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).

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 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.

Section 1983 Claims Allowed to Proceed Against Police Officers

In the case of Estate of Ronald Singletary v. City of Philadelphia, No. 2:19-CV-00190-JMY (E.D. Pa. Nov. 10, 2021 Young, J.), the court granted in part and denied in part, a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant police officers and the City of Philadelphia for summary judgment in response to the Plaintiff’s §1983 excessive force, failure to train, and state-created danger cause of action.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff alleged that the officer shot the Plaintiff’s decedent while trying to arrest him for contempt of court.

In reviewing the record before it, the court found that there was sufficient evidence to show that the officers’ conduct amounted to excessive force and was the proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s death.

However, the court dismissed the claims of municipal liability and state-created danger.

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


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 3, 2021).

Source of image:  Photo by Michael Fortsch on www.unsplash.com.

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

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.