PHILADELPHIA – Just prior to answering claims from nearly 150 plaintiffs suing the City of Philadelphia for alleged excessive force used during peaceful demonstrations on systemic racism and police brutality at 52nd Street and the Vine Street Expressway last year, a federal judge has ordered the City provide a proposed matrix for the plaintiffs’ individual monetary award damages.
Counsel for the plaintiffs filed both suits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 14, 2020 versus the City of Philadelphia and up to 100 John Doe Philadelphia Police Department officers.
In Smith Et.Al v. City of Philadelphia Et.Al, 11 plaintiffs charged that in response to protesting and looting on 52nd Street in West Philadelphia on May 31, police officers indiscriminately fired rubber bullets, tear gas and pepper spray at protestors of police brutality, innocent bystanders and residents in a majority Black neighborhood.
Subsequently, a number of individuals were injured both inside and outside of their homes, the suit stated, and in some cases had to evacuate their residences in order to seek medical attention for injuries related to tear gas exposure.
These actions were said to violate the plaintiffs’ 1st Amendment rights to peaceably assemble and express their views, 4th Amendment rights to not be subjected to excessive force by the police and 14th Amendment rights to not face discrimination under the equal protection clause.
Lead named plaintiff Anthony Smith, then 29 years old and a Black resident of the neighborhood close to 52nd Street, alleged he was arrested near 11 p.m. in the evening on May 31 and driven around in police custody for four hours, until arriving at the 22nd District North Philadelphia police precinct at 3 a.m. on June 1.
At the station, he said he was in custody there for barely 15 minutes when he was cited for violating curfew and released – thereby putting him in danger of being arrested again for violating curfew, since public transportation was closed for the night and he was forced to walk home.
“The events of May 31 represent yet another act of city-sanctioned violence endured by the Black community in West Philadelphia. Law enforcement has a long history of engaging in overly harsh tactics and racist violence against residents of West Philadelphia – most notably, the police bombing of the homes of MOVE members and their neighbors in 1985,” said Cara McClellan of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
“City officials must be held accountable for these militaristic police actions, which are discriminatory, illegal and completely unacceptable. Our clients deserve safety and security in their own neighborhood and to be free of fear of discrimination and police terror.”
“While the mayor has apologized for the treatment of protesters on Interstate 676, he continues to ignore and dismiss the horrifying police attacks against Black protesters and residents in West Philadelphia, further demonstrating how underlying racial discrimination often dictates whether police are held accountable for their actions.” Smith himself said.
“The irony is that PPD has responded to protests of police brutality, racial discrimination, and excessive force, with further brutality, discrimination and excessive force.”
In Weltch Et.Al v. City of Philadelphia Et.Al, 41 plaintiffs assert “an extraordinary abuse of police power” by both the Philadelphia Police Department and Pennsylvania State Police, who fired tear gas, rubber bullets and flash bang grenades at them and many other protestors, according to videos taken at the scene.
Though the officers claimed they were attempting to disperse thousands of people who had ventured onto I-676 and obstructed traffic, video evidence showed that members of the police fired onto people attempting to leave I-676 and who had become trapped on a grassy embankment leading up to the Vine Street Expressway.
Lead named plaintiff Delane Weltch, 36, is a Black journalist from New Jersey who claimed he was both wounded in his legs by rubber bullets and shot with tear gas on the Vine Street Expressway. Welch alleged he sustained immediate pain, vomiting and trauma, in addition to suffering migraines for two weeks following the incident.
“In response to protests and a national conversation about police accountability and an end to a long history of police brutality, the Philadelphia Police Department reacted with more brutality. Our firm dates back to 1971. We cannot recall a single episode in which the Philadelphia police used munitions like this in a peaceful protest,” said plaintiff counsel Jonathan Feinberg.
Both actions were filed in connection with other attorneys who filed a separate complaint in Hough Et.Al. v. City of Philadelphia Et.Al, which also seeks accountability for both incidents on 52nd Street and the Vine Street Expressway, on behalf of 94 additional plaintiffs.
Though City officials first defended police actions, the City went on to apologize for the I-676 incident through Mayor Jim Kenney and Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw, the latter of whom subsequently announced changes in police procedure.
UPDATE
Though an answer in the action from the City is due next week, U.S. Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge ordered it on Sept. 7 to provide further information as to what level of monetary damages the plaintiffs may be expected to see in the case.
“Defendants shall, on or before Sept. 9, 2021, provide plaintiffs with their proposed damages matrix pertaining to the determination of plaintiffs’ individual monetary awards; Counsel for the parties shall meet and confer regarding the integration of their respective damages matrices into a sole matrix, the final iteration of which is due to the Court on Oct. 1. If the parties cannot come to an agreement regarding a final damages matrix, they shall notify the Court on or before Oct. 1,” Strawbridge said.
“If the parties agree to a final damages matrix, plaintiffs shall input the requisite particularized information for each individual plaintiff, and provide the completed matrix to the Court and defendants by Oct. 22; Defendants shall provide to the Court and plaintiffs a draft consent decree in response to plaintiffs’ draft consent decree of May 14, by Oct. 1; Upon receipt of the defendants’ draft consent decree, the Court will initiate ex parte communications with counsel for the parties.”
In the Smith action and for counts of excessive force, violation of the 4th Amendment’s equal protection clause, violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for intentional discrimination, retaliation under the 1st Amendment, unreasonable detention and false arrest, plus state law claims of assault and battery, the plaintiffs are seeking a judgment declaring that the defendants’ actions violated plaintiffs’ rights, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, plus such other and further relief to plaintiffs as this Court deems just and proper.
In the Weltch action and for counts of unreasonable use of force, retaliation against free expression, unreasonable seizure and state law claims of false arrest, assault and battery, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, plus such other and further relief as may appear just and appropriate.
Jury trials are demanded in both cases.
The plaintiffs are represented by David Rudovsky, Susan M. Lin and Jonathan H. Feinberg of Kairys Rudovsky Messing Feinberg & Lin in Philadelphia, Cara McClellan, Rachel Kleinman and Liliana Zaragoza of the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund in New York City, plus Bret Grote and Jamelia Morgan of the Abolitionist Law Center, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Anne B. Taylor of the City of Philadelphia’s Law Department, plus John P. Gonzales and Joseph J. Santarone Jr. of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania cases 2:20-cv-03431 & 2:20-cv-03432
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com