ALLENTOWN – The City of Lancaster and two of its police officers deny that they illegally assaulted battered and tased a Lancaster man with deadly force and without justification two years ago, and are seeking to strike a myriad of portions from the complaint.
Ivan Ruiz-Rivera first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 6 versus the City and County of Lancaster, Lancaster County Police Officers Bingham and Lapp, John Does 1-5 and ABC Corporations 1-25. All parties are of Lancaster.
“On or about Dec. 6, 2019, at 5:04 a.m., defendant Bingham, alleged that he was dispatched to 33 Belmont Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, regarding an incident of domestic violence that involved the plaintiff, Ruiz-Rivera. The aforementioned call did not come from the residence in question, nor did it come from anyone who lived within the residence,” the suit stated.
“It was alleged, in the incident report, that this domestic assault was taking place in or near a red SUV. Upon arriving on the scene, a red SUV was parked in front of the residence located at 33 Belmont Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Defendant Bingham exited his cruiser and approached the red SUV. Soon thereafter, plaintiff Ruiz-Rivera observed police vehicles in front of his residence and approached defendant Bingham instructing the officer to leave his property. Defendant Bingham stated to plaintiff Ruiz-Rivera that he was on the public street and not on the plaintiff’s property.”
Next, the suit stated that Ruiz-Rivera had a verbal confrontation and was then tased in the back.
“At this time, Plaintiff Ruiz-Rivera is screaming in pain and yells “leave me alone.” Immediately, defendant Bingham, Officer Lapp and other officers tackled plaintiff Ruiz-Rivera and started to punch him, without provocation. While plaintiff Ruiz-Rivera is being brutally attacked, he is asking ‘Why are you hitting me? Did I hit you?” the suit states.
“After plaintiff Ruiz-Rivera was assaulted and handcuffed, he continuously asked the officers to leave his property and to not allow his children to see this. After plaintiff Ruiz-Rivera was handcuffed, he asked if he could turn around on his back, and defendant Bingham angrily stated, ‘Nope, stay like that.”
As the direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, plaintiff Ruiz-Rivera suffered mental shock, trauma and mental distress. The suit further alleges that police brutality is “rampant” in Lancaster, and that the City and its police department has a custom of both condoning alleged instances of police brutality and for exonerating officers for allegedly using excessive force against its citizens.
“The Lancaster Police Department and the City of Lancaster had a custom policy and practice of not taking reasonable steps to properly train its police officers to not violate the constitutionally protected rights of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. More particularly the residents of Lancaster,” per the suit.
“The failure of the defendant Lancaster Police Department and the City of Lancaster to properly train its police officers, including but limited to the defendants, which constitutes a municipal policy or custom of the City of Lancaster and the Lancaster City Police Department, amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of people with whom its police officers come into contact, including, but not limited to, the plaintiff herein.”
UPDATE
The defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss the complaint on June 21, seeking to strike several portions of the complaint. These include the due process violations at Counts II and V; the conspiracy violation at Count IV; the negligent infliction of emotional distress violations and state law claims at Counts VIII and IX; plus, all references to the Pennsylvania Constitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, equal protection and the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
“Counts II and V (Due Process) should be dismissed under the case of Graham v. Connor. Graham held that all claims of excessive force in connection with a Fourth Amendment seizure 'should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its ‘reasonableness' standard, rather than under a ‘substantive due process' approach,” defense counsel stated in its motion.
“To the extent that plaintiff asserts a due process cause of action under the Pennsylvania Constitution, it must be dismissed, since there is no private right to recovery under the Pennsylvania Constitution.”
The defendants argued that the conspiracy claim must be dismissed since the plaintiff failed to set forth any facts demonstrating an agreement to commit an unlawful discriminatory acts, and that they are immune from the derivative state law claims.
For counts of violating 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1985, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Article I of the Pennsylvania Constitution, conspiracy, violation of due process, assault and battery, excessive force, negligent infliction of emotional distress and state law claims, the plaintiff is seeking damages in an amount not less than $350,000, attorney’s fees, costs, expenses, interest and a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by James E. Lee of The Lee Firm, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Christine E. Munion of William J. Ferren & Associates, in Hartford, Conn.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:21-cv-02105
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com