PHILADELPHIA - The City of Philadelphia can't escape litigation brought by the mother of a then-two-year-old boy blinded in one eye by a cop's taser.
The boy has total blindness in his right eye and will require a glass eye. Sareda Simmons' lawsuit against the city and two officers alleged excessive force and unreasonable seizure.
Philadelphia wanted federal judge John Padova to dismiss the suit's Monell claim, which sought to hold it accountable for constitutional violations caused by its policies. But he ruled Oct. 15 that Simmons had adequately alleged it, rejecting claims the plaintiff hadn't identified a municipal policymaker.
The amended complaint says Directive 10.3 was approved by the city's police commissioner. That directive on taser use fails to instruct officers on bystander safety and does not prohibit taser use when there is a risk of injury to a child or when the officer is off-balance, the suit says.
"Directive 10.3, which allegedly provides the content for officer training, offers no guidance as to how to avoid injuring bystanders," Padova wrote.
"Moreover, the amended complaint alleges specific ways in which the training that is offered falls short."
Crystal Harris and Gerald Rahill also face claims over the 2023 incident, which began with them knocking on Simmons' door to investigate a possible domestic incident.
Simmons told the two that she didn't need their assistance, but Maurice Sanders came downstairs and tried to close the door on them. In response, they forced the door open and "physically assaulted" Maurice, the suit alleges.
Children came downstairs to see what was happening.
"While these minors were on the staircase, both defendants Harris and Rahill discharged their department-issued Conducted Energy Weapons one or more times," the suit says. "On at least one occasion, the weapons wee discharged in the direction of the minors sitting on the steps."
The boy was hit in his left chest and right eye, causing pain and his blindness, the suit says. It adds he has suffered emotional trauma and that police paperwork attributed his injuries to Maurice Sanders' conduct.
The plaintiff is represented by Jason Javie of Levin & Javie, in Philadelphia.
Philadelphia had argued the complaint does not allege a history of employees mishandling tasers that would have put policymakers on notice of the deficiencies of Directive 10.3.
"Nonetheless, a single incident may demonstrate deliberate indifference in circumstances that involve 'a difficult choice' that policymakers know employees will face and may decide wrongly to the detriment of constitutional rights," Judge Padova wrote.
Previous courts have found the need for training can be so obvious that failure to do so could be deliberate indifference to constitutional rights even without a pattern of violations.
"Because police are sure to encounter fleeing felons, and because these encounters predictably involve the use of deadly force and a corresponding peril to constitutional rights, the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference," Padova wrote.