Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Stephen R. Gracey Amended Federal Complaint
The Stephen R. Gracey Amended Federal Complaint
v.
KEVIN M. GOSS,
MICHAEL C. PENROSE,
ALEXANDER M. GROTE,
GREGORY R. STRAYER,
BENJAMIN A. FRANTZ,
WALTER R. BRUNNER, JR.,
JAMES M. HANNING, JR.
MARC D. PACKRALL,
MICHAEL PREDAJNA,
CRAIG R. FINKLE, and
FRANK NOONAN,
Defendants.
The First Amended Complaint is being filed to correct the naming of a party. Due to a clerical error, Defendant,
James M. Hanning, Jr., was inadvertently listed as Walter R. Hanning.
2.
3.
Venue is proper in this Court, as all Defendants are located within the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, and the cause of action arose in the Middle District
of Pennsylvania.
Parties
4.
relevant times, was employed by PSP, as a Trooper. All of Defendant Goss actions
or inactions were taken under color of state law. He is sued in his individual
capacity.
6.
Trooper. All of Defendant Grotes actions or inactions were taken under color of
state law. He is sued in his individual capacity.
8.
all relevant times, was employed by PSP, as a Trooper. All of Defendant Brunners
actions or inactions were taken under color of state law. He is sued in his individual
capacity.
11.
all relevant times, was employed by PSP, as a Trooper. All of Defendant Hannings
actions or inactions were taken under color of state law. He is sued in his individual
capacity.
12.
relevant times, was employed by PSP, as a Trooper, with the rank of corporal. All
of Defendant Finkles actions or inactions were taken under color of state law. He
is sued in his individual capacity.
15.
relevant times, was employed by PSP. From approximately April 12, 2011, through
the present, Defendant Noonan has served as the Commissioner of PSP. All of
Defendant Noonans actions or inactions were taken under color of state law. He
is sued in his individual capacity.
Factual Background
16.
protection from abuse (PFA) order that had been obtained in May of 2012, by
Kimberly Miller, the mother of Plaintiffs minor son.
17.
Pursuant to the PFA, Plaintiff was excluded from Millers home, and
was not to have contact with Miller, except in reference to their son.
18.
The PFA further provided that custody of the son was to be exchanged
at Sheetz.
19.
Despite the fact that the PFA provided that Plaintiff was not to have
contact with Miller, Miller admits that she permitted him to have contact almost
daily.
20.
On January 12, 2013, Miller violated the custody order and refused to
22.
23.
Miller admits that she provoked the Plaintiff, and claims that in
response, he flattened a tire and damaged the soft-top on her parked convertible, and
subsequently, sent her a threatening text.
24.
25.
When Plaintiff discovered that the police had been called, he attempted
Despite knowing the identity of the Plaintiff, and the non-violent nature
of the alleged criminal violations, in accordance with deficient PSP policy and
training implemented and enforced by Defendant Noonan, the Defendants engaged
in a dangerous vehicle pursuit with the Plaintiff, which unnecessarily provoked a use
of force incident.
27.
One or more of the Defendants ordered the Plaintiff to (a) exit his
vehicle, (b) face his vehicle, and (c) place his hands up and on the side of his vehicle.
31.
32.
Defendant Goss admits that he put hands on the driver and delivered
a knee strike to the Plaintiff up under his abdomen/stomach area due to him being
bent over.
33.
down on the ground, while in accordance with a widely known PSP practice and
custom, was not in accordance with accepted police technique, and placed both the
Plaintiff and Defendants in danger of being injured.
35.
the person being tackled to instinctively place their arms and hands in front of
themselves to break the fall, and makes the persons arms not immediately accessible
for handcuffing.
36.
piled on top of the Plaintiff, which made it difficult, at best, for the Plaintiff to place
his wrists behind his back for handcuffing.
37.
that he gave the Plaintiff several more strikes with a closed fist to his abdomen
area, ribcage, back, [and] shoulders[,] and delivered a knee strike to his upper back
area.
38.
legs on Plaintiffs right leg, and that he struck [Plaintiff] several times in the kidney
and rib area with a closed fist.
39.
several Defendants, Plaintiff was punched and kicked in the head and face, which
caused him to suffer serious permanent injuries.
40.
believed to be Defendant Goss, looks at the MVR, turns back to the Defendant who
On December 20, 2014, undersigned counsel sent an Email to Scott R. Ford, chief counsel for PSP, providing Ford
with access to the MVR in question, and requested that he identify the main trooper who can clearly be seen on video
kicking the Plaintiff. Undersigned counsel explained that he was reaching out as a professional courtesy, in the hope
that he would be able to limit the number of Defendants in the instant litigation. On December 22, 2014, however,
Ford sent undersigned counsel an Email, advising him (1) not to send him email, and (2) to resend the exact same
request to him via First Class Mail. Ford then blocked undersigned counsels ability to send him emails.
is kicking the Plaintiff, and says something to him, at which time the Defendant stops
kicking the Plaintiff.
43.
that the Defendant warned the Co-defendant that the assault was being recorded on
video.
44.
Defendant Goss admits that when the beating ended, he had Plaintiffs
47.
48.
51.
properly and completely document in official incident reports, the force that had
been used against the Plaintiff.
52.
Medical Services, provided medical treatment to the Plaintiff, and transported him
to the Hershey Medical Center.
56.
the bones that comprise Plaintiffs left eye orbit in several places, caused serious
neck and back injuries, and other traumatic injuries to Plaintiffs body. See
Photograph, Exhibit B.
10
57.
On May 23, 2013, Plaintiff underwent surgery on his left eye to attempt
To date, Plaintiff has not fully recovered from his injuries, some of
Despite knowing that the Defendants under his command had caused
Plaintiff to suffer serious injury, Defendant Finkle completed a Blue Team Entry
Report to report only the fact that the PIT maneuver had been used, and that
Defendant Grote had attempted unsuccessfully to use his Taser during the incident.
60.
policymaker.
61.
While Defendant Noonan may delegate some or all of his duties and
internal complaints, and lawsuits that had been filed against said troopers, but failed
to take appropriate and sufficient action to stop the unlawful conduct from repeatedly
occurring.
64.
responsibility for Troop H, failed to assert sufficient supervisory control over Troop
H, which permitted a culture to develop and continue where unlawful force and
brutality was permitted to exist.
65.
permitted, the assault committed by the Co-defendants against the Plaintiff but failed
to take appropriate and sufficient action to discipline and and/or retrain the Codefendants.
12
68.
and Finkle, the Co-defendants used unlawful excessive force against the Plaintiff,
causing him to suffer serious and permanent injury.
COUNT I
Plaintiff v. Defendants (Excluding Defendant Noonan and Finkle)
Fourth Amendment (Excessive Force) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983
69.
70.
Plaintiff must show that a seizure occurred and that it was unreasonable. See Curley
v. Klem, 499 F.3d 199, 203 (3d Cir. 2007).
72.
seizure is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, an officers actions are
objectively reasonable in light of facts and circumstances confronting him, without
regard to his underlying intent or motivations. See Kopec v. Tate, 361 F.3d 772, 776
(3d Cir. 2004); Graham, 490 U.S. at 397.
73.
Plaintiff.
74.
The Defendants used more force than was necessary to overcome the
alleged resistance.
75.
Moreover, the Defendants knew that the techniques used to deliver the
unlawful.
77.
79.
showing a supervisor: (1) is responsible for making and maintaining the specific
policies (or lack thereof) that violated the constitutional right; or (2) had knowledge
of and acquiesced in his subordinates constitutional violations. See A.M. v.
Luzerne Cnty. Juvenile Det. Ctr., 32 F.3d 572, 587 (3d Cir. 2004).
14
80.
proper pursuit and use of force policies at PSP that governed or would have governed
the incident involving the Plaintiff.
81.
Defendants Noonan and Finkle knew of, or should have known of, the
conduct.
83.
That this Court declare that the Defendants actions violated Plaintiffs
constitutional rights;
B.
Punitive damages;
D.
E.
Respectfully Submitted,
_
DEVON M. JACOB, ESQUIRE
Pa. Sup. Ct. I.D. 89182
Counsel for Plaintiff
_____
JACOB LITIGATION
P.O. Box 837, Mechanicsburg, Pa. 17055-0837
717.796.7733 | [email protected]
16