Randy Cox Sues City, Police For $100M

Richard ​“Randy” Cox’s lawyers have filed a civil lawsuit in federal court against the city and five New Haven police officers seeking $100 million in damages for the cops’ alleged violations of the paralyzed 36-year-old New Havener’s constitutional rights.

Wallingford-based attorneys R.J. Weber III and Lou Rubano filed that long-expected federal lawsuit Tuesday morning in the U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut. 

At noon, Weber and Rubano joined nationally prominent civil rights attorney Ben Crump, Cox’s mom Doreen Coleman and sister Latoya Boomer, state NAACP President Scot X. Esdaile and local chapter President Dori Dumas, and a host of other civil rights advocates and supporters for a press conference on the front steps of City Hall to detail the allegations of that complaint.

The 29-page lawsuit, which can be read in full here, accuses New Haven Police Officers Oscar Diaz, Ronald Pressley, Jocelyn Lavandier and Luis Rivera and Sgt. Betsy Segui of violating Cox’s 4th and 14th Amendment constitutional rights for their roles in an incident that led to Cox suffering severe injuries to his neck and spine while in police custody on June 19.

It also accuses those officers of recklessness, negligence, and excessive force. It claims that the city should be held liable for the officers’ actions, and for not ensuring Cox’s safety after his arrest. 

Cox, meanwhile, remains paralyzed from the chest down and is now back in the hospital because of the injuries he sustained during that incident.

“As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid actions of the defendants, Cox has suffered and continues to suffer great physical and emotional pain, including but not limited to mental anguish, frustration, and anxiety over the fact that he was and remains seriously injured,” one section of the lawsuit reads. 

The lawsuit continues: ​“As a direct result of the aforesaid actions of the defendants, Cox has, and will in the future, incur expenses for hospital, physicians, physical therapy, and other related expenses as a result of his injuries.”

The legal complaint itself does not specify an exact dollar amount that Cox and his attorneys are seeking to collect from the city and the five officer-defendants. Rather, it calls on the court to grant an unspecific amount of ​“compensatory damages” and ​“punitive damages” from each defendant. It also requests that the court award Cox attorney’s fees, costs, and ​“such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.”

Tuesday’s lawsuit comes more than three months after police arrested the 36-year-old New Havener on weapons charges without incident at a Lilac Street block party. En route to the police station, the driver of a prisoner conveyance van slammed on the brakes to avoid crashing into another vehicle at the intersection of Division and Mansfield Streets. That abrupt stop sent Cox flying head first into the wall of the van, injuring his neck and spine. The driver of the van later called for medical help but, instead of asking for an ambulance to come to the scene, the driver proceeded to take Cox to the detention center at 1 Union Ave. There, rather than waiting for a medical crew to attend to Cox’s crumpled and paralyzed body, officers at the police lock-up accused Cox of lying, demanded he stand up, pulled him out of the van, placed him in a wheelchair, then dragged him across the floor into a cell. The case has sparked national outrage.

It also comes 12 days after nationally prominent civil rights attorney Ben Crump joined Cox’s family members, friends, NAACP leaders, and fellow attorneys to put the city on notice that a lawsuit would be coming soon. 

Meanwhile, the five police officers involved in this incident remain on paid administrative leave as the state’s attorney’s office considers whether or not to arrest and prosecute the officers. In the wake of the incident, the city has also upgraded its transportation policies and department-wide training on​“active bystandership” and deescalation in hopes of avoiding a similar future incident.

"No Amount Can Compensate For Injuries He's Sustained"

While the text of the lawsuit itself doesn’t specify an exact dollar amount sought from the city, during Tuesday’s press conference, Crump and Weber made clear that they are seeking $100 million in damages from the city and these officers through this federal lawsuit.

“We think there is no value that can replace the damages and the hurt and the harm and the mental anguish and the, just, torture that he’s endured every day, every hour, every minute, every second,” Crump said about Cox, who remains remains paralyzed from the chest down and is currently back in the hospital.

“It does seek damages in the amount of $100 million,” Weber said about the lawsuit. But, he stressed, ​“There is no amount of money in damages that can compensate this man for the injuries that he sustained, for the injuries that he suffered.”

Throughout the press conference, Crump and Boomer and Coleman consistently implored the city to ​“do the right thing” by Cox and his family. ​“Are they gonna step up and do the right thing?” Crump asked. Or will the lawyers and the family have to take the city to trial?

“We don’t have any conclusion whether or not we’re going to have to fight them every step of the way to get the full measure of justice that Randy Cox deserves,” Crump said. The ball is now in the city’s court, he said.

Crump said that the cost of providing ​“basic quality of life” care for Cox should come to roughly $20 million to $30 million.

Why did the legal team and family pick $100 million to sue for?

“No amount of money in the world” would make up for what Cox has gone through and will have to suffer through for the rest of his life, Crump said. ​“If you said $1 billion, it wouldn’t be enough for me. And so the family and the legal team arrived at $100 million.” 

He said that the ​“mental anguish” of Cox becoming a quadriplegic also influenced their decision to sue for $100 million. ​“How much would you want to say, I would trade places with Mr. Cox?” Crump said. ​“How much would we have to give anybody?”

“We have a tradition in America of discounting people of color, of marginalizing their value,” Crump said. ​“He is not insignificant.”

Crump said that Cox’s legal team and city lawyers have already met to discuss the lawsuit. Asked if he is encouraging the city to settle the case, Crump repeated that the city needs to ​“do the right thing.” 

Crump has a history of winning large settlements from municipal governments in order to put an end to high-dollar civil lawsuits filed after extreme examples of police misconduct. Last year, the city of Minneapolis agreed to pay the family of George Floyd $27 million to settle a civil lawsuit stemming from his murder by Minneapolis police. Crump represented Floyd’s family in that case.

Mayor: Open To Settlement Talks

During a Tuesday afternoon press conference at City Hall, Mayor Justin Elicker, Police Chief Karl Jacobson, and Corporation Counsel Patricia King responded to the filing of the federal lawsuit and to Cox’s lawyers’ and family’s press conference earlier in the day.

“We are all committed to doing the right thing,” Elicker said.

He declined to comment on the $100 million number cited by Cox’s attorneys during their press conference about the newly filed lawsuit. He did recognize that ​“no amount of money is going to make Randy be able to walk again.”

He said that the city is open to discussing a settlement for the newly filed civil lawsuit. King said that she received a copy of the lawsuit at 10 a.m. Tuesday. Her team still needs to read through it in detail and follow the necessary legal process for responding to it.

Elicker also stressed that the state’s attorney’s office hasn’t yet decided whether or not to arrest and prosecute the officers involved. He said the state’s attorney’s office should complete its own review of the state police’s investigation by the second week of October. Only then will the city know whether or not these cops will be arrested and prosecuted. That’s also when the city will resume its own internal affairs review of the officers’ conduct.

“We all want this process to happen as quickly as possible,” Elicker said, ​“but we need to ensure that we are fair in the process. While we all feel frustration because we want to ensure justice for Randy, we need to make sure that we do this appropriately and have the outcome that allows fairness and the process to take its course.”

The Lawsuit, Detailed

The first half of the lawsuit focuses on the actions of Officer Diaz, the driver of the police transport van in which Cox initially sustained such serious injuries to his spine and neck.

The lawsuit accuses Officer Oscar Diaz of one count of ​“negligence,” one count of ​“recklessness,” and one count of ​“excessive force” for abruptly stopping the prisoner transport van while Cox was handcuffed and otherwise unsecured in the back of the vehicle. It also alleges that Diaz violated Cox’s 4th and 14th Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution not just by his allegedly ​“reckless” driving, but also by failing to seek out immediate on-site medical attention for Cox after the injured prisoner told him that he could not move.

“While in route to the detention center, Diaz suddenly and without warning applied his brakes resulting in the sudden stop of the transport van,” the lawsuit reads. ​“Cox had no warning of the impending and sudden stop resulting in his body being violently thrown around the inside of the transport van resulting in serious and permanent injuries.”

To quote directly from the lawsuit, the legal complaint accuses Officer Diaz of ​“negligence and carelessness” on the following grounds: 

a. In that he applied his brakes in an abrupt and unnecessary manner;

b. In that he failed to maintain a reasonable and proper look out for other vehicles on the roadway;

c. He failed to keep the vehicle under proper control;

d. He was inattentive in the operation of his vehicle;

e. He was operating his vehicle at an excessive rate of speed and in violation of §13 – 218a and §14 – 219 of the Connecticut General Statutes; and

f. He operated his vehicle recklessly and in violation of §14 – 222 of the Connecticut General Statutes.

“As a direct and proximate result of the defendant Diaz’ negligence and carelessness,” the lawsuit continues, Cox suffered such serious injuries as a fracture to his cervical spine; permanent paralysis below his neck; contusions, abrasions and injuries to his muscles, ligaments, tendons and bones; spinal cord injury; a chronic and permanent respiratory condition; permanent atrophy of the muscles; and shortened life expectancy, among other concerns. 

The lawsuit also states that Cox suffers from ​“great physical and emotional pain” thanks to Diaz’s actions, including ​“mental anguish, frustration, and anxiety over the fact that he was and remains seriously injured.”

“As a result of the negligence and carelessness of the defendant Diaz, Cox has, and will in the future, incur expenses for hospital, physicians, physical therapy, and other related expenses as a result of his injuries.”

The lawsuit goes on to accuse the city of negligence for failing to ​“properly equip the transport van with adequate passenger restraints” and for failing to ​“provide the transport van with adequate equipment to ensure the safety of passengers,” among other van-related concerns.

And it claims that Diaz violated Cox’s federal constitutional rights when he stopped the van while en route to the 1 Union Ave. detention center, heard directly from Cox that he couldn’t move, and then proceeded on to the detention center instead of seeking immediate on-site medical attention. (Diaz instead called for medical assistance to be provided at the detention center.)

“When Cox told Diaz that he was hurt and could not move,” the lawsuit reads, ​“Diaz was bound to immediately seek medical attention for Cox and his denial of medical treatment was a violation of Cox’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States.”

In a subsequent count, the lawsuit accuses Diaz of negligence on the following grounds. To quote directly from the lawsuit, Diaz was ​“negligent and careless”:

a. In not providing immediate medical assistance;

b. In not stopping the transport van immediately to check on Cox’s wellbeing;

c. In not immediately rendering medical assistance;

d. In not immediately calling [for] an ambulance when he learned Cox might be seriously injured;

e. In not preventing Cox, who told him he could not move, from moving until emergency response personnel arrived; and

f. In not remaining at a stop after learning that Cox might be seriously injured.

The second half of the lawsuit lists additional counts against the detention center officers Segui, Pressley, Lavandier, and Rivera, along with Diaz.

The lawsuit claims that the detention center officers violated Cox’s 4th and 14th Amendment constitutional rights, intentionally inflicted ​“emotional distress,” and assaulted Cox upon his arrival at the 1 Union Ave. detention center. 

They did so, the lawsuit claims, by not believing him when he said he was injured, by pulling his limp body out of the transport van and into a wheelchair, processing him, and then dragging his paralyzed body into a holding cell.

“Upon Diaz’ arrival at the Detention Center,” the lawsuit reads, ​“the defendants, Oscar Diaz, Betsy Segui, Ronald Pressley, Jocelyn Lavandier and Luis Rivera, were present and once again Cox indicated several times that he could not move and thinks he broke his neck.

“Despite Cox’s pleas, the defendants attempted to move Cox and place him in a wheelchair to be processed and eventually dragged him to a cell by his shoulder while still in handcuffs.”

The lawsuit states that this response constituted ​“a use of excessive force in violation of Cox’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States,” and resulted in the same set of injuries Cox suffered while in the transport van, including a fracture to his cervical spine, permanent paralysis, and a chronic and permanent respiratory condition, among other injuries.