12 F. Supp. 3d 577
W.D.N.Y.2014Background
- On Jan. 1, 2009 Elmira police responded to a party at 317 E. Miller St.; Joseph (20) and Donald Piper were attendees; James and Carol Piper lived next door.
- Officers entered with consent, investigated an alleged street altercation and underage drinking; accounts diverge on whether the scene was "calm" or "chaotic."
- Joseph encountered officers on a stair landing; defendants say he resisted and a taser was used three times before he was handcuffed and escorted outside, where he slipped/fell and was dragged to a patrol car; Joseph was later convicted of resisting arrest.
- James alleges he was tased while questioning officers; Carol alleges two shoves (one at 317 and one on her porch at 319); Donald alleges a shove on basement stairs and a rough frisk.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force, failure to intervene) and state-law claims; defendants moved for summary judgment. Court granted summary judgment on several claims/defendants and denied it as to others, leaving excessive-force and failure-to-intervene claims for trial for some plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force as to Joseph (taser, force on stairs/dragging) | Joseph: force was excessive; his hands were pinned and taser use / dragging were unnecessary | Defs: Joseph resisted; force including taser was reasonable | Denied summary judgment — factual disputes preclude resolution; claims proceed to trial |
| Excessive force as to James (alleged tasing) | James: tased though compliant when questioning son’s arrest | Defs: tasers only aimed/spark-tested; no contact | Denied summary judgment — James’s testimony raises triable issue |
| Excessive force/failure to intervene as to Donald (shove, frisk) | Donald: pushed on stairs and frisked roughly | Defs: record does not identify which officer; injuries de minimis | Granted summary judgment — Donald failed to identify responsible officer and injuries were minor |
| Excessive force as to Carol (two shoves; porch shove by Perrigo) | Carol: shoved twice; porch shove was gratuitous and caused fall to porch floor | Defs: crowd was unruly; shove(s) were reasonable to control scene; one shove at 317 not linked to any named officer | Split: summary judgment granted re: shove at 317 and failure-to-intervene; denied re: porch shove by Perrigo — triable issue exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective reasonableness Fourth Amendment excessive force standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard; draw inferences for nonmovant)
- Tierney v. Davidson, 133 F.3d 189 (Fourteenth Amendment excessive force test — "shocks the conscience" factors)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity framework and excessive/acceptable force boundary)
- Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90 (prior resisting-arrest conviction may preclude later excessive-force claim; collateral estoppel analysis)
- Breen v. Garrison, 169 F.3d 152 (credibility/factual disputes on arrest/force preclude summary judgment)