Ford v. City of Pittsburgh - Civil Action No. 13-1364, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176829 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2014)

Rule:

A complaint must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) if it does not allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007) 

Facts:

In an Amended Complaint, Leon Ford set forth civil rights claims against City of Pittsburgh Police Officers David Derbish ("Derbish"), Michael Kosko ("Kosko") and Andrew Miller ("Miller") for injuries sustained by him in the course of a traffic stop on the evening of November 11, 2012. The claims against these Defendants include unreasonable search and seizure, false arrest, false imprisonment, the use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and state law claims for assault and battery. Ford also alleged claims against the City of Pittsburgh, the City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police, Assistant Chief of Police McDonald and former Chief of Police Harper, named as defendants solely in their official capacities. Ford alleged that these defendants participated in an ongoing deliberate failure to train, supervise and discipline City of Pittsburgh Police Officers. In addition, Ford alleged these supervisory defendants wrongfully implemented customs and policies authorizing the use of racial profiling to effectuate arrests and traffic stops. Ford alleged that the supervisory defendants failed to prevent and/or adopted customs or practices resulting in the frequent use of excessive force in the course of police interaction with African American males, who have been stopped on the erroneous suspicion that they are involved in criminal activity. Ford further alleged that the supervisory defendants acted with deliberate indifference to City of Pittsburgh police officers' violation of the constitutional rights of the citizens of the City of Pittsburgh generally, and the rights of Ford in particular. With regard to the events at issue, Ford alleged well-pleaded facts in the Amended Complaint. Specifically, on November 11, 2012, Officers Kosko and Miller were on patrol near Larimer Avenue in the City of Pittsburgh, when Officer Miller allegedly saw Ford’s vehicle driving at a high rate of speed. Officer Kosko activated the lights and siren of the patrol vehicle and initiated a traffic stop. When approached by the officers, Ford gave Officer Kosko his Pennsylvania driver's license, proof of ownership of the vehicle and proof of insurance. The officers did not believe that Ford was who he identified himself to be, and held him at the scene while they called Officer David Derbish to confirm his identity. After approximately 20 minutes, Officer Derbish arrived and was unable to provide any additional information regarding Ford’s identity. Thereafter, Officer Derbish claimed that he saw a bulge in Ford’s sweat pants and believed it to be the barrel of a handgun. Officer Miller and Kosko opened Ford’s driver side door and attempted to yank him out of the vehicle, while Officer Derbish opened the passenger side door to push Ford out. Shortly thereafter, the car suddenly lurched forward, with Ford and Officer Derbish in the car. Seconds later, Officer Derbish shot Ford multiple times in the chest. As a result of the shooting, Ford suffered paralysis and other critical injuries. Ford alleged that the actions of Defendants Derbish, Miller and Kosko constitute the unconstitutional use of excessive force, as well as false arrest, false imprisonment, and assault and battery. Pending before the Court is a "Joint Motion to Dismiss" filed on behalf of all Defendants. Defendants sought the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims arising out of the alleged unreasonable search and seizure of Plaintiff, the excessive use of force in effectuating his detention, and assault and battery. The Police Officer Defendants asserted that they are entitled to qualified immunity as to Ford’s claims arising out of his detention and the alleged excessive use of force to effectuate his arrest, contending that they acted reasonably in response to the circumstances surrounding the incident. Defendants argue that Ford failed to state a claim against Defendants Harper and McDonald in their official capacities. 

Issue:

Did Ford’s Complaint allege facts that "plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief"?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court granted the motion to dismiss in part, only as to the claims asserted against Defendants Nate Harper and Regina McDonald, in their official capacities, and the City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. The court held that the City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police is an improper party to this action. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that a municipal police department is not a separate entity from the municipality such that it can be sued for purposes of Section 1983 liability. Because the City of Pittsburgh has been named as a Defendant in this action, the Motion to Dismiss the City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police, a sub-unit of the City of Pittsburgh, is granted. "To state a claim for excessive force as an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, a plaintiff must show that a 'seizure' occurred and that it was unreasonable." The test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is whether under the totality of the circumstances, "the officers' actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivations." Thus, if a use of force is objectively reasonable, an officer's good faith is irrelevant and any bad faith motivation on his part is immaterial.  "There can be no question that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment."  Accordingly, the issue is whether the actions of the Defendants, in shooting Plaintiff, in the course of a traffic stop, were reasonable. Because such a determination depends on "all of the relevant facts and circumstances leading up to the time that the officers allegedly used excessive force," the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that "[t]he reasonableness of the use of force is normally an issue for the jury." Here, before any discovery has been completed, it is surely premature to expect the Court to make such a resolution at the motion to dismiss stage, when the only issue before it is to determine whether Plaintiff's Complaint alleges facts that "plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief." Connelly v. Steel Valley Sch. Dist., 706 F.3d 209, 212 (3d Cir. 2013). In this case, Plaintiff's Complaint clearly meets this standard. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on this basis is denied.