PITTSBURGH – The City of McKeesport and a group of its police officers have denied violating the civil rights of three Black citizens, during their pursuit of a suspect involved in the shooting of a fellow officer in 2020.
Courtney Thompkins, Ezra Dixon and Kim Neal of McKeesport first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Dec. 4, 2023 versus the City of McKeesport Police Department, the City of McKeesport, McKeesport Assistant Police Chief Mark Steele, McKeesport Police Chief Adam Alfer, former Allegheny County Police Department Superintendent Coleman McDonough, former McKeesport Police Officer Brenda Sawyer and McKeesport Police Officer Dante Diberadin (all in their individual and official capacities), plus Allegheny County and the Allegheny County Police Department of Pittsburgh, John Does 1-20 and Jane Does 1-20.
The suit came about as a result of a search for Koby Lee Francis, who was being sought for shooting McKeesport police officer Gerasimos Athans on Dec. 20, 2020. Francis was arrested in West Virginia, and Athans survived the shooting.
Plaintiffs Thompkins and Dixon said they had no meaningful connection to Francis, while Neal is Francis’ mother. The suit added that police conducted abusive searches of their homes and vehicles without probable cause.
“Ms. Thompkins noticed that her partner, Howard Gibbons, was stopped near their shared home by two John Doe Police Defendants while Mr. Gibbons was in his vehicle on his way to work,” the suit says.
“Ms. Thompkins went to her front door with plans of going outside to find out what was going on. Instead, immediately upon opening her front door, Ms. Thompkins was confronted by Police Defendants in tactical gear with guns drawn and pointed at her head. It was then that Ms. Thompkins noticed Police Defendants were pointing their guns at Mr. Gibbons’s head too. Ms. Thompkins, now at the wrong end of government-issued firearms, was scared, confused and surrounded.”
Thompkins, like the other plaintiffs, was not presented a search or arrest warrant and no officer could explain a basis for believing Francis might be in her home, the suit said.
The defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 3, and the plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint on March 15.
UPDATE
On April 15, defendants City of McKeesport Police Department, City of McKeesport, Steele, Alfer, Sawyer and Diberadin motioned to partially dismiss the complaint.
“Plaintiffs’ amended complaint inappropriately includes references to news articles, previous lawsuits and studies about the stops alleged in their pleadings and generalized racial animus in the police community. As these references have no evidentiary value at this stage, they should not be included in the amended complaint. Those concerns are not relevant here. Defendants request that the Court strike references to news articles, lawsuits and studies that plaintiffs have referenced in their amended complaint. These articles, lawsuits and studies do nothing to develop the record and would improperly be considered as ‘true’ for purposes of evaluating the amended complaint. Courts support striking extraneous evidentiary material in the pleadings when it is prejudicial or inadmissible, like these news articles, lawsuits, and studies that purport to show a general racial animus,” the motion said, in part.
“Defendants seek to strike Paragraphs 20 and Paragraphs 65-71 of plaintiffs’ amended complaint as impertinent allegations that reference news articles, lawsuits, or studies that only generally refer to plaintiffs’ allegations. These news articles and studies have no evidentiary value and are inadmissible to prove the truth of the matters alleged. As such, the references are only prejudicial surplusage. News articles are not, as presented without other evidentiary context in the amended complaint, ‘reducible to admissible evidence and, therefore, they cannot properly be considered.’ Likewise, studies presented without authenticating and substantive testimony are inadmissible hearsay. Moreover, the studies reference events that are unrelated to plaintiffs’ claims and are thus irrelevant. In addition, a lawsuit regarding Pennsylvania sunshine laws purporting to show alleged racial animus is likewise insufficient to form a factual allegation and are likely to be ultimately inadmissible. By supporting their allegations with third-party content, plaintiffs serve only to inflame prejudice. These should not be considered a statement of fact through defendants’ early dispositive motion briefing. Such a presumption would be unduly prejudicial to defendants as it would force them to respond to and defend against statements beyond the scope of admissible and relevant evidence. For these reasons, this Court should exercise its discretion and strike the references in this amended complaint that reference and incorporate third-party publications.”
The dismissal motion added that the municipality cannot be held liable under Section 1983 on a respondeat superior theory, that the Pennsylvania Constitution does not support a private right of action, that the plaintiffs failed to allege a nexus to federal financial assistance and that the plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege circumstances that would support a conspiracy against the City.
“For all of the foregoing reasons, the City of McKeesport and McKeesport Police Department respectfully request the court strike the above-cited references to outside sources and dismiss these defendants from Counts I through V as they seek to create liability through respondeat superior; Counts II, IV, and VII as there is no private right of action created by Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Count VI as plaintiffs have failed to allege a nexus between federal funding and their alleged civil rights violations; and Counts VII and VIII for the reasons set out above, but also because the City cannot conspire with itself. Defendants City of McKeesport, McKeesport Police Department, Mark Steele, Adam Alfer and Dante Diberandin respectfully request that this Court grant its partial motion to dismiss and to strike,” the motion concluded.
For counts of unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, violation of Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, racial discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, racial discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, civil conspiracy to violate plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, civil conspiracy to violate plaintiffs’ rights under violation of Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, intentional infliction of emotional distress and Monell liability, the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs of this action, attorneys’ fees and such other relief as the Court deems just, proper and equitable.
The plaintiffs are represented by Solomon Furious Worlds, Stephen A. Loney and Richard Ting of ACLU Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, plus William J. Sheridan, Caitlyn Marie Holsopple and Courtney B. Averbach of Reed Smith, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Paul D. Krepps of Marshall Dennehey, Lisa G. Michel and Philip Paul Roberts of the Allegheny County Law Department and Scott A. Bradley of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, all in Pittsburgh,
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:24-cv-00008
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-22-015663
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com