PITTSBURGH – Three defendants have been dismissed from litigation brought by a Pittsburgh couple who alleged that they were the targets of excessive force and battery injuries, when Penn Hills Police Department officers responded to a domestic complaint.
Barbara Ann Thompkins and Eric Klavon of Pittsburgh first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on March 9 versus the Municipality Of Penn Hills and Penn Hills Police Department of Pittsburgh, plus Officer Alyssa Finnigan and SPC David Klobucher of Allegheny County.
“Plaintiff Thompkins and Klavon are husband and wife. On June 3, 2020, as couples do from time to time, the two got into a domestic dispute. When previous disputes arose, husband-plaintiff Klavon would call Penn Hills Police, who would come to the house and discuss the issues with the couple. Previously, no arrests were made and the prior domestic situations ended amicably,” the suit stated.
“Husband-plaintiff called Penn Hills Police Department on June 3, 2020 when he and his wife got into a domestic dispute. When Penn Hills Police arrived on the scene, husband-plaintiff Klavon was standing outside in front of his house while wife-plaintiff Thompkins was inside the house in the living room. At the time that officers from the Penn Hills Police Department arrived on the scene, the domestic situation was diffused and neither husband-plaintiff Klavon nor wife-plaintiff Thompkins were violent or a threat to each other, themselves, the police officers or the general public.”
The officers who responded in the matter were defendants Finnigan and Klobucher. The suit said at the time, Klobucher had extensive experience in responding to domestic disputes, while Finnigan was a newer officer who did not have such experience.
Both plaintiffs were familiar with defendant Klobucher, who had informed them to call the Penn Hills Police Department in the event of a domestic dispute.
“On June 3, 2020, this non-violent and non-threatening police call transformed into a situation where plaintiff Thompkins was unlawfully detained with unnecessary and excessive force that violated her Constitutional rights and ultimately ended with her suffering a major and traumatic fracture of her right humerus, which required surgical intervention and continued physical therapy and rehabilitation,” per the suit.
“When defendants Klobucher and Finnigan arrived to plaintiffs’ home on June 3, 2020, husband-plaintiff was outside the home in the front yard and wife-plaintiff was inside the home in the living room right inside the front door. Defendant Klobucher stayed out on the front lawn with husband-plaintiff while defendant Finnigan entered the home where wife-plaintiff Thompkins was located. For some unknown and unnecessary reason, plaintiff Thompkins, who was not violent or a threat to anyone at the time, was thrown violently to the ground by defendant Finnigan and pinned to the ground using defendant Finnigan’s knee.”
Following defendant Finnigan’s use of excessive and unnecessary force to violently throw wife-plaintiff Barbara Ann Thompkins to the ground, defendant Finnigan decided, without consulting with or speaking to defendant Klobucher, to place wife-plaintiff under arrest and put her in handcuffs.
In the process of violently attempting to put handcuffs on wife-plaintiff Thompkins, defendant Finnigan used such extreme force to place plaintiff Thompkins’ arm behind her back that defendant Finnigan fractured plaintiff Thompkins’ right arm.
“At the time of this use of excessive force wife-plaintiff Thompkins was 61 years old and disabled due to multiple medical conditions she suffered from including musculoskeletal issues with her back,” the suit said.
“Not only was the force used by defendant Finnigan unnecessary and excessive, but it is entirely unclear why defendant Finnigan would need to use this level of violence and force when responding to a non-violent and non-threatening individual as old and with the physical condition that wife-plaintiff was in at the time.”
The suit contended that despite being a more experienced officer, Klobucher did not intervene and stop Finnigan, and furthermore, after this use of unnecessary force, Thompkins was brought to a holding cell at the police department, instead of to a medical facility, to receive treatment for her broken arm.
“In an effort to cover-up and defend her unconstitutional and unnecessary use of excessive force, defendant Finnigan made misrepresentations and omissions in her affidavit of probable cause and ultimately charged wife-plaintiff with the unnecessary and unfounded charge of resisting arrest. Wife-plaintiff Thompkins was also charged with simple assault and harassment,” the suit said.
“All charges against wife-plaintiff Thompkins were dropped on July 27, 2020 before Magisterial District Judge DeLuca, which in and of itself proves that defendants perpetrated malicious prosecution and abuse of process against wife-plaintiff Thompkins.”
The suit added Thompkins underwent surgery on June 12, 2020 to repair her broken arm, is still undergoing treatment and physical therapy for her fractured humerus and may have permanent loss of function due to her injuries.
According to the defendants in a May 10 answer, many of the plaintiffs’ assertions are “conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required” and “to the extent a response is required, [the allegations are] denied with strict proof thereof demanded at time of trial.”
Furthermore, the defendants put forth no less than 27 affirmative defenses.
“Plaintiffs’ amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The defendants’ actions conformed to all applicable laws and regulations at all times relevant hereto. To the extent revealed by discovery, plaintiffs’ amended complaint is barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and/or res judicata. Plaintiffs were not deprived of any right secured by the United States Constitution,” the defenses stated, in part.
“Any alleged violation of the constitutional rights of plaintiffs was not the result of any custom or practice of the Municipality of Penn Hills or its police department. At all times, defendants’ actions were supported by probable cause and appropriate authority. The defendants’ actions conformed to all applicable laws and regulations at all times relevant hereto. The defendants asserts all other defenses, immunities and limitations of damages available to them under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act and aver that plaintiffs’ remedies are limited exclusively thereto.”
UPDATE
Nearly nine months later, defendants Municipality of Penn Hills, Penn Hills Police Department and Finnigan were dismissed from the case with prejudice, by virtue of mutual stipulated agreement between the parties and U.S. Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy.
“The parties hereby stipulate that all of plaintiffs’ claims against defendant Alyssa Finnigan in Count I and at Count III of plaintiffs’ amended complaint are hereby dismissed with prejudice, and plaintiffs’ claims at Count IV of plaintiffs’ amended complaint against defendant Municipality of Penn Hills, operating the Penn Hills Police Department, are hereby dismissed with prejudice. As a result of the dismissals of these counts, all claims against defendants Officer Alyssa Finnigan and the Municipality of Penn Hills operating the Penn Hills Police Department are dismissed with prejudice,” the stipulation read.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy approved the stipulation the following day on Feb. 1, leaving Klobucher as the lone remaining defendant.
For counts of Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, excessive use of force by defendant Finnigan, failure to intervene by defendant Klobucher, deliberate indifference by defendant Penn Hills Police Department, battery against defendant Finnigan, false arrest/false imprisonment against defendant Finnigan, false arrest/false imprisonment against defendant Penn Hills Police Department, malicious prosecution and abuse of process against all defendants and loss of consortium, the plaintiffs are seeking damages, jointly and severally, and award them compensatory and consortium damages in an amount in excess of jurisdictional arbitration limits, punitive damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and any other relief which this Honorable Court may deem necessary to compensate plaintiffs for which this suit was brought, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiffs are represented by Max Petrunya of Max Petrunya P.C. and Paul R. Jubas of Paul Jubas Law, both in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Elizabeth Farina Collura of William J. Ferren & Associates, also in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-00320
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com