Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-3631.
September 14, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case arises out of the alleged beating of Pedro Centeno while in custody of police officers of the City of Allentown. The beating allegedly occurred while the plaintiff was being detained in a holding cell following his arrest. The defendants have now moved for summary judgment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, regarding the claims that Officers Leif Henry and Pete Wasilewski violated Mr. Centeno's constitutional rights. The Court held oral argument on this motion on September 8, 2004. The Court will deny the motion in part and grant it in part.
I. Facts
The facts in this case are as follows. The disputed facts involve the identity of the officers who allegedly beat the plaintiff.
Shortly after midnight on August 18, 2001, the plaintiff arrived at a local club in Allentown called Flashback's. After the plaintiff had been in the club for about an hour, he was asked to leave by the bouncers. Defs.' Mot. For Summ. J. (hereinafter "Defs.' Mot."), Ex. 3 at 13. The bouncers escorted the plaintiff outside to the sidewalk entrance of Flashback's. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 3 at 14.
Once outside the club, police arrested the plaintiff and threw him to the ground because he was resisting arrest. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 3 at 16. During the plaintiff's arrest, a crowd began to gather outside, causing a commotion. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 3 at 17.
The police took the plaintiff to the police station. He was processed and placed in a holding cell inside the police station. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 3 at 19.
While the plaintiff was inside the holding cell, he saw several police officers putting on black gloves. The plaintiff alleges that the police officers punched, kicked, choked, and sprayed mace on him while in the holding cell. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 3 at 22-24. The plaintiff claims to have suffered injuries to his face, skin, head, eye, and shoulder. Pl.'s Complaint.
Later that day, the plaintiff was taken to a magistrate judge for the preliminary hearing and then to the Lehigh County Prison. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 3 at 25-26. When the plaintiff was taken to the warden to be admitted, the warden would not accept custody of the plaintiff due to his injuries. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 3 at 27. At this point, the police took the plaintiff to a hospital in Allentown where he was examined for his injuries and later released. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 3 at 27-29.
Following the hospital visit, the plaintiff was admitted to Lehigh County Prison. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 3 at 27. He spent the weekend there and was released on bail the following Monday. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 3 at 29.
The plaintiff alleges that Officers Wasilewski and Henry were involved in his beating. On the day of the arrest and beating, the plaintiff had continuous interactions with Officer Wasilewski. Officer Wasilewski was dispatched to Flashback's in reference to the disturbance that was occurring outside. Officer Wasilewski was at the scene of Flashback's and was involved in maintaining control of the crowd that gathered outside the club during the plaintiff's arrest. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 6 at 12.
Officer Wasilewski rode in the paddy wagon with the plaintiff over to the police station. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 6, at 18. Once inside the holding cell, Officer Wasilewski claims that the plaintiff was exhibiting volatile behavior. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 6 at 33. Because of the plaintiff's behavior, the plaintiff was removed from one cell to another. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 6 at 37. When the plaintiff arrived at the new cell, Officer Wasilewski testified that he pushed the plaintiff into the cell due to his aggressive behavior and restrained him to a bench in the new cell. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 6 at 38.
Officer Wasilewski testified that he was wearing gloves during the physical contact with the plaintiff. Officer Wasilewski testified that he cleaned up after the interaction with the plaintiff as a safety precaution against getting any of the plaintiff's blood on himself. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 6 at 42-43.
The plaintiff also had interactions with Officer Henry on the day of the arrest and beating. Officer Henry first had contact with the plaintiff after the plaintiff's arrest. He was one of the officers who escorted him to the paddy wagon at the club, but did not ride to the station with the plaintiff. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 5 at 22. Officer Henry followed the paddy wagon to the police station. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 5 at 23.
Officers Henry and Wasilewski were with the plaintiff in the cell block area when he became uncooperative. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 5 at 31. After the plaintiff was sprayed with pepper spray by another officer, Officer Henry removed the handcuffs and applied a solution to the plaintiff to neutralize the pepper spray. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 5 at 42-43.
Once the plaintiff was inside the cell, Officer Henry noticed blood on his neck and shirt. He believed the plaintiff spit blood on him. Officer Henry went to the Sacred Heart Hospital to clean the blood off himself and his clothes. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 5 at 47. The plaintiff was charged with aggravated assault for spitting on Officer Henry. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 8.
II. Analysis
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Entry of summary judgment is appropriate against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
In their motion for summary judgment, the defendants argue that the plaintiff has failed to establish the essential elements of a Section 1983 claim. Specifically, the defendants argue that summary judgment is required because the plaintiff is unable to produce any evidence that either defendant was involved in, participated in, or even witnessed the beating.
The facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, support the claim that Officer Wasilewski was involved in the beating of the plaintiff while he was in the holding cell. Officer Wasilewski had continuous interactions with the plaintiff from the time of the plaintiff's arrest until after he was taken to the holding cell at the police station.
Further, Officer Wasilewski's testimony regarding his physical interactions with the plaintiff is partially consistent with the plaintiff's testimony. Officer Wasilewski admits to having a physical interaction with the plaintiff following the plaintiff's aggressive behavior in the holding cell. He admitted to pushing the plaintiff inside the holding cell and handcuffing the plaintiff to the bench in order to restrain him. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 6 at 38.
Officer Wasilewski also acknowledged wearing gloves at the time of the incident. He testified that he put the gloves on before he got to Flashback's and wore them constantly throughout the evening. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 6 at 42.
The disputed facts as to Officer Wasilewski's interactions with the plaintiff in the holding cell present a genuine issue of material fact. If the jury accepts the plaintiff's version of the facts and concludes that Officer Wasilewski beat up the plaintiff, the plaintiff would establish a constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It is inappropriate for Officer Wasilewski to invoke qualified immunity because the plaintiff alleges an intentional beating.
The plaintiff has not directly implicated Officer Henry as one of the officers who beat him in the holding cell. When the plaintiff was asked whether he met Officer Henry or had any contact with Officer Henry on the night in question, the plaintiff replied that he had not. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 3 at 30. Further, the plaintiff testified that he did not recall seeing Officer Henry until the preliminary "after all this happened." Defs.' Mot., Ex. 3 at 29.
The plaintiff's only evidence linking Officer Henry to any involvement in the beating is that Officer Henry had the plaintiff's blood on his shirt. Pl.'s Opp. Mot. Officer Henry claims that he got the plaintiff's blood on his shirt when the plaintiff spit blood on him. Defs.' Mot., Ex. 5 at 47. The plaintiff, on the other hand, argues that in order for Officer Henry to have come into contact with so much of the plaintiff's blood, he must have participated in the beating. Pl.'s Opp. Mot.
The facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, are insufficient to support the claim that Officer Henry was involved in the beating of the plaintiff. There is insufficient evidence to suggest when Officer Henry came into contact with the blood. Determining this information would require a jury to speculate about the source of the blood and how Officer Henry came into contact with it.
An appropriate order follows.