202 F. Supp. 3d 444
E.D. Pa.2016Background
- Plaintiff Eric Simpson alleges that Philadelphia police officers (including Defendants Lai, O’Connor, Ferry, and Landis) chased and beat him after a foot pursuit on July 17, 2012, causing serious physical and emotional injuries.
- Simpson alleges a history of prior abusive encounters with Officer Lai (dating to 2006, including a 2011 flashlight strike), which contributed to his flight.
- He brought § 1983 excessive-force claims against the individual officers and a Monell claim against the City of Philadelphia alleging (1) a custom of tolerating excessive force and (2) failure to train, supervise, and discipline.
- The Second Amended Complaint attached a 2015 DOJ assessment of deadly force in the PPD and news statistics on misconduct settlements; Plaintiff named Mayor Nutter and Commissioner Ramsey as policymakers.
- The City moved to dismiss the Monell claim; the court previously dismissed an earlier Monell pleading with leave to amend and now evaluates the amended pleading under Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may consider portions of the DOJ report attached to the complaint | DOJ report is integral, publicly available, and cited in the complaint | City did not object but argued much of the report concerns deadly force, not excessive force | Court may consider limited portions of the DOJ report cited in the complaint that relate to excessive-force training and policies |
| Whether Simpson pleaded a Monell claim based on an official City policy | Simpson did not plead a formal written policy but alleges widespread practice and statistics showing tolerance of excessive force | City: no affirmative policy, no policymaker direction, no deliberate indifference pleaded | Dismissed as to an official policy theory (no formal policy alleged) |
| Whether Simpson pleaded a Monell custom (tacit acquiescence) claim against City policymakers (Nutter, Ramsey) | Alleges pattern of excessive-force complaints/settlements, DOJ findings, and anecdotal supervisory acquiescence; claims custom of inadequate investigations and discipline | City: insufficient facts to show policymakers knew and acquiesced or were deliberately indifferent | Monell custom claim survives; facts suffice to raise reasonable expectation discovery will show policymakers’ awareness and acquiescence |
| Whether Simpson pleaded failure-to-train/supervise/discipline theory | Alleges DOJ findings of deficient use-of-force training, lack of field training, and pattern of incidents including his prior encounters with Lai | City: no facts showing policymakers conveyed approval or deliberate indifference | Failure-to-train/supervise/discipline theory survives; plaintiff plausibly alleges deliberate indifference, pattern, and causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (establishes plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (failure-to-train standard; deliberate indifference)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (pattern ordinarily necessary to show deliberate indifference)
- Beck v. City of Pittsburgh, 89 F.3d 966 (Monell liability where custom tolerates excessive force)
- Bielevicz v. Dubinon, 915 F.2d 845 (Monell causation requirement)
- Brown v. Bryan County, 520 U.S. 397 (policy/custom and deliberate indifference principles)
- In re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation, 114 F.3d 1410 (documents integral to complaint may be considered on a motion to dismiss)
- Connelly v. Lane Construction Corp., 809 F.3d 780 (pleading standard: raise reasonable expectation discovery will reveal necessary evidence)