From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Burghart

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 25, 2012
CIVIL ACTION No. 10-3374 (E.D. Pa. May. 25, 2012)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that the trooper defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity when he used a taser in August of 2008 on the plaintiff who was in the presence of flammable material, creating a risk of physical harm to plaintiff such that a reasonable government official facing those circumstances would have known that his conduct violated federal law

Summary of this case from Estep v. Mackey
See 5 Summaries

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION No. 10-3374

05-25-2012

ALLEN BROWN, Plaintiff, v. TROOPER BURGHART, et al., Defendants.

GENE E.K. PRATTER

ORDER

AND NOW, this 25th day of May, 2012, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 8), Defendants' Motion in Limine (Docket No. 11) and all responses and replies thereto (Docket Nos. 9, 12, 13, 14, 18, 20, 21, 22) and following oral argument on the motions on March 8, 2012, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' Motion in Limine (Docket No. 11) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as outlined in the Memorandum accompanying this Order;
2. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 8) is DENIED as to Defendant Trooper Burghart;
3. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 8) is DENIED without prejudice as to Defendant Trooper LeMaire. No later than 14 days from the date of this Order, the parties shall jointly submit via letter to Chambers either a proposed briefing schedule for a renewed motion for summary judgment, a motion for leave to amend the complaint, or both; or a joint stipulation clarifying Trooper LeMaire's status in this case.

BY THE COURT:

_________________

GENE E.K. PRATTER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Summaries of

Brown v. Burghart

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 25, 2012
CIVIL ACTION No. 10-3374 (E.D. Pa. May. 25, 2012)

holding that the trooper defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity when he used a taser in August of 2008 on the plaintiff who was in the presence of flammable material, creating a risk of physical harm to plaintiff such that a reasonable government official facing those circumstances would have known that his conduct violated federal law

Summary of this case from Estep v. Mackey

finding trooper not entitled to qualified immunity when he used his taser in August 2008 on a plaintiff who was located near flammable material, thereby creating a substantial risk of physical harm to the plaintiff that a reasonable officer would have known violated federal law

Summary of this case from Pope v. Ferance

denying officer's motion for summary judgment on excessive force claim where officer used a taser near a flammable liquid and the liquid ignited

Summary of this case from White v. City of Lancaster

In Brown, the Third Circuit approved an officer's use of a taser to subdue a motorist who refused to comply with orders and continued to struggle with officers.

Summary of this case from White v. City of Lancaster

discussing the admissibility of expert evidence related to a Daubert motion and explaining that an expert could not speak to the ultimate issue of the case but could testify about general police practices

Summary of this case from Geist v. Ammary
Case details for

Brown v. Burghart

Case Details

Full title:ALLEN BROWN, Plaintiff, v. TROOPER BURGHART, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: May 25, 2012

Citations

CIVIL ACTION No. 10-3374 (E.D. Pa. May. 25, 2012)

Citing Cases

White v. City of Lancaster

In circumstances where an officer pursues a suspect, one of the critical factors to consider is whether the…

Pope v. Ferance

Id. However, in such cases, the plaintiff's physical condition or surroundings are such that it would have…

11 Citing Cases