HARRISBURG – A Chambersburg woman who alleged she was subjected to excessive force during a DUI traffic stop arrest by five troopers from the Pennsylvania State Police in January 2019, has been granted additional time to properly serve the defendants, albeit not through the U.S. Marshals Service.
Jeri Lynne Dimoff first filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 13 versus Chambersburg Pennsylvania State Police, Trooper Lucas Amarose, Trooper Conor Tremaine and Supervisory Officers John Does 1-3. All parties are of Chambersburg.
“By way of background, on Jan. 26, 2019, plaintiff Dimoff was driving her son home from a friend’s house with the family dog in the car. Unfortunately, Dimoff was pulled over by the PSP for allegedly weaving into the other lane of traffic and crossing traffic lines. Plaintiff Dimoff upon seeing the police units pursuing her turned left into a church parking lot. Dimoff and her son removed their seatbelts to secure the dog in the back seat as the dog was whining and trying to jump in the front seat with Dimoff,” the suit said.
“PSP conducted a traffic stop and identified through PennDOT records that the driver of the vehicle, plaintiff Dimoff, had an expired license. While defendant Amarose was speaking with Dimoff, he allegedly detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from her breath. Defendant Amarose asked plaintiff Dimoff if she had anything to drink, to which she responded she did. Defendant Amarose requested Dimoff to exit her vehicle and participate in Standardized Field Sobriety Testing. At this time Dimoff’s son began to cry as he continued to try to keep the dog calm and was frightened by the police interaction. Dimoff explained to the defendants Amarose and Tremaine that her husband was a police officer and she could call him to come pick up her son.”
The suit added that as the sobriety tests began, the defendant officers began mistreating Dimoff, with one of them having “become verbally aggressive towards plaintiff Dimoff, insinuating and stating she was acting like a ‘bitch” and not cooperating with the officers.
After blowing a .14 BAC on a subsequent Breathalyzer test, Dimoff said one of the officers grabbed her and “aggressively swung her around onto the hood of the police car and then to the pavement to cuff her”, as the other officers continued to “yell and curse” at her.
When the defendants threw Dimoff onto the pavement, she said her face was knocked into the pavement, causing her to break a tooth, have her teeth pushed into her gums and also suffered abrasions to her face and head injuries.
Dimoff alleged the abuse continued during follow-up medical treatment at a local hospital, with defendant Amarose allegedly treating the plaintiff in a rough physical manner, continuing to call her a “stupid bitch”, an “out-of-control drunk” and taunt her.
The plaintiff alleged that her front right tooth was knocked out, her front left tooth and second tooth was pushed into gums, gum pain, that her top teeth went through her bottom lip causing upper and lower lip cuts and swelling, multiple facial abrasions, a bleeding nose, a swelled knee along with abrasions, a right and left arm injury, an injured elbow, abrasions on her left chest, bruising on her lower back and head wounds.
On her way to the police barracks after her medical treatment at the hospital, the plaintiff said she “tripped, as she could not keep up with Amarose, and then was slammed by the defendant against the police cruiser, hitting her face and causing her to get a black eye.”
UPDATE
On April 13, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking extra time to serve the defendants with the complaint, being that the U.S. Mail Return Receipts were returned as signed, but the Waivers of Service were never returned.
As result, Dimoff sought an additional 60 days to properly effectuate service upon the defendants and specifically, further requested that the Court order the U.S. Marshals to perfect in-person service with all fees, costs and charges to be borne by the defendant(s), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3).
The Court ruled upon that motion on May 12.
“Upon consideration of plaintiff Jeri Lynne Dimoff’s motion to enlarge time for service and order U.S. Marshals for service, and plaintiff having shown good cause for an extension of time to effectuate service of process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), it is ordered that plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part,” U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Yvette Kane said.
“Plaintiff’s request for a 60-day extension of time to effectuate service of process on the four named defendants is granted; and plaintiff’s request for an order directing the United States Marshals Service to personally serve each defendant, who shall then be responsible for the fees, costs, and charges associated with such service, is denied at this time.”
Kane outlined her rationale in a footnote included in her Court order.
“Generally, it is the plaintiff who pays ‘filing fees…(and not a United States Marshal) that is responsible for service.’ The Court may ‘order that service be made by a United States Marshal’ but is not required to do so unless, e.g., the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis. Here, plaintiff paid the filing fee and is represented by counsel. Accordingly, the Court will not at this time order service by a Marshal under Rule 4(c)(3). However, because the named defendants failed to waive service pursuant to Rule 4(d)(1), and assuming there is no good cause for their failure to do so, plaintiff is entitled to expenses incurred in effectuating service pursuant to Rule 4(d)(2). Plaintiff may therefore move for reimbursement of such expenses after effectuating service of process,” Kane stated.
For counts of excessive force, supervisory violations and failure to intervene pertaining to violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, supplemental state law claims of assault and battery, the plaintiff is seeking a declaratory judgment, pursuant to Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, stating that defendants’ actions have subjected plaintiff to excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs of suit to include disbursements and attorney’s fees, such other and further relief as the Court deems fair and equitable, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Matthew L. Owens of the Law Offices of Matthew L. Owens, in Harrisburg.
The defendants have not yet secured legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 1:22-cv-00072
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com