SCRANTON – West Penn Township and its police chief have denied allegations that excessive force and assault were committed on an area woman, when the defendants served a warrant for her arrest nearly 18 months ago.
Rachel Rossi first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 6 versus West Penn Township and its Chief of Police, James Bonner.
“On or about June 28, 2022, defendant Bonner, while working at the Department, served a 302 warrant for plaintiff at 5 Chain Circle in New Ringgold, Pennsylvania. Defendant Bonner entered the residence without knocking or announcing that he was a police officer or that he had a warrant,” the suit said.
“Defendant Bonner immediately and aggressively approached plaintiff, attacking her in a manner that was inconsistent with, unnecessary to and not in furtherance of, effectuating an unlawful arrest. In so doing, he violently picked plaintiff up and slammed her on the ground.”
The suit added that the plaintiff had taken no aggressive action toward defendant Bonner and offered no resistance which would have justified defendant Bonner’s actions – but despite that, the suit explains the plaintiff suffered a compression fracture of her L1 vertebrae and severe bruising.
“Prior to this assault upon plaintiff, defendant Bonner had been subjected to numerous excessive force complaints and had continued to be employed by the state police, despite all of the same and despite the fact that defendant Township’s policymakers knew of the danger he posed to the public. Defendant Township and its policymakers were supervisors of defendant Bonner, with the power to terminate him and/or restrict his duties. Defendant Township and its policymakers knew of defendant Bonner’s violent propensities and past incidents of excessive force,” the suit stated.
“Despite this knowledge, defendant Township and its policymakers continued to employ defendant Bonner as Chief of Police and continued to allow him to act in the field and interact with members of the public, to whom they knew he posed a risk. The actions of all defendants were undertaken knowingly, intentionally, negligently, recklessly, maliciously and/or with reckless disregard for defendant’s safety. The actions of all defendants were undertaken in the absence of any valid legal basis.”
UPDATE
In a Nov. 20 answer to the complaint, the defendants argued that they, “pursuant to an active and valid 302 warrant for an involuntary mental health examination, took the plaintiff into custody for the purpose of a mental health evaluation by a physician and immediately upon being placed into custody, the plaintiff was transported to the emergency room of Lehigh Valley Health Network – Schuylkill for examination.”
The answer added that “defendant Bonner’s use of force was reasonable and proportional to the circumstances in the arrest of plaintiff pursuant to a valid 302 warrant” and provided affirmative defenses.
“The complaint and each cause of action therein, fails to set forth sufficient facts upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff fails to state a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 upon which relief can be granted. Answering defendants assert every defense available to them in the existing Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Answering defendants’ actions did not violate plaintiff’s Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment rights. At all times material to this litigation, answering defendants acted in a manner which was proper, reasonable and lawful in an exercise of good faith. At all times material to this litigation, plaintiff was treated in a proper and lawful manner by answering defendants in accordance with the laws of this Commonwealth and the United States Constitution,” the answer’s affirmative defenses stated, in part.
“At no time material hereto did answering defendants act in willful, wanton, reckless or malicious manner. If plaintiff suffered any damages as alleged, then such damages were caused by plaintiff’s own willful and malicious conduct and/or negligent, reckless, intentional and/or criminal conduct and not by any conduct of answering defendants. Plaintiff has not suffered any damages as the result of the actions or inactions of answering defendants. Defendant James Bonner’s actions did not constitute excessive force, assault and/or battery upon plaintiff under federal or state law. Plaintiff’s excessive force and assault and battery claims fail as defendant James Bonner was privileged to use force in the course of his duties and any force used was reasonable and proportional to the circumstances. Plaintiff fails to set forth sufficient facts to meet the elements of excessive force, assault or battery under federal or state law.”
For counts of Monell liability, excessive force, assault and battery, the plaintiff is seeking unspecified damages.
The plaintiff is represented by Curt M. Parkins and Matthew Thomas Comerford of Comerford Law, in Scranton.
The defendants are represented by Andrew M. Rongaus and Paul Verduci of Siana Law, in Chester Springs.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:23-cv-01467
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com