Williams v. City of York
| Decision Date | 15 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 1:15-cv-0493 |
| Parties | WILLASHIA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, and VINCENT MONTE, NICHOLAS FIGGE and TERRY SEITZ, in their individual capacities, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
MEMORANDUM
In this Section 1983 civil rights action, Plaintiff brings claims for false arrest, excessive force, battery, and false imprisonment against the City of York, Pennsylvania, as well as three police officers, Vincent Monte, Nicholas Figge, and Terry Seitz. Presently before the court are cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated herein, the court will deny Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
In considering the instant motions, the court relied on the uncontested facts or, where the facts were disputed, viewed the facts and deduced all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Plaintiff, Willashia Williams ("Plaintiff" or "Williams"), is an African-American woman who was eighteen years old and a resident of the City of York ("York") at the time of the incident. Vincent Monte ("Officer Monte") and Terry Seitz ("Officer Seitz") were patrol officers, and Nicholas Figge ("Sergeant Figge") was a sergeant, with the York City Police Department ("YCPD"). Other than the date of the incident at issue, March 12, 2013, and certain events that occurred prior to Defendants' interaction with Plaintiff, there is little agreement regarding what occurred that night.
The parties do agree on the following: At approximately 8:35 p.m. on March 12, 2013, Officer Lowe reported via the police radio that there were shots fired and that the suspects' fled in a white vehicle, but stated that he and other officers could not pursue the vehicle, because they were on foot. Sergeant Figge, however, was driving near the scene when the suspects' vehicle pulled in front of him. Office Lowe reported, and Sergeant Figge confirmed, that there were three occupants in the vehicle. The suspects fled at a high rate of speed while Sergeant Figge and Officer Jay pursued them through multiple streets in York. The vehicle subsequently crashed into a parked car outside of the officers' view. Officer Jay was the first to arrive at the crash site and saw one of the passengers flee on foot to the south of the accident. The driver and other passenger had already left theaccident scene. Sergeant Figge arrived on scene moments after Officer Jay, but left soon after to pursue the driver and additional passenger. (Figge Dep., p. 12.) Officer Jay stayed at the accident scene to complete the accident investigation report during which he found a spent .38 caliber shell casing inside the vehicle. (Jay Dep., pp. 6, 10-12; Doc. 84-9, p. 2 of 7.)
After the accident, dispatch reported that the driver fled northbound on foot. Officer Jay assumed that both the driver and second passenger fled northbound but did not see either person flee in that direction. (Jay Dep., p. 17.) Shortly after leaving to pursue the driver and second passenger, Sergeant Figge observed two people running away from the accident area in the eastbound direction on Princess Street.1 (Figge Dep., pp. 12-13.) Sergeant Figge ordered those two people to stop while reporting over the radio: Plaintiff agrees that she and Joseph Scott ("Scott"), her then-boyfriend, "ran up Princess Street, headed towards Pine." While driving in his unmarked, blue Crown Victoria, Sergeant Figge, who was in full uniform, held hisfirearm out of the window and ordered Plaintiff and Scott to get on the ground.2 The parties debate whether Plaintiff and Scott stopped immediately upon Sergeant Figge's command or continued to run down the block. (Compare Doc. 86, pp. 5-6 with Doc. 94, pp. 6-10.) Regardless, at some point, Scott stopped near the corner of Princess and Pine Streets and lay down prone on the ground. Plaintiff continued running on Princess Street, ran onto the porch of a house, and tried to open the door. When Officer Monte arrived on scene moments later,3 he saw Plaintiff and Scott lying face down on the ground. (Monte Dep., p. 17.) Officer Monte exited his vehicle and handcuffed Scott. Once other officers arrived, Sergeant Figge exited his vehicle and told two officers "to grab" Plaintiff. (Figge Dep., p. 17.) They did so, and Officer Seitz, who was on scene at this point, handcuffed Plaintiff. To restrain Plaintiff, an officer placed his knee on Plaintiff's back. Both Plaintiff and Scott were in custody within one minute of Sergeant Figge's initial report of them running on Princess Street.
Thirty-one seconds after Officer Monte parked his vehicle, Plaintiff and Scott begin having a conversation with officers.4 From Officer Monte's exterior dashcam recording, one can hear an officer order someone to get on the ground. Throughout the audio, Plaintiff can be heard complaining and, at times, yelling, including yelling at officers: "Get off of me!"5 At one point, Scott yells: "Hey babe, calm down man!"
While walking to Officer Seitz's vehicle, Plaintiff tripped on an officer's foot. Officer Monte subsequently sees Plaintiff "on the ground kicking and screaming."6 The following conversation can be heard from Officer Monte's exterior dashcam footage:
Sergeant Figge ordered Officer Seitz to cite Plaintiff with disorderly conduct. Plaintiff was then placed in Officer Seitz's vehicle and transported to City Hall. Officer Seitz had no further conversations with Sergeant Figge or any other officers at the scene. Scott was also transported to City Hall by Officer Monte.7 Once at City Hall, Officer Seitz handcuffed one of Plaintiff's arms to a bench.8 While handcuffed, Scott yelled at Plaintiff to calm down and relax. Thereafter, Sergeant Figge ordered an officer to handcuff Plaintiff's right arm as well.9 Although the parties dispute whether Plaintiff alerted any officers that the handcuffs were too tight and were hurting her writs, they agree that Plaintiff did not complain to Sergeant Figge about her pain. Sometime while at City Hall, Sergeant Figge asked Plaintiff to calm down, and she complied. Officer Seitz confirmed Plaintiff's identity, issued her a citation (no. P9536668-1), and releasedher from custody. On April 19, 2013, Plaintiff appeared pro se for the disorderly conduct citation summary trial and was found not guilty.10
The remaining details of the story, as highlighted by these examples, are matters of significant debate. Plaintiff alleges that prior to running down Princess Street, she and Scott were at a park in York with two of their friends. A police officer told them to evacuate the area because there had been a shooting. To get home more quickly, Plaintiff and Scott decided to run back to their house, running up Princess Street towards Pine Street. At this point, Sergeant Figge saw Plaintiff and Scott running and yelled for them to stop. Plaintiff submits that when Officer Seitz arrested her, he threw her to the ground. She alleges that the officers were "really forceful and rough with [her], like [she] was a man." (Williams Dep., pp. 56-57.) Defendants aver that Plaintiff was kicking, flailing around, being disorderly, and yelling while she was being handcuffed. She reportedly refused orders to place her hands behind her back, was being uncooperative, and swearing at officers. At City Hall, Plaintiff avers that her wrist was hurting and asked to have the handcuffs removed. An officer purportedly approached her, twisted her arm, threw her against the wall, and threatened if she did not give him her arm, he would break it. Plaintiff alleges that after the handcuffs were removed, her wrist was swollen making it difficult to sign the citation issued to her. Further, as a resultof the excessive forced used against her, Plaintiff alleges that she sustained a fractured wrist and bruised ribs. In contrast, Defendants claim Plaintiff was extremely noisy, loudly pounding her free arm on a metal wall. The competing versions of the evening are each supported by evidence of record.
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint in the Middle District of Pennsylvania on March 11, 2015, and subsequently amended her complaint with leave of court on May 6, 2016. (Docs. 1, 33.) In her amended complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims for false arrest, excessive force, battery, and false imprisonment against Monte, Figge, and Seitz, as well as Monell claims for false arrest and excessive force against York. Following a long and arduous discovery period, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment along with a supporting brief and statement of facts. (Docs. 81-84.) Defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment and statement of facts, followed by a brief in support. (Docs. 85-87.) Both motions have been fully briefed and are ripe for disposition. (Docs. 89-91, 94, 96, 98, 108, 111-112.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 sets forth the standard and procedures for the grant of summary judgment. Rule 56(a) provides that "[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine...
To continue reading
Request your trial