ALLENTOWN – One Pennsylvania state trooper has denied that he participated in a savage beating of a Berks County man during a traffic stop, where the plaintiff suffered a fractured pelvis.
Andrew Tobin of Wernersville first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 8 versus Pennsylvania State Trooper Max Seiler, John Doe State Troopers 1-5 and John Doe Supervisors 1-5, all of Reading.
“On July 8, 2020, at approximately 11:30 a.m., plaintiff was legally operating a 2007 Ford Taurus on Mount Laurel Road at or near its intersection with Blandon Road in Berks County. Plaintiff had one passenger in the vehicle with him at the relevant time. On the same date, time and location, defendant State Trooper Max Seiler was working within the course and scope of employment, under color of state law, operating an unmarked State police vehicle,” the suit said.
“According to defendant Seiler’s affidavit of probable cause, he determined that plaintiff’s vehicle registration had expired 38 days prior on May 31, 2020 and thereafter sought to conduct a traffic stop of plaintiff’s vehicle. According to defendant Seiler’s affidavit of probable cause, he activated his emergency lights and siren to signal plaintiff to pull over. At the relevant time, plaintiff had on his person an unregistered and unlicensed firearm. Realizing that his possession of the firearm may subject him to arrest, plaintiff panicked and attempted to evade defendant Seiler.”
The suit explained that a vehicle pursuit ensued, ending when a third-party motorist struck the plaintiff’s vehicle, though the plaintiff was not injured whatsoever as a result of the crash. Still panicked and frightened of arrest, the suit says the plaintiff exited his vehicle near a residence located at 302 Hartz Road in Ruscombmanor Township, Berks County.
“Plaintiff sprinted away from his vehicle for some distance, jumped over an approximately six foot-high fence and ran a few more yards before he came to terms with his poor decision and voluntarily laying down on the ground with his hands above his head to surrender to pursuing defendant John Doe State Troopers and Trooper Seiler. While lying on the ground, plaintiff verbally advised defendants of his location and that he was not and would not resist arrest. Plaintiff posed no threat to defendants and was not in any position to flee due to his location vis a vis defendant Troopers,” the suit stated.
“Defendant Troopers, including Seiler, approached plaintiff as he lay on the ground in a supine position and handcuffed plaintiff’s hands behind his back without struggle. Once plaintiff’s hands were secure, defendant troopers, including Seiler, repeatedly struck plaintiff with theirs knees and fists, causing plaintiff to suffer multiple contusions and abrasions. Defendant troopers, including Seiler, thereafter stood plaintiff up and escorted him back in the direction they came until they arrived at the above-referenced fence. Defendants could have easily escorted plaintiff around the fence and/or sought to exit via gate, but instead forcefully shoved plaintiff into a fence pole.”
Moments later, defendant Seiler and another John Doe Trooper threw plaintiff over the fence with complete understanding that plaintiff could not break his fall due his hands being cuffed behind his back – as a result, the plaintiff said he struck the ground with such force that he fractured his pelvis, necessitating immediate emergency surgical repair.
“At no point to John Doe State Troopers attempt to dissuade or stop Seiler and the other Trooper from throwing plaintiff over the fence. Plaintiff was transported via ambulance to Reading Hospital and Medical Center whereupon he was treated for his injuries,” the suit said.
“While at the hospital, defendant Seiler and John Doe State Troopers attempted to cover up their outrageous and malicious assault of plaintiff by telling plaintiff’s treating physicians that plaintiff’s injuries were the result of the auto accident. In response, the treating physician retorted that plaintiff never would have been able to sprint from his vehicle and leap over a fence with a severely-fractured pelvis.”
A Sept. 7 note from the Court indicated that the case may be dismissed, if service of the complaint is not made to the defendants in the action.
“A review of the Court’s records shows that service of the complaint has not been made in the above-captioned action. In order to eliminate a delay in bringing this case to trial, service must be made by Oct. 6, 2022, in accordance with Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Proof of service must be filed with the Clerk’s Office within five days of service. If service is not made within the time set forth above, the court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice for lack of prosecution,” the notice stated.
The notice was delivered by Civil Deputy Clerk Shana Restucci, on behalf of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Edward G. Smith.
UPDATE
Defendant Seiler answered the complaint on Oct. 5, denying that he committed any acts of excessive force against the plaintiff.
“It is admitted that the vehicle pursuit ended when a third party motorist struck plaintiff’s vehicle. It is admitted that plaintiff exited his vehicle near a residence located at 302 Hartz Road in Ruscombmanor Township, Berks County. It is denied that the fence was six feet high. It is admitted that plaintiff sprinted from his vehicle. Defendant is without the knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations; therefore, they are denied. The allegations of those paragraphs constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent any allegations are deemed to be factual, they are denied,” the answer stated.
The defendant further provided two affirmative defenses.
“The defendant is entitled to qualified immunity and is entitled to 11th Amendment immunity in his official capacity,” the defenses read.
For counts of unreasonable force under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, conspiracy to violate civil rights, bystander liability-failure to intervene and failure to train and creation of unconstitutional policy and custom under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the plaintiff is seeking a declaratory judgment that defendants’ acts complained of have violated and continue to violate the rights of plaintiff; compensatory damages including but not limited to: pain, suffering, past economic loss, future economic loss, back pay, front pay, loss of life’s pleasures, loss of reputation, benefits, emotional distress and other damages; reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees; punitive damages; and any other relief this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
The plaintiff is represented by Joseph P. Guzzardo of Guzzardo & Associates, in Pittsburgh.
Defendant Seiler is represented by Jeffrey Mozdziock of the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:22-cv-02669
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com