ALLENTOWN – The City of Lancaster is looking to dismiss a count for Monell liability lodged against it, in litigation brought by a woman who contended her civil rights were violated when Lancaster police officers arrested and took her into custody, subsequent to her having had a verbal altercation with a patron at a local restaurant.
Cyrena Brock first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 18 versus the City of Lancaster, Sergeants/Lieutenants John Doe 1-10 and Police Officers John Doe 1-10.
“On Aug. 20, 2021, plaintiff Cyrena Brock was a patron of Yorgos Restaurant and Lounge located at 66 North Queen Street, Lancaster, PA 17603. At the above date, time, and location, plaintiff got into a verbal altercation with a female patron of Yorgos Restaurant and Lounge because the patron made fun of plaintiff’s necklace that honors her late father. Sometime after the argument, plaintiff decided to go outside to have a cigarette. While outside, plaintiff spoke with the owner of the bar and the owner’s son, both of whom agreed plaintiff was not to blame for the verbal altercation. The owner invited plaintiff to re-enter the restaurant and lounge,” the suit said.
“The patron with whom plaintiff had the prior verbal altercation was also allowed to re-enter the restaurant and lounge. Shortly after, another altercation between plaintiff and said female ensued. The City of Lancaster Bureau of Police, including defendants Police Officers John Doe 1-10 and/or defendants Sergeants/Lieutenants John Doe 1-10, were called to the premises. When the male officers included within defendants Police Officers John Doe 1-10 and/or defendants Sergeants/Lieutenants John Doe 1-10 attempted to frisk plaintiff, she requested a female officer conduct the frisk. She was not comfortable with being frisked by a male officer because of childhood trauma.”
The suit added the plaintiff’s request for a female officer was refused and the police officer defendants then arrested the plaintiff, taking her to the City of Lancaster Bureau of Police precinct.
“Plaintiff was the only person arrested that evening. At the precinct, several male police officers, including defendants Police Officers John Doe 1-10 and/or defendants Sergeants/Lieutenants John Doe 1-10, held plaintiff while a female removed her shoes and frisked her. During this encounter, defendant Police Officers John Doe 1-10 and/or defendants Sergeants/Lieutenants John Doe 1-10 pushed plaintiff over onto a metal bunk, causing plaintiff to injure her face and nose, resulting in serious injuries, including hearing loss. The following morning, the female police officer apologized to plaintiff and took photographs of her injuries,” the suit stated.
“As a direct and proximate result of the above, plaintiff suffered serious personal injuries and/or aggravations thereto, some or all of which may be permanent in nature, including but not limited to: a) Tiny avulsion fracture near the tip of the nasal bone; b) Mucosal thickening in bilateral ethmoid air cells with leftward deviation of the nasal septum and edema involving the left nasal turbinates, tiny air-fluid level in the posterior aspect of the left maxillary sinus; c) Closed fracture of the nasal bone; d) DNS (deviated nasal septum); e) Tinnitus of both ears; f) Sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL) of both ears; g) Epistaxis and h) Hypertrophy of nasal turbinates.”
The suit continued that the plaintiff suffered medical treatment damages totaling $6,681.
UPDATE
The City motioned to dismiss the Monell count from the suit on Oct. 26, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted – arguing that the plaintiff did not show “(1) an underlying constitutional violation; (2) the identity of the officials or governmental bodies with final policy-making authority; and (3) proof that those individuals ‘have, through their decisions, caused the deprivation of rights at issue by policies which affirmatively command that it occur’ or ‘by acquiescence in a longstanding practice or custom which constitutes the ‘standard operating procedure’ of the local governmental entity.”
“There is no evidence to support a Monell claim in this matter. To the contrary, plaintiff’s allegations against the City of Lancaster is simply a list of things the City failed to do, which sounds in negligence and not deliberate indifference. Furthermore, plaintiff failed to offer any facts that would indicate that the policy-maker’s decisions caused plaintiff’s deprivation of rights by the policies he/she/they put into place. Plaintiff failed to identify any facts which reflect that these defendants were deliberately indifferent. It appears, therefore, that plaintiff is seeking to proceed against these defendants on a respondeat superior theory. As stated above, Section 1983 does not allow for such a cause of action. The plaintiff has no evidence which would tend to show that the City of Lancaster knew of a pattern of constitutional violations or that such consequences were so obvious that defendant’s conduct can only be characterized as deliberately indifferent. Plaintiff has no evidence that any policy-maker personally directed their employees to engage in an alleged constitutional violation,” the dismissal motion stated.
“Nor is there any evidence that a policy-maker acquiesced in their employees/agents alleged unconstitutional conduct (the second criterion under Monell) other than the incident that forms the basis of this complaint. There is no evidence of any municipal policy or custom, or any wrongful conduct by the City of Lancaster, whatsoever. Moreover, there is no proof that any policy-maker at the City, through their decisions caused a deprivation of plaintiff’s rights by policies, customs or practices that were in effect at the time of plaintiff’s detention. Instead, plaintiff simply has a generic laundry list of things the City of Lancaster failed to do without any factual support of same. This violates the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. All claims against the City of Lancaster should be dismissed. Without any evidence that demonstrates the personal involvement of a policy-maker in any alleged unconstitutional conduct fails as a matter of law and plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed.”
For counts of excessive force, bystander liability, conspiracy, supervisory liability, a Monell violation and assault and battery, the plaintiff is seeking, individually, jointly and/or severally, compensatory damages for the violation of her Fourth Amendment rights and the injuries she suffered, plus interest, costs, attorney’s fees, delay damages and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court.
The plaintiff is represented by Alan E. Denenberg of Abramson & Denenberg, in Philadelphia.
Defendants City of Lancaster is represented by Christine E. Munion of William J. Ferren & Associates, in Hartford, Conn.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 5:23-cv-03202
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com