FANELLI v. LANSDALE BOROUGH et al

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION IS DENIED AS TO COUNT I AGAINST OFFICER OWENS ASSERTING EXCESSIVE FORCE. FOR COUNT II, AL LEGING FAILURE TO INTERVENE, DEFENDANTS' MOTION IS GRANTED AS IT RELATES TO OFFICER MCCARRICK, BUT IT IS DENIED AS IT PERTAINS TO OFFICER OWENS. DEFENDANTS' MOTION IS GRANTED AS TO COUNT III ALLEGING A CONSPIRACY. DEFENDANTS' MOTION IS DENIED AS TO COUNT IV AGAINST OFFICER OWENS ASSERTING SUPERVISOR LIABILITY. DEFENDANTS' MOTION IS GRANTED AS TO COUNT V AGAINST LANSDALE ALLEGING MUNICIPALITY LIABILITY. OFFICER OWENS IS NOT ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY; AND OFFICER MCCARRICK IS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. SIGNED BY HONORABLE ROBERT F. KELLY ON 12/15/16. 12/15/16 ENTERED & E-MAILED.(fdc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________
:
PAUL FANELLI,
:
CIVIL ACTION
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
No. 15-240
:
LANSDALE BOROUGH, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
__________________________________________:
ORDER
AND NOW, this

15th

day of December, 2016, upon consideration of

Defendants, Lansdale Borough (“Lansdale”), Officer David Gori (“Officer Gori”), Officer James
Owens (“Officer Owens”), and Officer Richard McCarrick’s (“Officer McCarrick”) (collectively
“Defendants”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law in Support
thereof pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (Doc. No. 35), Plaintiff, Paul Fanelli’s
(“Plaintiff”) Response in Opposition thereto, and Defendants’ Reply, it is hereby ORDERED
that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
1. Defendants’ Motion is DENIED as to Count I against Officer Owens
asserting excessive force.
2. For Count II, alleging failure to intervene, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED
as it relates to Officer McCarrick, but it is DENIED as it pertains to Officer
Owens.
3. Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED as to Count III alleging a conspiracy.
4. Defendants’ Motion is DENIED as to Count IV against Officer Owens
asserting supervisor liability.
5. Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED as to Count V against Lansdale alleging
municipality liability.

6. Officer Owens is not entitled to qualified immunity; and
7. Officer McCarrick is entitled to qualified immunity.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Robert F. Kelly
ROBERT F. KELLY
SENIOR JUDGE

2