Ickes v. Grassmeyer
30 F. Supp. 3d 375
W.D. Pa.2014Background
- Plaintiff Don R. Ickes, a Florida resident, was stopped by Pennsylvania State Police on I-99 while traveling to Pennsylvania for personal/business reasons.
- Laskey stopped Ickes; Ickes presented identification but declined to exit the vehicle due to fear of Laskey.
- Grassmeyer, Augnst, and Givler arrived and Grassmeyer ordered Ickes removed; Laskey allegedly used force to remove him.
- Ickes was dragged from the car, dragged over broken glass, and restrained with wrists bleeding; he was transported toward processing and later jailed.
- Ickes was criminally convicted of resisting arrest, harassment, and several Vehicle Code violations; this civil action was removed to federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment immunity and Commonwealth as defendant | Ickes seeks relief against Commonwealth defendants under §1983 | Commonwealth not waived; removal does not authorize suit | Commonwealth immune; claims dismissed against Commonwealth and officials in official capacity |
| First Amendment claims credibility and viability | Defendants conspired to violate freedom of speech | No protected speech alleged; retaliation claims not plausible | First Amendment claims dismissed for lack of plausible factual allegations |
| Right to travel under §1983 | Ickes asserts interstate travel rights were violated | Burden on travel caused by probable cause arrest; rights not implicated | Right to travel claims dismissed; no color-of-state-law basis shown |
| Fourth Amendment claims and Heck v. Humphrey | Arrest and force used violated Fourth Amendment; Heck applicability | Convictions foreclose damages if necessarily implying invalidity | Some Fourth Amendment claims allowed to proceed (excessive force), but others barred by Heck to extent they would imply invalid convictions; remaining claims dismissed or allowed as appropriate |
| Monell and local police liability | Township caused or allowed policies leading to violation | No direct Monell policy or deliberate indifference shown | Township claims dismissed; Givler personal-capacity civil conspiracy claims permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard requires plausible claims not mere speculation)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility required in complaint; not mere legal conclusions)
- Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1989) (state not a ‘person’ under §1983; immunities apply to states)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (reasonableness of police use of force; Fourth Amendment framework)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1998) (conscience-shocking, substantive due process vs. Fourth Amendment)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (framework for handling qualified immunity at summary judgment)
- Kokinda v. Breiner, 557 F.Supp.2d 581 (M.D. Pa. 2008) (related to admissibility and reasonableness of evidence obtained)