HARRISBURG – The Pennsylvania State Police and some claims have been dismissed from a lawsuit brought by a Chambersburg woman, who alleged she was subjected to excessive force during a DUI traffic stop arrest by five state troopers in January 2019.
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.”
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. The Court granted that motion on May 12.
On Aug. 9, the Chambersburg Pennsylvania State Police and Troopers Amarose and Tremaine filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted.
“Ms. Dimoff, through counsel, filed a complaint on Jan. 13, 2022 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1986, alleging violations of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as, alleging supplemental state law claims for assault and battery. As pled by Dimoff, the alleged civil rights violations occurred during her arrest on Jan. 26, 2019 by State Police Troopers Amarose and Tremaine. As required by Local Rule 7.1, counsel for the defendants attempted to conference with counsel for Dimoff to resolve concerns identified with the complaint,” the dismissal motion stated.
“Those concerns include, but are not limited to, the fact that: (i.) Official-capacity claims or any claims for monetary damages brought against the State Police, as an agency, are barred by the Eleventh Amendment; (ii.) There is not a sufficient basis pled to support any supervisory claims; (iii.) There is not a sufficient basis pled to support any claims under Section 1986; and (iv.) Assault and battery claims are not enumerated exceptions to the Sovereign Immunity Act. Additional concerns include issues of statute of limitations and a failure to state a claim for a Fourteenth Amendment violation due to the explicit source rule.”
Defense counsel added it sought a stipulation to address the concerns raised in lieu of filing the motion to dismiss, but at the time of filing, counsel had not received a response to her communication and an accompanying brief will be duly filed in the time period provided by Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure.
UPDATE
In a mutually-filed stipulation on Aug. 23, both the Pennsylvania State Police and several claims were dismissed from the case.
“Plaintiff is not seeking injunctive relief against the State Police as an agency, as such, the parties have agreed that all official capacity claims against the defendant Troopers are dismissed and the State Police, as an entity, is dismissed from this action. At this time, a John Doe supervisor has not been identified who holds the requisite elements for possible liability and counsel for the defendants does not represent any John Doe until properly named. Supervisory claims in Counts I, II and III will be dismissed,” the stipulation stated.
“Because the theory of liability for failing to intervene falls under the Eighth Amendment instead of the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment, Count III will be appropriately amended as described below. All claims allegedly arising pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1986 are dismissed. All supplemental state claims for assault and battery are dismissed, as they are not enumerated exceptions to the Pennsylvania Sovereign Immunity Act. Therefore, the complaint will proceed against defendants Amarose and Tremaine in their individual capacities as follows: Count I – Section 1983 Fourth Amendment Excessive Force; Count III Section 1983 Eighth Amendment Failure to Intervene.”
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 are represented by Nicole R. DiTomo and Karin M. Romano of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, also in Harrisburg.
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