JOHNSTOWN – A member of the Pennsylvania State Police has denied a Clearfield County woman’s allegations that he used excessive force to end a police chase pursuit, which resulted in a car accident and subsequently, the man’s death.
Valerie Peoples (as Administratrix of the Estate of Matthew Chelgren) of Clearfield County filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 7, 2023 versus Pennsylvania State Police Trooper John Doe.
(In an amended version of the complaint on March 4, John Doe was identified as Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Craig A. Hooven.)
“On April 8, 2023, troopers from the Pennsylvania State Police engaged in a pursuit of Chelgren in their police vehicles. Chelgren was driving a Toyota 4Runner. Based on an eyewitness account at the scene of the crash, a Pennsylvania State Trooper stated that the pursuit was over ‘a license plate issue.’ The news also reported that according to a state police report, Chelgren, 38, of Grampian, was driving a Toyota 4Runner that did not have a registration. The state police initially attempted to stop Chelgren over a minor traffic code violation. When Chelgren did not pull over, the state police initiated and engaged in a dangerous pursuit that originated from a minor traffic code violation,” the suit said.
“The pursuit ended on Harper Mine Road in the proximity of the intersection with East Hepburnia Road in Curwensville, Clearfield County, Pennsylvania, when defendant Hooven, acting under the color of law, intentionally executed a PIT maneuver and/or forcibly rammed his police vehicle into Chelgren’s vehicle, forcing Chelgren’s vehicle off the road and into a tree, killing him. Chelgren’s motor vehicle was forced off the roadway and struck a tree in the proximity of the front yard of a residence located at 1872 Harper Mine Road, Curwensville, PA 16833. Chelgren died at the scene of the crash but did not die immediately and endured great pain and suffering, fear, and mental anguish before his death.”
The suit added that “defendant Hooven’s decision to ram Chelgren’s vehicle off the road was the decision to use deadly force under the facts and circumstances presented to them and specifically, defendant Hooven rammed Chelgren’s vehicle and/or executed a PIT maneuver at a location in the pursuit where it was almost certain that Chelgren’s vehicle would be forced to hit a tree.”
“Defendant Hooven knew he was exercising deadly force when he intentionally rammed Chelgren's vehicle off the road under the circumstances. Defendant Hooven, in fact, used deadly force in ramming Chelgren’s motor vehicle and/or executing a PIT maneuver to force Chelgren’s motor vehicle off the road,” the suit states.
“Defendant Hooven used unreasonable force during the pursuit of Chelgren and, thus, violated Chelgren’s Fourth Amendment rights which is actionable under the Federal Civil Rights Act. Defendant Hooven’s actions violated Chelgren’s clearly-established constitutional rights by using objectively unreasonable and deadly force under the circumstances. Defendant Hooven’s actions also violated the Pennsylvania State Police’s own rules and policies regarding the use of force.”
UPDATE
In a May 30 answer to the complaint, the defendant took issue with the plaintiff’s version of events related to the police pursuit.
“Troopers attempted to initiate a traffic stop on a black SUV with suspected equipment violations. After the troopers activated their emergency lights and siren in an attempt to slow and stop the vehicle, the vehicle failed to stop and traveled at a high rate of speed. While in pursuit it was also observed the vehicle was not displaying a registration plate. The black SUV failed to stop and went off of the roadway and through multiple residential yards, almost striking two separate residential homes and a large propane tank before re-entering the roadway and continued to flee from the troopers,” the answer stated, in part.
“While on Harper Mine Road, the troopers initiated the Precision Immobilization Technique on the black SUV in an attempt to slow or stop the vehicle due to the high speed flight from a lawful traffic stop and erratic driving of Mr. Chelgren as described more fully in the above paragraph. The black SUV traveled off of the roadway and struck a tree prior to coming to a final rest.”
The remainder of the plaintiff’s allegations were characterized as “conclusions of law…to which no response is required…however, to the extent an answer is required, any and all allegations of fact…are denied and strict proof is demanded.”
The defendant also put forward more than a dozen affirmative defenses.
“The complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. This action is barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. The plaintiff was not deprived of any rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution. The plaintiff was not deprived of any rights under the Fourth, Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments. The answering defendants were at all times acting in good faith and in an objective, reasonable manner and with a reasonable belief in the lawfulness of their actions. The answering defendants were at all times acting pursuant to duties required or authorized by statute or regulation and therefore said acts were within the discretion granted to the answering defendants by statute or statutorily authorized by regulations. The answering defendants are entitled to all immunities and protections under both state and federal law, including sovereign immunity and qualified immunity,” the defenses stated.
“At no time did the answering defendants, either individually or in concert with others, deprive the plaintiff of any rights, privileges or immunities secured to him by the Constitution or the laws of the United States. The Eleventh Amendment protects the individual answering defendants against any and all claims brought against them in their official capacity. The answering defendants were at all times acting in good faith and in an objectively reasonable manner and did not violate any clearly established federal right of plaintiff. Therefore, the answering defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and/or qualified good faith immunity from civil damages. Plaintiff’s injuries or damages, if such injuries or damages occurred, were exclusively caused by circumstances beyond the answering defendants control, or the supervening acts of third parties over which the defendant had no control. The answering defendants reserve the right to assert any and all other defenses set forth at Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c)(1). The answering defendants reserve the right to amend this pleading as needed or necessary. Wherefore, the answering defendants request that judgment be entered in their favor and against the plaintiff.”
For counts of excessive force and state-created danger under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, assault, battery, survival and wrongful death, the plaintiff is seeking all compensable damages, plus interest, costs, attorney’s fees and punitive damages against defendant for his outrageous conduct and reckless indifference to the rights of Chelgren, as well as any other relief this Court deems just.
The plaintiff is represented by Anthony E. Patterson of Anthony E. Patterson & Associates, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Meghan Ann Flowers of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, also in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 3:23-cv-00297
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com