Case 3:10-cv-01169-WWE Document 1 Filed 07/27/10 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

RONALD W. TOMPKINS :

VS. : CIVIL ACTION NO.

DAVID GULICK : JULY 26, 2010

COMPLAINT

1. This is an action to redress the deprivation of rights secured to the

plaintiff by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of

Connecticut.

2. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked under the provisions of Sections

1331, 1343(3) and 1367(a) of Title 28 and Sections 1983 and 1988 of Title 42 of

the United States Code.

3. The plaintiff is an adult citizen of the United States who resides in

Waterbury, Connecticut, where he is and for several years has been a police

officer.

4. The defendant is an adult citizen of the United States who resides in

Wolcott, Connecticut. He is, and at all times mentioned herein was, an Assistant

State’s Attorney assigned to prosecute criminal cases in the Connecticut

1
 Case 3:10-cv-01169-WWE Document 1 Filed 07/27/10 Page 2 of 6

Superior Court at Waterbury. He is sued only in his individual capacity.

5. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant was acting

under color of law, that is, under color of the constitution, statutes, laws, rules,

regulations, customs and usages of the State of Connecticut.

6. During some of the events mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant

acted jointly and in concert with Don Therkildsen, another Assistant State’s

Attorney prosecuting criminal cases in the Connecticut Superior Court at

Waterbury, who is a close friend of the defendant and resides less than 1,150

feet from the defendant’s house in Wolcott, Connecticut.

7. Sometime prior to April, 2007, the defendant began a sexual affair with

the plaintiff’s wife, Cheryl Tompkins. That affair continues to the present time.

8. On or about May 21, 2008, Cheryl Tompkins initiated a divorce action

against the defendant in which, among other things, she sought custody of their

minor children.

9. On or about May 21, 2008, concomitantly with the initiation of the

divorce proceedings, and for the purpose of facilitating such proceedings, Cheryl

Tompkins caused the defendant to be arrested by Wolcott police on allegations

of domestic violence.

10. The Deputy Chief of the Wolcott Police Department, on May 21,

2008, was the father of the aforesaid Don Therkildsen and resided with him less

2
 Case 3:10-cv-01169-WWE Document 1 Filed 07/27/10 Page 3 of 6

than 1,150 feet from the defendant’s house in Wolcott, Connecticut.

11. Although the plaintiff was a Waterbury police officer with no criminal

record, the aforesaid Deputy Chief of the Wolcott Police Department caused a

bond in the exorbitant sum of $50,000 to be placed on the plaintiff at Wolcott

Police Headquarters. Upon information and belief, such action was taken for the

benefit of the defendant in order to facilitate his adulterous relationship with the

plaintiff’s wife.

12. The criminal charges against the plaintiff remained pending in the

Superior Court at Waterbury until they were dismissed on June 29, 2009.

13. On June 11, 2009, the plaintiff and his wife were divorced.

14. Throughout the time that the plaintiff’s criminal prosecution was

pending in court, the defendant secretly orchestrated the prosecution and used

his influence as a prosecutor to cause the case to be prosecuted in a manner

which would make reconciliation between the plaintiff and his wife impossible

and interfere with the plaintiff’s ability to have visitations or a normal parental

relationship with his minor children.

15. Although many prosecutors were employed in the Office of the

State’s Attorney at Waterbury during the time the plaintiff’s case was pending in

that court, the defendant arranged that his close friend, Assistant State’s

Attorney Therkildsen, would handle the prosecution at all times. Thus,

3
 Case 3:10-cv-01169-WWE Document 1 Filed 07/27/10 Page 4 of 6

Therkildsen was the prosecutor of the plaintiff when the plaintiff appeared in

court on May 22, 2008, on June 5, 2008, and on July 29, 2009. Moreover, the

defendant himself arranged to be in the courtroom whenever the plaintiff’s case

was called.

16. On June 8, 2009, the defendant’s deposition was taken in the

aforesaid divorce litigation. At that time, the defendant testified falsely in an

attempt to conceal the fact, nature and motivations for his presence in court

when the plaintiff’s criminal case was called and to conceal the nature and extent

of his personal relationship with Assistant State’s Attorney Thirkildsen.

17. Before and after the plaintiff’s arrest, the defendant advised the

plaintiff’s wife about the manner in which she should conduct herself in

connection with both the divorce case and the criminal case. The plaintiff’s wife

acknowledged that fact to her next-door neighbor, Lisa Lebel, but the defendant

denied it under oath at his aforesaid deposition.

18. The defendant attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s right to the

assistance of counsel in his aforesaid criminal case by contacting the plaintiff via

telephone and urging him not to retain an attorney and by causing Assistant

State’s Attorney Thirkildsen to attempt to dissuade the plaintiff’s criminal defense

attorney, Patrick J. Cooney, from representing the plaintiff in a conscientious

manner. Specifically, on or about June 5, 2008, at the Waterbury courthouse,

4
 Case 3:10-cv-01169-WWE Document 1 Filed 07/27/10 Page 5 of 6

Prosecutor Thirkildsen stated to Attorney Cooney: “Do not stick your neck out for

him. Pat, I am telling you as a friend, do not stick your neck out for him. He is a

liar.” Between June 5 and July 8, 2008, the defendant telephoned the plaintiff on

the plaintiff’s cellphone and stated that he should not have a lawyer representing

him, that he was wasting his money, and that he had arranged for Thirkildsen to

be the prosecutor assigned to the plaintiff’s case as a favor to the plaintiff. He

stated to the plaintiff, who at that time did not know that the defendant was

having an affair with his wife, that Thirkildsen was his best friend and the only

person in the Office of the State’s Attorney that he could “go to on something like

this.”

19. In the manner described above, the defendant used his power as a

public official to interfere with the plaintiff’s intimate relationship with his wife and

with the plaintiff’s familial relationship with his minor children, in violation of the

rights secured to the plaintiff by the First, Fourth, Ninth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution as enforced through Sections

1983 and 1988 of Title 42 of the United States Code.

20. In the manner described above, the defendant engaged in conduct

shocking to the conscience which deprived the plaintiff of substantive due

process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution as enforced through Sections 1983 and 1988 of Title 42 of the

5
 Case 3:10-cv-01169-WWE Document 1 Filed 07/27/10 Page 6 of 6

United States Code.

21. The conduct of the defendant described above was extreme and

outrageous and was carried out with the knowledge that it would cause the

plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, in violation of Connecticut law.

22. As a result, the plaintiff suffered permanent damage to his

relationships with his wife and children, public humiliation, economic loss and

severe emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff claims judgment against the defendant for

compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs.

The plaintiff claims trial by jury.

THE PLAINTIFF

BY: /s/
JOHN R. WILLIAMS (ct00215)
51 Elm Street
New Haven, CT 06510
203.562.9931
Fax: 203.776.9494
jrw@johnrwilliams.com
His Attorney