RAMIREZ v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
2:24-cv-03035
| E.D. Pa. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Eduardo Ramirez was wrongfully convicted of murder in Philadelphia in 1998 and imprisoned for 27 years; his conviction was vacated and charges dismissed in 2023 after new DNA evidence and revelations of police misconduct emerged.
- Ramirez sues the City of Philadelphia and individual police detectives under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging they coerced and fabricated witness statements, concealed exculpatory evidence, and engaged in other misconduct that led to his conviction.
- Ramirez asserts municipal liability (Monell claim), malicious prosecution (Fourth & Fourteenth Amendments), deprivation of due process, failure to intervene, and various state torts.
- Certain defendants move to dismiss: the City seeks dismissal of the Monell claim; officers McDermott, Gross, and Vivarina seek dismissal of malicious prosecution (Fourteenth Amendment) and failure-to-intervene claims.
- The motion to dismiss is evaluated under Rule 12(b)(6), assessing whether the complaint states plausible claims.
Issues
| Issue | Ramirez's Argument | City's/Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourteenth Amendment Malicious Prosecution | Officers violated clearly established Fourteenth Amend. rights. | No clearly established right to such claim in 1995–97; qualified immunity applies. | Dismissed; qualified immunity bars claim as right not clearly established then. |
| Failure to Intervene (re: prosecution, false arrest) | Officers had a duty to intervene to prevent violations. | No clearly established duty beyond excessive force context; qualified immunity applies. | Dismissed; claim is not based on a clearly established right. |
| Monell Claim (municipal liability) | City had policies/customs of misconduct causing Ramirez's harm. | City argues insufficient specificity/causation and no liability for non-clearly established rights. | Motion denied as to sufficiently alleged customs/causation; granted to extent based on non-clearly established rights. |
| Failure to Train/Supervise/Discipline | City was deliberately indifferent re: training & discipline. | City alleges complaint inadequate on deliberate indifference. | Motion denied; complaint plausibly alleges deliberate indifference. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability for constitutional violations requires policy or custom)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for notice of claims)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity analysis)
- Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994) (malicious prosecution not cognizable as substantive due process)
- Smith v. Mensinger, 293 F.3d 641 (3d Cir. 2002) (duty to intervene clearly established only re: excessive force)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (municipal liability for failure to train requires deliberate indifference)