Court Sees Former Prisoner Plaintiff's Civil Rights Claims as Plausible and Allows Them to Proceed Forward

In the case of Walton v. Lackawanna County, No. 3:25-CV-02461-MEM (M.D. Pa. July 7, 2026 Mannion, J.), the court denied a municipality’s Motion to Dismiss a former prisoner Plaintiff’s civil rights claims.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was pursuing §1983 civil rights claims, along with other disability claims, relative to allegations that, during a period of incarceration at the Lackawanna County Prison, the Plaintiff was prevented from securing the small plunger-like devices he allegedly required to remove his scleral contact lenses each day for his condition of keratoconus.  The Plaintiff alleged that, due to the fact that he was allegedly prevented from securing the plunger devices, he could not remove his scleral contact lenses, and suffered injuries to his eyes as a result.

After the filing of the Complaint, the municipality filed a Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s various claims, including claims of municipal liability, deliberate indifference claims, and claims of liability under various disability laws.

After reviewing the record before him and applying the allegations against the standard of review, Federal Court Judge Malachy E. Mannion found that the Plaintiff had stated plausible causes of action in all respects. As such, the Defendant’s Motion was denied and the case was allowed to proceed.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Federal Court Allows Civil Rights Claim to Proceed Regarding Fatal Fire Case

In the case of McDonald v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, No. 24-CV-0057 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 18, 2025 Quinones Alejandro, J.), the court granted a Motion to Dismiss a state-created danger claim but denied civil rights claims asserted against the Philadelphia Housing Authority in a case involving a fatal fire.

According to Opinion, this civil rights action arose out of the deaths of twelve (12) individuals following a fire at a residential apartment building owned and managed by the Philadelphia Housing Authority. Among the allegations was an allegation that the Defendant did not have any working smoke detectors in the building at the time, a fact that was allegedly known by certain employees of the Defendant. The Plaintiffs alleged that, because of the lack of working smoke detectors, the occupants of the building were not alerted to the fire until it was too late.

After reviewing the record before the court, the judge dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims of a state-created danger.

However, the court denied the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claims of municipal liability under the civil rights act. The court rejected the Defendants’ argument that the civil rights claims should be dismissed on the grounds that the state-created danger claims were dismissed.

The court emphasized that the Plaintiffs’ civil rights claims were different from the state-created danger claims and had different requirements. Accordingly, the court found that the City’s sole reliance on the court’s dismissal of the state-created danger claims as the basis for its requested dismissal of the civil rights claims was misplaced.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source – Article: “Judge Rejects City’s Efforts To Toss Liability Claims for Phila. Fatal Apartment Fire.” By Nicholas Malfitano of The Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 20, 2025).

Court Dismisses Negligent Entrustment Claim Against Parents Relative to Use of Cell Phone by Child

In the case of JH v. Dunmore School District, No. 3:24-CV-1154 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2025 Munley, J.), Judge Julia K. Munley of the Federal Middle District Court of Pennsylvania addressed various Motions to Dismiss filed by different Defendants relative to a case involving allegations that certain middle school student allegedly recorded a minor Plaintiff who was on the autism spectrum, inside a bathroom stall at the school and then allegedly disseminating that video to other students who also allegedly shared the video with others.

Among the claims presented by the Plaintiffs were allegations of negligence entrustment and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the minor Defendants at issue and their parents. The negligent entrustment claim was that the parents had negligently entrusted a cell phone owned by the parents to their children.

The court granted in part and denied in part the request for a dismissal of the negligent entrustment claims asserted against the parents given that the Plaintiffs did not allege facts to support their conclusion that the parent Defendants knew or should have known that their children would use their cell phones in ways that would hurt people.

The court also noted that, based upon the facts alleged by the Plaintiff, which included references to school policy and state law, the Plaintiffs’ allegations actually support the proposition that the parent Defendants yielded control of the cell phones, or the use of the cell phones to the teachers and administrators when their children were at school. 

In this regard, the court pointed to the school district’s rules requiring students to refrain from utilizing their cell phone on the school ground during school hours. 

The court emphasized that the alleged negligent conduct of the students took place during the course of the school day and that there were no allegations that any of the minor Defendants in this action shared the video of the minor Plaintiff outside of the school day. 

The court in this matter did allow the Plaintiffs’ claims or intentional infliction of emotional distress to proceed against the parent Defendants.

The court otherwise dismissed a number of claims asserted against the school district and school officials but allow the Plaintiffs to file another Amended Complaint relative to the possible civil rights allegations under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

The court allowed the claims of punitive damages to remain in the case relative to the claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.

Source of image:  Photo by Tracy Le Blanc on www.unsplash.com.

Eastern District Court Finds Spoliation of Evidence Relative to Failure To Preserve Video After Plaintiff's Attorney Requested Preservation

In the case of Peronace v. City of Philadelphia, No. 2:23-CV-03943-KSM (E.D. Pa. April 16, 2024 Marston, J.), the court denied the city’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a prisoner’s rights case involving Monell issues.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff alleged that he had sustained multiple seizures while incarcerated and that the correctional officers delayed in providing him with medical assistance.

As part of this decision, the court addressed a Motion for Sanctions filed by the Plaintiff under an allegation that the prison officials intentionally failed to preserve video footage from outside of the prisoner’s cell.

The court reviewed this motion under F.R.C.P. 37(e) and found that, because the city should have known to preserve the video footage after receiving correspondence from an attorney for the Plaintiff to do so, and because there was no evidence that the city took any such steps, let alone reasonable steps to preserve the video footage, the court found that the videos were spoliated.

In terms of what sanction to impose, the court reviewed the factors set out under Rule 37(e) and ruled that, since it found that the city intentionally allowed relevant video footage to be overwritten by the video surveillance system, and considering the prejudice to the Plaintiff, the court fashioned a sanction and ruled that a jury may be instructed that the Defendant intentionally failed to preserve the disputed video evidence and that, therefore, the jury may presume that the lost video footage was unfavorable to the Defendant.

In a different portion of this Opinion, the court denied the city Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment after finding that issues of fact and testimonial differences existed on the case presented.

However, after finding that the Plaintiff did not submit evidence of any custom or policy of correctional officers violating inmates’ constitutional rights in the ways that the officers allegedly violated Plaintiff’s rights in this case, the court found that the city could not be held liable under the policy or custom prong of Monell. However, the court did find that the case against the city based upon an alleged failure of the city to supervise its correctional officers could proceed.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Jeffrey D. Schmidt of the Feasterville, PA law firm of Rovner, Allen, Rovner, Zimmerman and Schmidt for bringing this case to my attention.

Pro Se Prisoner's Civil Rights Claims Related to COVID-19 Vaccine Dismissed

In the case of Jones v. Employees of the DOC of Pa at SCI-Phoenix, No. 2:22-CV-02386-CMR (E.D. Pa. March 22, 2024 Rufe, J.), the Eastern District Federal Court dismissed a prisoner pro se Plaintiff’s §1983 Civil Rights litigation based on allegations related to medical treatment that the Plaintiff received while in prison.

The Plaintiff asserted that he suffered from adverse side effects after he was injected with a COVID-19 vaccine and the needle was allegedly injected too deep and struck a nerve, allegedly resulting in nerve damage. The Plaintiff alleged Eighth Amendment violations.

The Defendants moved to dismiss, which motion was granted.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff filed an administrative grievance within the prison prior to pursuing this litigation. In that grievance, he asserted deliberate indifference to the Plaintiff’s medical needs and violation of the Eighth Amendment. The grievance was denied. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed suit.

The court granted the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss after finding that the Plaintiff was provided treatment for his alleged symptoms. The court additionally noted that the record did not reveal any indication that the Defendants had intentionally inflicted pain or insisted on treatment that the Defendants allegedly knew would be painful, in effective, or risky.

The court additionally confirmed the well-settled law that disagreements over medical treatment provided to prisoners in prison could not rise to the level of a constitutional violation under the Eighth Amendment.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert” Law.com (April 18, 2024).

Source of image:  Photo by Hakan Nural on www.unsplash.com.

Continuing Violations Doctrine Does Not Save Civil Rights Claim From Statute of Limitations Defense Under Facts Presented

In the case of Sharr v. City of Scranton, No. 3:23-CV-00826-JFS (M.D. Pa. March 13, 2024 Saporito, C.M.J.), Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr. granted a Motion to Dismiss in a civil rights action brought by three (3) retirees against their former employer, The City of Scranton, relative to issues surrounding their monthly pension benefit payments that were reduced by The City.

The Plaintiffs had presented a claim that The City had violated their Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Rights and had presented a 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights action.

The Defendant, City of Scranton, moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under an argument that the Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

The Plaintiffs attempted to argue that the time within which they could file a lawsuit was extended by the continuing violations doctrine. 

The Plaintiff contended that each reduced monthly pension benefit payment paid by The City constituted another in a series of allegedly continuing unlawful acts, all of which, when taking together, comprised an ongoing continuing practice of allegedly violating the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

Chief Mag. Judge 
Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
M.D. Pa.

The court reviewed the law of the continuing violation doctrine and found that the Plaintiffs’ arguments did not meet the requirements of that doctrine. 

 The court found that the Plaintiffs’ claims were instead barred by the statute of limitations because the Plaintiffs were aware of their alleged injury at the time the alleged injury occurred well beyond the two (2) state of limitations applicable to civil rights actions.

As such, the court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Moreover, the court dismissed the action without leave to amend as the court found that it was clear from the facts alleged that any attempt to file an Amended Complaint would be futile as a matter of law.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Court Addresses Motion To Dismiss Section 1983 Prison Case Regarding Medical Care Issues

In the case of Cyr v. Schuylkill County, No. 3:22-CV-00453 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 30, 2023 Saporito, M.J.), the court denied the Defendant nurse's and prison medical care company’s Motion to Dismiss a claim for an alleged §1983 denial of medical care and failure to intervene action after the Plaintiff's son died in prison of an alleged drug overdose.

The court found that the Plaintiff had adequately pled a denial of medical care and a failure to intervene in the Complaint. The court found that the allegations sufficiently pled a plausible claim against the medical company.

More specifically, after reviewing the Complaint, the court noted that the Plaintiff asserted in the Complaint that the son’s serious medical need was “so obvious” that a layperson could recognize it.

Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
M.D. Pa.

The court additionally found that the Complaint sufficiently alleged deliberate indifference to substantiate a denial of medical care claim.

Judge Saporito also pointed to the fact that the Plaintiff had identified several policies, customs, or practices that the nurses and medical company allegedly violated which allegedly caused the deprivation of the son’s constitutional rights. Those alleged policies included alleged insufficient staffing, failing to train employees on diagnosing intoxicated or overdosing inmates, and not monitoring inmates in need or emergency care.

The court additionally found that the Plaintiff plausibly pled a failure to intervene claim.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Feb. 14, 2023).

Federal Magistrate Judge Addresses Excessive Force Civil Rights Claims

In the case of Thompkins v. Klobucher, No. 2:21-CV-00320-CRE (W.D. Pa. Oct. 3, 2022 Reedy Eddy, M.J.), the court addressed a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by a Defendant police officer in a §1983 Civil Rights Action alleging excessive use of force.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff wife’s arm was broken was she was being arrested for domestic violence.

In reviewing the Defendant police officer’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the court found that there were genuine issues of material fact to be decided by a jury with regards to the alleged excessive force claim.

The court also found that the police officer was not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings.

As such, the police officer’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in part and denied in part.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Oct. 20, 2022).

Section 1983 Civil Rights Claims Arising Out of a Police Chase Case Allowed to Proceed

In the case of Donahue v. Borough of Collingdale, No. 22-1695 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2022 Baylson, J.), the District Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in a civil rights claim against police officers who engage in a high speed chase that resulted in a fatal collision.  The Plaintiffs also sued the municipality.

The court ruled that, while the Plaintiffs had a heavy burden of proof, the allegations in their Complaint were sufficient to allege a cause of action under a state-created danger theory and other theories of liability.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be seen HERE


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 16, 2022).

Summary Judgment Granted In Favor of Police Officer on Civil Rights Excessive Force and Battery Claims

In the case of Fuller v. Narkin, No. 2:16-CV-00995-GAM (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2022 McHugh, J.), the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s excessive force claims arising from a policy shooting incident.

According to the Opinion, the suspect had led the police on a high-speed chase and, when cornered by the police officers, the suspect attempted to drive at the officer who then discharged his weapon.

The Defendant police officer moved for summary judgment on the excessive force and battery claims filed against him by the Plaintiff. The court granted the motion. 

The court ruled that the police officer correctly interpreted the suspect’s actions as a threat to potentially run the police officer in a further attempt to evade capture. According to the record, the suspect himself even admitted that he was attempting to continue driving his tractor trailer when the police officer discharged his weapon.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 8, 2022).

Section 1983 Claims in Context of Nursing Home Litigation Reviewed

In the case of Tammaro v. County of Chester, No. 21-3811 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 16, 2022 Robreno, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defendants, which consisted of a health care facility and a county that owned that facility.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff Administratrix filed §1983 Civil Rights and Wrongful Death and Survival claims along with Federal Nursing Home Reform Act claims. 

After reviewing the facts before it and applying the law, the court found that the Plaintiff’s theory that the Defendant deliberately understaffed its facility was not a cognizable theory of liability for her §1983 civil rights claim.

However, the court found that the Plaintiff had sufficiently stated a failure-to-train claim.


Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (March 10, 2022).

Photo by Matthias Zomer on www.pexels.com.

Section 1983 Liability for Police Chase Reviewed By Eastern District Court

This is a repeat of yesterday's Tort Talk Blog post -- this time with the Links to the Court's Opinion and companion Order -- sorry about that.

 

In the case of McKenna v. Wolk, No. 2:18-CV-03746-MSG (E.D. Pa. Dec. 29, 2021 Goldberg, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by a Defendant police officer and a city Defendant in a Plaintiff’s §1983 unreasonable seizure and excessive force claim.

According to the Opinion, the officer was involved in a police chase and allegedly caused a collision with a dirt biker that the officer was pursuing.

In its decision, the court found that the Plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that a seizure had occurred. The court also felt that a reasonable jury could also conclude that the officer used excessive force under the circumstances.

However, relative to the claims against the Defendant city, the court found that the Plaintiff did not sufficiently point to a custom of violent conduct on the part of that Defendant.

As such, the Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in part and denied in part.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  Here is a LINK to the Court's companion Order.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 20, 2022).

Source of image:  Photo by Scott Rodgerson on unsplash.com.

Section 1983 Liability for Police Chase Reviewed by Eastern District Court

In the case of McKenna v. Wolk, No. 2:18-CV-03746-MSG (E.D. Pa. Dec. 29, 2021 Goldberg, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by a Defendant police officer and a city Defendant in a Plaintiff’s §1983 unreasonable seizure and excessive force claim.

According to the Opinion, the officer was involved in a police chase and allegedly caused a collision with a dirt biker that the officer was pursuing.

In its decision, the court found that the Plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that a seizure had occurred. The court also felt that a reasonable jury could also conclude that the officer used excessive force under the circumstances.

However, relative to the claims against the Defendant city, the court found that the Plaintiff did not sufficiently point to a custom of violent conduct on the part of that Defendant.

As such, the Motion for Summary Judgment was granted in part and denied in part.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 20, 2022).

Source of image:  Photo by Scott Rodgerson on unsplash.com.

Corrected Link to Jefferson v. Lias Qualified Immunity Case

Yesterday, the case Third Circuit Court of Appeals case of Jefferson v. Lias, No. 20-2526 (3d. Cir. Dec. 16, 2021)(Maj. Op. by Restrepo, J.), was reviewed here on Tort Talk.

In that case the Third Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the circumstances under which a Defendant police officer may be entitled to qualified immunity under a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Here is the corrected LINK for that decision.

I apologize for any confusion that may have been caused by the faulty original link.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals Addresses Qualified Immunity for Police Officers in Civil Rights Actions

In the case Third Circuit Court of Appeals case of Jefferson v. Lias, No. 20-2526 (3d. Cir. Dec. 16, 2021)(Maj. Op. by Restrepo, J.), the Court addressed the circumstances under which a Defendant police officer may be entitled to qualified immunity under a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

In this case, the district court had granted a Defendant police officer’s summary judgment motion as to the alleged use of excessive  force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The city was also granted summary judgment as to the Plaintiff’s alleged Monell claims. 

At the lower court level, the court found that the Defendant police officer’s use of deadly force was reasonable under the circumstances, but that, even assuming it was not, the police officer was shielded from liability in any event by the doctrine of qualified immunity because his actions did not violate any  clearly established law.

On appeal, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals found that the district court had improperly weighed evidence in determining that the Plaintiff allegedly presented a danger to those in the area based upon his escape and the court found that there were factual issues to be decided by the jury.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals then also discussed the doctrine of qualified immunity and provided clarification as to how it should be determined whether a right at issue is clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK

Summary Judgment Affirmed in Section 1983 Case Arising Out of Termination of Chief of Police

In the case of Dondero v. Lower Milford Township, No. 20-1128 (3d. Cir. July 20, 2021 Ambro, J., Hardiman, J. and Phipps, J.) (Op. by Hardiman, J.), the court affirmed the lower court’s entry of summary judgment rejecting the Plaintiff’s constitutional and statutory claims arising out of his termination as Chief of Police in Lower Milford Township without a hearing.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals noted that it agreed with the District Court’s decision that no pre-termination hearing was required when the township eliminated its police department.   

Based upon these rulings, the court affirmed the entry of summary judgment on the claims of violations of the first amendment and violations of substantive and procedural due process, as well as other claims.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to attorney Owen M. Coleman of the Carbondale, Pennsylvania law office of Harry Coleman for bringing this case to my attention.    

Section 1983 Civil Rights Claim Allowed to Proceed

In the case of Reed v. City of Philadelphia, No. 20-3640 (E.D. Pa. June 17, 2021 DuBois, J.), the court denied a city and doctor’s Motions to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s §1983 Civil Rights Claims filed over a decedent’s suicide in jail.

The court found that the Plaintiff, who was the administratrix of the decedent’s estate, had adequately pled a monell’s claim based upon allegations of inadequate training.

The court additionally found that the Plaintiff had adequately pled that the doctor’s deliberate indifference to the decedent’s serious medical needs allowed the case to proceed.

The court also denied the doctor’s Motion to Dismiss the punitive damages claim presented.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (July 6, 2021).

Third Circuit Court of Appeals Addresses Section 1983 Civil Rights Issues (Non-Precedential)

TortTalkers may recall a previous Tort Talk post on the case of Cost v. Borough of Dickson City, under which Judge Malachy Mannion of the Federal Middle District Court of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part summary judgment in favor of a municipality and Defendant police officers in the §1983 Civil Rights litigation. In a case arising out of a police response to a domestic disturbance.

As an update on that matter, under a decision marked as “Not Precedential” and dated June 3, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third District affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for the Defendants.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this case, which contains a summary of the current status of the law in civil litigation matters alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and state law, may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Patrick J. Murphy of the Scranton office of the Bardsley, Benedict and Scholden LLP law firm for bringing this to my attention.

Source of image:  Bill Oxford on Unsplash.  

Judge Leeson Addresses Validity of Section 1983 Excessive Force Civil Rights Allegations

To the extent you may have an excessive force civil rights cause of action, you may be interested in the recent Opinion issued by Eastern District Federal Court Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., in the case of Wright v. Whitehall Township, No. 5:20-CV-02664 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 12, 2021 Leeson, J.).

According to the Opinion, this civil rights action stems from an altercation between police officers and a group of teenagers attending a high school basketball game. After a melee between the teenagers and the officers, the Plaintiffs filed various Section 1983 civil rights claims, including claims of excessive force, retaliation, deliberately indifference policies, practices, customs, training and supervision, along with claims of state-created danger-substantive due process claims, conspiracy to violate civil rights claims, and violation of equal rights claims.

After reviewing the various Motions to Dismiss filed by various Defendants, the court dismissed many of the claims but allowed the Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision for the latest on the law in excessive force civil rights claims may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney W. Christian Moffitt of the Blue Bell, PA office of the Fox Rothschild, LLP law firm for sending this decision to my attention.

Judge Mannion of Federal Middle District Court Addresses Section 1983 Claims Relative to Police Entry into House in Response to Domestic Disturbance

In the case of Cost v. Borough of Dickson City, No. 3:-cv-1494 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 15, 2020 Mannion, J.), the court addressed summary judgment motions filed by a municipality and Defendant police officers in a §1983 Civil Rights litigation. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. 

According to the Opinion, the case arose out of a police response to a domestic disturbance. 

 The Defendant police officers asserted that they had knocked on the front door of the home numerous occasions to no response. The officers testified that, based upon the details of the 911 call, which included a notation that children were screaming, and given that, when the officers arrived on the scene and heard yelling and heard a female shouting the word “stop” inside of the residence, and given that everything then became quiet when they approached the front door, the officers eventually forced a door open after which certain individuals, including one of the Plaintiffs, were arrested. 

It was then determined that the disturbance involved an argument with the daughter of the family over a cell phone. 

After one of the Plaintiffs identified themselves within the home, that Plaintiff was released. The other Plaintiff refused to identify himself and was put in the police car to be transported to a processing center. That person was placed under arrest for Disorderly Conduct. Upon arrival at the processing center, that Plaintiff then identified himself and was released. Thereafter, a citation issued to that Plaintiff was dismissed after the officer failed to appear at the hearing. 

The Plaintiffs thereafter brought suit against the various Defendants with each Plaintiff alleging an unlawful search and seizure claim under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment, a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, a state law assault and battery claim, and a Fourth Amendment and state law false arrest and false imprisonment claim, and a claim of inadequate supervision and training by the borough. The Plaintiff who had been taken for processing also alleged Fourth Amendment and state law malicious prosecution claims. 

After reviewing the current status of the law on these types of claims, the court granted the motions at issue in part and denied them in part. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. 

I send thanks to Attorney Patrick J. Murphy of the Scranton office of the Bardsley Benedict & Cholden, LLP law firm for bringing this case to my attention.