LOCKHOFF v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al

Filing 21

ORDER THAT THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS OUTLINED HEREIN. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS SLONAKER AND KAMNICK AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF ON COUNTS II, IV, V, AND COUNTS I AND VI AS OU TLINED HEREIN. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT SLONAKER AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF ON COUNTS VII AND VIII. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT KAMNICK AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF ON COUNTS VI AND VIII AS OUTLINED HEREIN.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 6/5/2017. 6/5/2017 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL E. LOCKHOFF,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION

v.
ISAIAH SLONAKER, IV and STEPHEN
M. KAMNIK,
Defendants.

NO. 16-2893

ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of June, 2017, upon consideration of the Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment (ECF 15), the Plaintiff’s Response (ECF 16), and the Reply thereto (ECF
17), IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as
follows:
(1) Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED with respect to Count II (False Arrest and False
Imprisonment), Count IV (Civil Conspiracy), and Count V (Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress);
(2) To extent the Complaint alleges an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth
Amendment, the Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED;
(3) Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED with respect to Count I (Unreasonable and
Excessive Force), and Count VI (Assault and Battery), to the extent that Counts I and
VI arise from the on-camera use of force;
(4) Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED as to Defendant Slonaker with respect to Count
VII (Section 1983 Malicious Prosecution), and Count VIII (State Law – Malicious
Prosecution)
(5) Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED as to Defendant Kamnick with respect to Count
VII (Section 1983 Malicious Prosecution), and Count VIII (State Law – Malicious
Prosecution), to the extent that Counts VII and VIII arise from the marijuana,
paraphernalia, disorderly conduct by obscene language, and motor vehicle offense
charges;
(6) JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR of Defendants Slonaker and Kamnick,
and AGAINST Plaintiff on Counts II, IV, V, on his unreasonable search claim, and
on Counts I and VI to the extent that they arise from the on-camera use of force;
(7) JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR of Defendant Slonaker, and AGAINST
Plaintiff and on Counts VII and VIII;

(8) JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR of Defendant Kamnick, and AGAINST
Plaintiff and on Counts VII and VIII to the extent that they arise from the marijuana,
paraphernalia, disorderly conduct by obscene language, and motor vehicle offense
charges;
(9) Defendants’ Motion is DENIED with respect to Count I (Unreasonable and
Excessive Force), and Count VI (Assault and Battery), to the extent that Counts I and
VI arise from the off-camera use of force;
(10) Defendants’ Motion is DENIED as to Defendant Kamnick with respect to Count VII
(Section 1983 Malicious Prosecution), and Count VIII (State Law – Malicious
Prosecution), to the extent that Counts VII and VIII arise from the charges of
resisting arrest in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat § 5104, and disorderly conduct by
fighting in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5503(a)(1).

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Wendy Beetlestone, J.
_______________________________
WENDY BEETLESTONE, J.

2