Mark Carter v. City of Philadelphia, 16-4179

In March 2013 Mark Carter was involved in a Philadelphia traffic accident, left his car, and was detained; he alleges multiple police officers beat him and he was arrested for DUI.
Carter sued the City of Philadelphia and officers Butler and Mammoua (among others) in 2015, alleging denial of access to courts (against the City) and excessive force and assault and battery (against Butler and Mammoua).
The denial-of-access claim challenged City policies (Overtime Management Memorandum and Standard Operating Procedures) that limited which officers are listed on arrest reports to those “necessary for the successful outcome of the case,” arguing this prevented him from identifying/suing all officers who assaulted him.
Carter filed suit successfully, but during discovery he could not identify which officers struck him: he testified the attackers were Black, could not identify Butler in a photo array, and Mammoua is white; Butler and Mammoua prepared the arrest/incident reports.
The District Court dismissed the access-to-courts claim and granted summary judgment for Butler and Mammoua on excessive force and assault/battery; Carter appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether City policy denying access to officer identities violated right of access to courts	City policy prevented Carter from identifying, suing, and deposing all officers involved, rendering court access ineffective	Policy did not prevent filing suit; plaintiff could use discovery to identify officers and join them	Affirmed dismissal — no constitutional violation because plaintiff could file suit and pursue identities via discovery
Whether Butler and Mammoua used excessive force / committed assault and battery	Carter alleges they were among the officers who beat him and committed the torts	No evidence they had physical contact; contradictions in ID (Carter said attackers were Black; Mammoua is white; Carter could not identify Butler)	Affirmed summary judgment for Butler and Mammoua — absence of evidence linking them to the assault
Whether failure-to-intervene theory saves claims	(On appeal) argues they failed to intervene to stop the assault	Defendants assert no evidence of their involvement; failure-to-intervene not raised below	Court declined to address — theory waived for failure to raise in District Court
Whether officers’ authorship of reports creates a factual dispute	Carter argues reports indicate involvement and create dispute of fact	Defendants contend report authorship doesn’t show physical contact or force	Court held report authorship immaterial to whether they personally used force; summary judgment affirmed

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard; moving party may show absence of evidence)
Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (right of access to courts principles)
Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 318 F.3d 497 (pre-filing conduct and access-to-courts standards in this circuit)
Webb v. City of Philadelphia, 562 F.3d 256 (failure-to-intervene waiver principles)