Michael Ellis v. City of Pittsburgh
656 F. App'x 606
3rd Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff Michael Ellis sued the City of Pittsburgh and individual officers after a December 2011 traffic incident in which he fled a stop, crashed into a tree, and was extracted and arrested.
- Ellis alleged officers Labella and Vitalbo used excessive force (breaking a window, pulling him out, slamming him to ground, kneeing/kicking, racial slurs), causing serious injuries including fractured bones and a punctured lung.
- The District Court dismissed all defendants and claims under Rule 12(b)(6) except excessive-force claims against Labella and Vitalbo; those claims proceeded to trial.
- At trial, officers testified force used was limited to extracting Ellis from a crashed vehicle and handcuffing him; the jury returned a verdict for the defendants. District Court denied Ellis’s motion for a new trial.
- Ellis appealed, raising challenges to the City’s dismissal (Monell), discovery rulings, jury selection/discrimination, trial errors (evidence sufficiency, prior-conviction remark), and alleged perjury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissal of City (Monell) | City policies or customs caused constitutional injury; newly discovered evidence from trial shows training that permitted excessive force | No municipal policy or custom alleged or shown to have caused injury | Affirmed dismissal: complaint failed to plead a Monell policy or causal link |
| Discovery denials | District Court refused requested discovery | Defendants adequately responded; discovery was sufficient | No abuse of discretion in denying additional discovery |
| Jury selection / racial underrepresentation / Batson | Jury pool underrepresented African-Americans; selection plan discriminatory | Plan previously approved; no record evidence of systematic exclusion or Batson violation | No merit: plan upheld and no Batson showing |
| Sufficiency / weight of evidence / new trial | Testimony and evidence showed excessive force and severe injuries attributable to officers; seeks new trial | Evidence supported officers’ account and injuries could stem from crash; verdict reasonable | No abuse of discretion denying new trial; not an overwhelming weight favoring Ellis |
| Mention of prior DUI during opening | Remarks prejudiced jury and warranted new trial | Court sustained objection and gave curative instructions; remark isolated | No new trial: single fleeting remark cured by instruction |
| Alleged perjury at trial | Officers committed perjury | Issue not raised below; discrepancies do not necessarily mean perjury | Not addressed on appeal; claim waived and, in any event, not supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires an official policy or custom causing the injury)
- Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159 (plenary review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- United States v. Weaver, 267 F.3d 231 (approval of Western District jury selection plan)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibition on race-based peremptory challenges and three-step test)
- Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (Batson framework explained)
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (Rule 50(b) requires a renewed Rule 50(a) motion)
- Curley v. Klem, 499 F.3d 199 (standard of review for denial of new trial)
- Greenleaf v. Garlock, Inc., 174 F.3d 352 (new trial for verdict against weight of evidence requires overwhelming contrary proof)
- Marra v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth., 497 F.3d 286 (discussing standard for new trial when verdict is against weight of evidence)
- United States v. Self, 681 F.3d 190 (isolated prosecutorial or counsel remark cured by instruction may not require new trial)
- Montano v. City of Chicago, 535 F.3d 558 (disagreement or inconsistent testimony does not alone establish perjury)
- In re Reliant Energy Channelview LP, 594 F.3d 200 (appellate court need not consider issues not raised below)