon initially reviewing the complaint (doc. nos. 1 and 8-18), and liberally construing it in light of Runyon's pro se status, the court finds that Runyon has asserted the following claims:

1. Unnamed MPD officers arresting Runyon in 2011 violated Runyon's rights under the Fourth Amendment, by using unreasonable force, in that they shocked him with stun guns repeatedly, and kicked and struck him multiple times.

2. Unnamed MPD officers arresting Runyon in 2011 violated Runyon's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

3. Defendants violated Runyon's rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

4. Defendants violated Runyon's rights by causing him to be subjected to a false arrest, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment.

5. The MPD is liable under state law for torts relating to a third party's use of Runyon's car, credit cards, and social security card, which caused items to be purchased in Runyon's name without his authorization, and which damaged Runyon's credit rating.

6. The defendant supervisors and municipalities are liable to Runyon for the unconstitutional acts of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.