Martin v. City of Reading

• Decision Date: 31 July 2015
• Docket Number: No. 5:12–cv–03665.,5:12–cv–03665.
• Parties: Ernest MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF READING; Reading Police Department; William Heim, Chief of Police of the Reading Police, individually and in his official capacity; Officer Brian Errington, individually and in his official capacity; Captain DamonKloc, individually and in his official capacity; Pa State Troooper Michael Pavelko; John Does 1–9, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

118 F.Supp.3d 751

Ernest MARTIN, Plaintiff,

v.CITY OF READING; Reading Police Department; William Heim, Chief of Police of the Reading Police, individually and in his official capacity; Officer Brian Errington, individually and in his official capacity; Captain Damon¹ Kloc, individually and in his official capacity; Pa State Troooper Michael Pavelko; John Does 1–9, Defendants.

No. 5:12–cv–03665.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed July 31, 2015.

Edith A. Pearce, William J. Ringland, II, The Pearce Law Firm PC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.

David J. MacMain, Megan K. Kampf, Tricia M. Ambrose, The MacMain Law Group LLC, Malvern, PA, Randall J. Henzes, Office of Attorney General, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 86—Denied

Defendant Michael Pavelko's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 84—Granted

Defendants City of Reading et al.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 87—Granted in Part and Denied in Part

JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR., District Judge.

I. Introduction

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Ernest Martin's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 86, Defendant Michael Pavelko's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 84, and Defendants City of Reading, Reading Police Department,² William Heim, Damond Kloc, and Brian Errington's ("Reading Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 87. For the following reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion, grants Defendant Pavelko's Motion, and grants the Reading Defendants' Motion in part and denies the Motion in part.

II. Factual Background and Procedural History

On April 19, 2012, Plaintiff fell from the West Shore Bypass, an elevated portion of U.S. Route 422 that passes through the Borough of West Reading, Pennsylvania and landed forty feet below on a concrete surface. See Am. Compl. ¶ 29, ECF No. 21. This action arises out of the circumstances that led to his fall.

Plaintiff claims that Defendant Brian Errington, a police officer employed by the City of Reading, caused him to fall after Defendant Errington "shot Plaintiff with a taser/stun gun while Plaintiff stood at the side of the West Shore Bypass." Id. ¶¶ 7, 29. Plaintiff claims that he suffered serious and permanent injuries, including permanent damage to his liver, a fracture to his pelvis

, and numerous fractured ribs. Id. ¶ 30. He was treated for his injuries in the intensive care unit at Reading Hospital and Medical Center and has undergone a number of surgical procedures. Id. ¶ 31. At the time of his complaint, he alleged that he was dependent upon a ventilator and a feeding tube and expected months of additional hospitalization. See id.

After the incident, Plaintiff claims that Captain Dante Orlandi, Commanding Officer of Troop "L" of the Pennsylvania State Police, Defendant Michael Pavelko, a Pennsylvania State Trooper, and other Pennsylvania State Troopers,³ together with the City of Reading, the Reading Police Department, and various City of Reading police officers, including Defendant Errington,⁴ commenced an investigation into the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff's fall. Id. ¶¶ 6–22, 33. Plaintiff claims that during the course of this investigation, these individuals and entities attempted to "cover-up and hide the facts surrounding the unlawful cause of Plaintiff's fall [,] ... intentionally fail[ed] to properly preserve physical evidence at the scene," and "intentionally fail[ed] to obtain/retain the names and contact information of, and intentionally fail[ed] to properly question, eye witnesses at the scene." See id. ¶ 33. Plaintiff also claims that Captain Orlandi, "by and through Defendant Pavelko" and two unknown Pennsylvania State Troopers and "in concert with" the Reading Defendants, "threaten[ed] a witness with criminal perjury charges if the witness would not corroborate" their version of the events. See id. ¶ 33.

In addition to these alleged investigatory missteps, Plaintiff claims that Defendants "provided false and misleading statements to local media outlets" suggesting that Plaintiff intentionally jumped from the West Shore Bypass—statements that Plaintiff alleges were then published by those local media outlets. See id. ¶¶ 41–42.

Based on these events, Plaintiff advances the following claims: (1) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a claim that Defendant Errington used excessive force against him in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, as incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) tort claims against Defendant Errington for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) pursuant to § 1983, a claim that Defendant City of Reading, Defendant Heim, and Defendant Kloc were each deliberately indifferent to a need to train and supervise the City of Reading police officers to avoid the constitutional harm Plaintiff alleges he suffered; (4) pursuant to § 1983, a claim that all Defendants violated a protected liberty interest of Plaintiff under the Fourteenth Amendment by virtue of Defendants' alleged investigatory misconduct; and (5) tort claims against all Defendants, with the exception of Defendant Pavelko,⁵ for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of the publication of allegedly false statements about Plaintiff by local media outlets.⁶ See id. ¶¶ 49–110.

Defendants cast Plaintiff's claims in a starkly different light. According to the Reading Defendants, Plaintiff's arrival on the West Shore Bypass was the culmination of a series of alleged criminal acts Plaintiff committed that day. Defendants assert that Plaintiff stole a car, was located by City of Reading police officers a few hours later—still in possession of the stolen vehicle—and proceeded to lead the officers on a chase "through the city streets of Reading in an attempt to flee apprehension." See Reading Defs.' Br. 1–2. Once on U.S. Route 422, Plaintiff "crashed the stolen car, ... ran through traffic on Route 422 eastbound, climbed over the median barrier and began to run onto the westbound lanes of Route 422." Id. at 2. At this point in time, according to the Reading Defendants, Defendant Errington issued a verbal warning to stop and warned Plaintiff that he would deploy his Taser if Plaintiff did not comply. Id.

There is no dispute that Defendant Errington deployed his Taser, but the Reading Defendants claim that the Taser "did not connect" with Plaintiff. Id. After that failed attempt to halt Plaintiff's flight, the Reading Defendants state that Plaintiff "took several additional steps to the overpass abutment beyond the shoulder and then jumped over the barrier," leading to Plaintiff's fall forty feet to the ground. Id. The Reading Defendants allege that Plaintiff leapt from the roadway to evade the officers, either misjudging the distance to the ground, misjudging his proximity to the Schuylkill River, which travels alongside that portion of the West Shore Bypass, or acting in disregard of the possible harm he might suffer from the fall. Id. The Reading Defendants, therefore, maintain that Defendant Errington's discharge of his Taser played no role in Plaintiff's fall from the Bypass. See id. at 3. With respect to Plaintiff's other claims, the Reading Defendants contend that Defendant has failed to produce sufficient facts to survive summary judgment. See id.

On May 29, 2015, Plaintiff, Defendant Pavelko, and the Reading Defendants each filed their respective motions that are presently before the Court.

III. Standard of Review—Motions for Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party "shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is material if the fact "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law," Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986), and a dispute is genuine if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party," id. When the evidence favoring the nonmoving party is "merely colorable" or "not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Id. at 249–50, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (citations omitted). The parties must support their respective contentions—that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed—by "citing to particular parts of materials in the record" or by "showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1). "The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3).

IV. Claims against Defendant Officer Brian Errington

A. § 1983 Claim for use of Excessive Force in Violation of Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment Rights

1. There is a Genuine Dispute over the Material Facts Concerning Whether Defendant Errington Violated Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment Rights.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV. Excessive force claims that "arise in the context of an arrest or investigatory stop" invoke the protections conferred by the Fourth Amendment, because the " ‘reasonableness' of a particular seizure depends ... on how it is carried out." Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394–95, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). "Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is ‘reasonable’ under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful balancing of ‘the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests' against the countervailing governmental interests at stake." Id. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (quoting Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 8, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) ).

Evaluating a claim of excessive force demands "careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each...