283 F.R.D. 247
W.D. Pa.2012Background
- Haniotakis was killed by two officers on the South Side of Pittsburgh during a pursuit in the early morning of March 15, 2009.
- Nassan (PSP) and Donnelly (Pittsburgh Police) followed the SUV after collision with a parked car.
- The amended complaint alleges the shooting occurred while Haniotakis’ vehicle was not posed as a threat to officers or bystanders.
- Plaintiffs claim Nassan and Donnelly shot from behind at a distance of about fifty yards with the SUV moving slowly.
- Supervisory defendants Pawlowski, Seilhamer, Epstein, and Heckman are alleged to have failed to train/supervise Nassan.
- Nassan and Donnelly moved for judgment on the pleadings; the court denied, ruling discovery and pleadings sufficient to proceed on the Fourth Amendment claims and related state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nassan and Donnelly violated the Fourth Amendment. | Plaintiffs allege unreasonable seizure by deadly force. | Defendants contend qualified immunity applies; actions were reasonable. | Denied; Fourth Amendment claims survive at pleadings stage. |
| Whether supervisors can be held liable for training/supervision. | plaintiffs allege supervisory failures caused constitutional violation. | summarized as lack of independent grounds to dismiss. | Denied; claims withstand at pleadings stage. |
| Whether Nassan’s assault/battery claims are barred by sovereign immunity. | Willful misconduct exception applies under PSTCA; not barred. | State employee immunity applies; PSTCA not waive for intentional torts. | Denied for now; immunity issues await fuller record and summary judgment review. |
| Whether the pleadings support a theory that Haniotakis posed no threat to justify deadly force. | Allegations show no imminent threat as SUV slowed and not in path. | Defendants rely on Scott and Garner to justify use of force. | Denied; allegations sufficient to defeat immunity at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard; plausibility required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (facial plausibility required to state a claim)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (reasonableness standard in use of force; totality of circumstances)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (use of deadly force to prevent escape when no threat present; objective limits)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (contextual reasonableness; videotape not controlling on pleadings stage)
- Abraham v. Raso, 183 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 1999) (passing risk does not authorize perpetual deadly force; objective reasonableness)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2004) (qualified immunity when state of the law foresees no violation; post-incident timeline matters)
- Lamont v. New Jersey, 637 F.3d 177 (3d Cir. 2011) (general rule: deadly force must be reasonable; evolving standards)
- Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1991) (state-officials’ capacity and under color of state law; immunity)