Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Federal Lawsuit Against Pittsfield Police Officer
Federal Lawsuit Against Pittsfield Police Officer
Federal Lawsuit Against Pittsfield Police Officer
INTRODUCTION
chase, the defendant officer shot Mr. Marauszwski three times, twice as Mr.
Marauszwski was coming to a stop, and a final time after Mr. Marauszwski’s car
had struck a concrete bollard and had come to a stop. Marauszwski was
connection with the car chase. Following a jury trial, Marauszwski was convicted
wounds to the hand, arm and chest, with the final round passing through his
chest from left to right, nearly striking his heart. He was hospitalized for more
than a week after the shooting, and still suffers both physical and mental
trauma as a result.
1
Case 3:20-cv-30010 Document 1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 7
2. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant police officer used excessive force against
United States Constitution and seeks damages for the violation of his
constitutional rights.
JURISDICTION
3. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C §1983 and §1988 and the Fourth
based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and on the pendent jurisdiction of this
PARTIES
5. Defendant Officer Martin Streit is a police officer for the Pittsfield Police
Department and is sued in his individual capacity for actions taken under the
color of law.
FACTS
6. On January 25th, 2017, at about 9 a.m., Pittsfield Police conducted a traffic stop
7. The stop occurred on Bartlett Avenue in downtown Pittsfield, near the Pittsfield
District Courthouse.
8. The Plaintiff, who was driving a green SUV, was stopped for driving on a
2
Case 3:20-cv-30010 Document 1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 3 of 7
9. Marauszwski initially complied with the stop, pulling over and speaking with
Officer David Hallas, attempting to show him a paper copy of his license and
10. Officer Hallas told Mr. Marauszwski that his car was not legal to drive, and that
it would be towed.
11. Marauszwski was standing by his car during the interchange, and Officer Hallas
12. During this interaction, another Pittsfield Officer, Bryan Betters, arrived on the
scene.
13. Upon exiting the car, Officer Betters immediately reached toward his belt.
14. Marauszwski observed this, and believed Betters was reaching for his gun.
15. Marauszwski, frightened by this gesture, turned, got back into his car, and drove
16. Officer Betters and Hallis reported Marauszwski’s flight and began to pursue
him.
18. Marauszwski kept his speed in the range of 30 to 35 miles per hour.
20. After approximately five to ten minutes, Marauszwski pulled his car into
Springside Park.
21. Marauszwski drove his car around the perimeter of the park’s baseball diamond.
3
Case 3:20-cv-30010 Document 1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 4 of 7
22. Marauszwski was driving on snow-covered rough ground and was not driving at
a high speed.
23. After circling the baseball diamond, Marauszwski began to drive in the direction
of a pedestrian underpass.
24. By this point, Marauszwski had decided to end the pursuit and had begun to
slow down.
25. Several police officers, including the Defendant, were in the park and had exited
26. As Marauszwski drove toward the pedestrian underpass, the Defendant fired
27. When interviewed by State Police, following the shooting, Streit said he heard a
loud thump and saw one of his fellow officers, Darren Derby, falling to the
28. Streit also told investigators that Marauszwski accelerated directly at him.
29. At the subsequent criminal trial, Officer Derby testified that he was not struck
30. Other witnesses described Streit as being outside the direction of Marauszwski’s
32. As a result of being shot, Marauszwski took his foot off the accelerator and the
car drifted to a halt, striking a concrete bollard and coming to a complete stop.
4
Case 3:20-cv-30010 Document 1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 5 of 7
33. Officer Streit approached the car, and Marauszwski exclaimed “I can’t believe
34. Officer Streit then fired a third shot, through the vehicle’s side window.
35. This round struck Marauszwski, passing through his chest and exiting his
armpit.
36. Marauszwski was then removed from his car by three officers.
37. Another Pittsfield Officer, observing Marauszwski’s injuries, treated him for
38. Marauszwski was subsequently hospitalized for his injuries and remained in the
40. As a result of the January 25th incident, Marauszwski was charged with driving
with a suspended license, subsequent offense, failing to stop for police, reckless
operation of a motor vehicle, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, three
41. On February 4th, 2019, after a four-day jury trial, Marauszwski was acquitted
on the counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, two counts of
assault with a dangerous weapon – the third count was subsequently nolle
prosequi-ed – and the wanton destruction of property count. He was found guilty
of the driving offenses and sentenced to one year committed in the House of
5
Case 3:20-cv-30010 Document 1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 6 of 7
Corrections for the reckless operation and six months on the operating with a
42. Mr. Marauszwski continues to suffer the consequences, both physically and
43. Marauszwski has a regular visiting nurse for his physical health issues and may
44. He also suffers from emotional distress, depression and anxiety as a result of the
shooting.
suffering, terror, and the anguish of experiencing what he believed to be his last
COUNT I
VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983
BY DEFENDANT MARTIN STREIT
47. By the actions described in the above paragraphs, Defendants, acting under
color of law, deprived Plaintiff of his right to be free from the use of excessive
6
Case 3:20-cv-30010 Document 1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 7 of 7
4. Such other and further relief, as this Court may deem necessary and
appropriate.
DATED: 1-24-2020
Respectfully Submitted,
Plaintiff Mark Marauszwski
/s/Jessica D. Hedges
Jessica D. Hedges
BBO No. 645847
James Haynes
BBO No. 676320
Hedges & Tumposky, LLP
50 Congress Street, Suite 600
Boston, MA 02109
T) (617) 722-8220
7
Case 3:20-cv-30010 Document 1-1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
1. Title of case (name of first party on each side only) Mark Marauszwski v. Off. Martin Streit
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. 160, 400, 410, 441, 535, 830*, 835*, 850, 891, 893, R.23, REGARDLESS OF NATURE OF SUIT.
✔ II. 110, 130, 190, 196, 370, 375, 376, 440, 442, 443, 445, 446, 448, 470, 751, 820*, 840*, 895, 896, 899.
120, 140, 150, 151, 152, 153, 195, 210, 220, 230, 240, 245, 290, 310, 315, 320, 330, 340, 345, 350, 355, 360, 362,
III. 365, 367, 368, 371, 380, 385, 422, 423, 430, 450, 460, 462, 463, 465, 480, 490, 510, 530, 540, 550, 555, 560, 625,
690, 710, 720, 740, 790, 791, 861-865, 870, 871, 890, 950.
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.
n/a
4. Has a prior action between the same parties and based on the same claim ever been filed in this court?
YES 9 NO 9✔
5. Does the complaint in this case question the constitutionality of an act of congress affecting the public interest? (See 28 USC
§2403)
YES 9 NO ✔
9
If so, is the U.S.A. or an officer, agent or employee of the U.S. a party?
YES 9 NO ✔
9
6. Is this case required to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges pursuant to title 28 USC §2284?
YES 9 NO 9
✔
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 ✔
9 NO 9
A. If yes, in which division do all of the non-governmental parties reside?
YES 9 NO 9
(PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT)
ATTORNEY'S NAME Jessica Hedges
ADDRESS Hedges & Tumposky, LLP, 50 Congress St., Suite 600, Boston, MA 02109
TELEPHONE NO. (617) 722-8220
(CategoryForm1-2019.wpd )
Case 3:20-cv-30010 Document 1-2 Filed 01/24/20 Page 1 of 2
JS 44 (Rev. 09/19) 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.)
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Berkshire County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Berkshire
(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)
Jessica Hedges,
Hedges & Tumposky, LLP
50 Congress St., Boston, MA 02109 - (617) 722-8220
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)
’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4
of Business In This State
’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
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 there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
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.