Case 4:12-cv-00447-RH-CAS Document 7 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ROBERT A. BRAYSHAW, CASE NO. 4:12CV447-RH/CAS

Plaintiff,

v.

ANNETTE GARRETT,

Defendant.
___________________________________/

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, ROBERT BRAYSHAW, hereby sues Defendant, ANNETTE GARRETT,

and alleges:

JURISDICTION

1. This is an action involving the violation of Plaintiff’s federal civil rights. The

aggregate amount of damages claimed by Plaintiff against Defendant is in excess of Seventy

Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), the jurisdictional amount required for venue in this

Court.

2. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 in that this

is a civil action arising under the Constitution of the United States.

3. Jurisdiction of the Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343(a)(3) in that

this action seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured to
 Case 4:12-cv-00447-RH-CAS Document 7 Filed 10/09/12 Page 2 of 6

Plaintiff by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States

of America.

4. Plaintiff’s claims for relief are predicated upon 42 U.S.C. §1983, which

authorizes actions to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights, privileges,

and immunities secured to Plaintiff by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and

by 42 U.S.C. §1988 which authorizes the award of attorney’s fees and costs to prevailing

plaintiffs in actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.

THE PARTIES

5. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff, ROBERT BRAYSHAW, has been a

resident of Leon County, Florida.

6. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant, ANNETTE GARRETT, was a

resident of Leon County, Florida and was a Police Officer for the Tallahassee Police

Department (“TPD”).

7. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned to represent his interests in this cause

and is obligated to pay her a fee for her services.

FACTS

8. Plaintiff promotes education and legal action, as well as research, publishing,

and advocacy in support of civil and constitutional liberties.

9. In order to provide information and political commentary, Plaintiff has

utilized popular websites such as Wikipedia.

2
 Case 4:12-cv-00447-RH-CAS Document 7 Filed 10/09/12 Page 3 of 6

10. Specifically, Plaintiff posted numerous entries discussing Defendant Garrett

on Wikipedia. In his posts, Plaintiff was critical of the TPD and Defendant Garrett. Plaintiff

expressed opinions that were favorable to neither TPD nor Garrett.

11. On or about March 4, 2011, Defendant Garrett deleted Plaintiff’s comments

and posts on Wikipedia discussing Defendant and the TPD.

12. In December 2011, after Plaintiff’s posts were deleted, Plaintiff obtained TPD

emails pursuant to a public records request. These emails revealed that Plaintiff’s posts were

removed by Defendant Garrett. Upon information and belief, Defendant Garrett used her

TPD computer to delete Plaintiff’s posts.

13. Throughout the end of 2010 and continuing into the beginning of 2011,

Plaintiff posted various documents critical of TPD and Defendant Garrett to various public

file sharing sites such as scribd.com, slideshare.com, and calameo.com. Upon information

and belief, Defendant Garrett requested that these sites delete Plaintiff’s shared files and

caused scribd.com and calameo.com to terminate Plaintiff’s account.

14. Plaintiff’s posts have never been obscene, sexually explicit, racially

derogatory, or defamatory. Neither has Plaintiff suggested and/or encouraged illegal

activities.

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

15. Paragraphs 1 through 14 above are hereby realleged and incorporated herein

by reference.

3
 Case 4:12-cv-00447-RH-CAS Document 7 Filed 10/09/12 Page 4 of 6

16. This is an action against Defendant for the violation of Plaintiff’s First

Amendment Rights. This claim is applicable to the Defendant under the Fourteenth

Amendment brought through 42 U.S.C. §1983.

17. Plaintiff has certain guaranteed rights to make statements that are of public

concern. The issues raised by the Plaintiff in his online comments and postings included

issues of public concern.

18. The actions described in part above were taken against Plaintiff in retaliation

for the exercise of his First Amendment rights which included reporting matters of public

concern via the internet.

19. The actions by Defendant were taken in violation of Plaintiff’s clearly

established right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from

retaliation motivated by the exercise of his First Amendment speech rights. The laws which

form the basis for this claim identified herein were clearly established at the time when the

aforementioned actions took place.

20. Defendant misused her power, possessed by virtue of state law and made

possible only because she was clothed with the authority of state law. The violation of

Plaintiff’s rights, as described above, occurred under color of state law and is actionable

under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

21. The foregoing actions of Defendant was willful, wanton and in reckless

disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, and were taken without any lawful justification.

4
 Case 4:12-cv-00447-RH-CAS Document 7 Filed 10/09/12 Page 5 of 6

22. As a direct and proximate result of the actions taken against Plaintiff by

Defendant described in part above, Plaintiff has been harmed and damaged. Plaintiff’s

damages include but may not be limited to emotional pain and suffering, loss of capacity for

the enjoyment of life, and other damages allowed by law including other tangible and

intangible damages. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief in the form of attorneys fees and costs,

as may be allowed by law. The injuries of which Plaintiff complains have occurred in the

past, are occurring at present and will continue in the future. Defendant is liable for these

harms.

23. Based on the willful and malicious conduct of Defendant, as is set out herein,

Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages.

24. Plaintiff has been forced to retain counsel to represent him to vindicate his

rights. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys

fees and costs.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:

(a) that process issue and this Court take jurisdiction over this case;

(b) that this Court grant equitable relief against Defendant, mandating

Defendant’s obedience to the laws enumerated herein;

(c) enter judgment against Defendant, and for Plaintiff awarding compensatory

and punitive damages to Plaintiff for Defendant’s violations of law

enumerated herein;

5
 Case 4:12-cv-00447-RH-CAS Document 7 Filed 10/09/12 Page 6 of 6

(d) enter judgment against Defendant and for Plaintiff awarding Plaintiff

attorney's fees and costs; and

(e) grant such other further relief as being just and proper under the

circumstances.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues set forth herein which are so

triable.

DATED this 9th day of October, 2012.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Marie A. Mattox

Marie A. Mattox [FBN 0739685]
MARIE A. MATTOX, P. A.
310 East Bradford Road
Tallahassee, FL 32303
(850) 383-4800 (telephone)
(850) 383-4801 (facsimile)

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF