Williams v. Papi
Filing
99
MEMORANDUM OPINION - For the foregoing reasons, both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment will be denied in their entirety. A separate order follows. Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 12/7/16. (jfg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MELINDA WILLIAMS,
As Administratrix of the Estate of
Brian P. Williams,
Plaintiff,
3:13·CV·01151
(JUDGE MARIANI)
v.
MARK PAPI, ROBERT ROBERTS,
STANLEY ELY, PAUL MILLER,
TERRANCE FISHER, SLADE PROFKA, :
JOHN KREIG, ROGER HARDY,
WILLIAM OLSZEWSKI,
TUNKHANNOCK TOWNSHIP,
OVERFIELD TOWNSHIP,
TUNKHANNOCK BOROUGH,
MESHOPPEN BOROUGH,
t
r
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I
t
i
Presently before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons
that follow, the Court will deny both motions in their entirety.
I.
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 30, 2013, Plaintiff Melinda Williams in her capacity as Administratrix of the
!
!
r
t
I
f
i
f
Estate of Brian P. Williams, filed a Complaint against Defendant Mark Papi. (Doc. 1). The
t
Complaint asserted three counts: (1) a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging unreasonable
I
I
force and unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution, (2) a claim for assault; and (3) aclaim for battery. Defendant
I
I
J
Papi moved to dismiss the Complaint on June 27, 2013. (Doc. 9). On July 3,2014, the
Court issued a memorandum opinion denying Defendant's motion to dismiss in its entirety.
(Doc. 41).
After the Court's memorandum opinion denying Defendant's motion to dismiss, (Doc.
41), Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 44). The Amended Complaint asserts
seven counts and was brought against Defendants Mark Papi, Robert Roberts, Stanley Ely,
Paul Miller, Terrance Fisher, Slade Profka, John Kreig, Roger Hardy, William Olszewski,
Tunkhannock Township, Overfield Township, Tunkhannock Borough, and Meshoppen
Borough (collectively, "Defendants"). In Count I, Plaintiff asserts a Section 1983 claim
alleging unreasonable force and unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution against Defendants Papi,
Roberts, Ely, Krieg, Miller, Profka, Hardy, and Olszewski. (Id. atW 134-137). Count II also
asserts a Section 1983 claim and alleges unreasonable deadly force and unreasonable
seizure in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution solely against Defendant Papi. (Id. at W 138-141). Counts III and IV of the
Amended Complaint assert Pennsylvania state law claims for assault and battery against
Defendant Papi. (Id. at W 142-149). Count Vasserts a Section 1983 claim against
Defendants Overfield Township, Tunkhannock Township, Meshoppen Borough, and
Tunkhannock Borough, asserting a Monell claim for rnunicipalliability. (Id. at W 150-159).
In Count VI Plaintiff asserts a Section 1983 claim against Defendants Fisher, Miller, Ely,
2
Kreig, and Olszewski alleging supervisory liability under Section 1983. (Id. at ml160-173).
Finally, Count VII of the Amended Complaint asserts claims under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and the Rehabilitation Act (the "RAil) against Defendants
Overfield Township, Tunkhannock Township, Meshoppen Borough, and Tunkhannock
Borough. (Id. at ml174-188).
On November 30, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on all counts.
(Doc. 72). Plaintiff thereafter filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with respect to
Counts I and VII of the Amended Complaint. (Doc. 77).
II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS1
In September 2012, Brian Williams "became suicidal and required the intervention of
police because he was threatening to kill himself with a gun and he believed if his wife,
Melinda Williams, left him 'then there was no sense of living.'" (Doc. 73, at ~ 1). Mr.
Williams voluntarily committed himself to inpatient psychiatric treatment for 72 hours and
thereafter followed up with regular counseling sessions at Community Counseling Services
in Tunkhannock, Pennsylvania. (Id.). At this time, Mr. Williams was continually having
"dreams" in which "somebody was going to die but he didn't know who, and it scared him."
(ld.). Mr. Williams also reported to his mental health treatment provider that he suffered
from depressed mood daily, angry outbursts two to three times per week, guilty feelings,
1 The
parties have both submitted Statements of Material Facts as to which they submit there is no
genuine issue or dispute for trial. (Docs 73, 79). The parties have also submitted Counter Statements of
Material Facts. (Docs. 89, 94).
3
sleep disturbances, daily mood swings and racing thoughts, as well as anxiety, heart
palpitations, blackouts with episodes of violence, current and 'Heeting suicidal ideations, low
impulse control, and that he coped with stress by throwing and hitting things. (Doc. 79, at ~
9). In the month leading up to November 7, 2012, Mr. Williams was prescribed the
antidepressant and anti-anxiety medications Zoloft, Klonopin, and Xanax. (Id. at ~ 11).
On November 7, 2012, Mr. Williams had an appointment at Community Counseling
Services. Just prior to that appointment, Plaintiff Melinda Williams informed Mr. Williams
that their marriage was over, leaving Mr. Williams "crying and shaking." (Doc. 73, at ~ 2);
(Doc. 94, at ~ 2). At approximately 1:30 p.m., Mr. Williams attended a pre-scheduled
counseling session at Community Counseling Services with Dr. Rakesh Sharma, M.D., a
board certified psychiatrist. (Doc. 73, at ~ 3). The parties dispute what Mr. Williams said to
Dr. Sharma at the counseling session. Dr. Sharma testified that Mr. Williams informed him
that "he was going to put her six feet under" and that "he was talking about his wife" and he
reported to him that "he had received legal separation papers from his wife, and ... that he
had grabbed her by the throat and he had also written a note where he had said that he was
going to put her six feet under." (ld. at ~ 4). In contrast, Shirley Williams-Mr. Williams'
mother who was also present at the counseling session with Dr. Sharma-testified that Mr.
Williams told Dr. Sharma that he was having thoughts that "someone" is going to die and is
going to be put "six feet under.I! (Doc. 94, at ~ 4). According to Shirley Williams, when
4
asked by Dr. Sharma who is going to die, Mr. Williams told him "I do not know, it's just these
thoughts and dreams I'm having." (Id.).
Dr. Sharma suggested that, based on his risk assessment, Mr. Williams should return to
the hospital, as he had two months prior. (Doc. 73, at 1f 5); (Doc. 94, at 1f 5). Mr. Williams
refused Dr. Sharma's recommendation, causing Dr. Sharma to fill out certain paperwork to
initiate Mr. Williams' involuntary commitment to a psychiatric facility. (Doc. 73, at 1f 8). The
petition completed by Dr. Sharma stated that he believed Mr. Williams was a "clear and
present dangers to others." (Doc. 94, at 1f 9). The petition further identified Mr. Williams as
severely mentally disabled. 2 (Doc. 79, at1f 1).
Following the counseling session, Mr. Williams returned to his home in Overfield
Township, Pennsylvania, which he shared with his wife and two of their three children.
(Doc. 73, at 1f 11); (Doc. 94, at 1f 11). Around this time Slade Profka-an on-duty police
officer in Overfield Township-received a call advising him to contact the communications
center. When he did, he was informed that "Williams had made a threat to go home and kill
his wife" to his doctor.3 (Doc. 73, at 1f 10). Officer Profka testified that he then called
2 At some point following the counseling session, an individual named Tony Black personally delivered
a 302 civil commitment warrant for Mr. Williams to the police. (Doc. 73, at 1l10); (Doc. 94, at 1l10). Mr.
Black and Officer Slade Profka contacted Plaintiff Melinda Williams and left messages for her informing her
that Mr. Williams threatened her and advised her not to return home. (Id.). Melinda Williams testified that
she called Mr. Williams while she was travelling to the scene and when asked if he had threatened to kill
her during the counseling session, Mr. Williams replied "No, I would never do that. I'm trying to get you
back not hurt you." (Doc. 94, at 1l19).
3 Plaintiff disputes that Mr. Williams actually threatened to "go home and kill his wife" during his
counseling appointment. (Doc. 94, at 1l10).
5
Plaintiff and advised her of the threat from her husband and told her not to return home. (ld.
at ~ 11). Soon after, Officer Profka and Corporal Paul Miller (also from the Overfield
Township Police Department) were the first officers to arrive at Mr. Williams' house. (Id. at
~
12).
Upon arriving at Mr. Williams' home, Corporal Miller observed Mr. Williams in his
driveway and called out to him "Hey, Brian."4 (ld.). Mr. Williams ignored Corporal Miller and
went into his residence. (ld.); (Doc. 94, at ~12). When Corporal Miller again attempted to
interact with Mr. Williams, Mr. Williams again ignored him, but at no point did he threaten
Corporal Miller. (Doc. 79, at ~ 29). Soon after, Paul Williams, Mr. Williams' father,
approached the officers who informed him that they were receiving a mental health
commitment warrant to commit Mr. Williams and wanted to talk with him before the warrant
arrived. (Doc. 73, at ~ 13). Paul Williams advised the officers that he would enter the home
and discuss the issue with Mr. Williams. (Id.). Miller and Profka permitted Mr. Williams'
father to go inside the home to encourage Mr. Williams to come out and neither Miller nor
Profka feared that Mr. Williams would do anything to harm his father. (Doc. 79, at ~ 30).
Paul Williams then informed Mr. Williams, who was wearing jeans, a tee shirt, a work shirt,
and putting on work boots that lithe police were there and they had a 302 warrant coming for
him." (Doc. 73, at ~ 14). In response, Mr. Williams told Paul Williams to "tell them to get off
4 All law enforcement officers considered Miller to be in charge on November 7,2012. (Doc. 79, at ~
26); (Doc. 89, at ~ 26). The parties dispute whether Miller himself viewed himself as being in charge of the
scene. (Doc. 79, at ~ 27); (Doc. 89, at ~ 27). Corporal Miller testified that he feared that he was "in over
[his} head" and asked for assistance from the other officers present at the scene. (Doc. 89, at ~ 28).
6
my property." (Id.). Paul Williams then relayed this message to Officer Profka and Corporal
Miller who "backed down off, down in toward[s]" Paul Williams' property. (ld.). Mr. Williams
also requested that police allow him to speak to his wife and mother, but law enforcement
officers would not permit Mr. Williams to speak in person to either his wife or mother. (Doc.
79, at 1f1f 34, 36).
Approximately ten to fifteen minutes later, Paul Williams re-entered Mr. Williams's house
and spoke with Mr. Williams again about coming out and going voluntarily with the police.
According to Paul Williams, Mr. Williams told him that III want them to rescind the warrant; I
am not going to the hospital. ... Alii want to do is get rid of these thoughts and bad dreams
I'm having that somebody is going to get hurt or killed." (Id. at 1f 15). Around this time Paul
Williams also spoke briefly over the phone with Overfield Township Police Chief Terry
Fisher. The content of that conversation is disputed by the parties. (Doc. 73, at 1f 16); (Doc.
94, at1f 16). What is undisputed is that at some point in the conversation Paul Williams
informed the Overfield Township Police that he believed that all weapons had been
removed from the house following Mr. Williams' September 2012 hospitalization. 5 (Doc. 73,
at 1f 20). After another ten to fifteen minutes had elapsed Paul Williams approached Mr.
Williams' home a third and final time and found the door locked. (Doc. 73, at 1f 17). Chief
Corporal Dunleavy of the Pennsylvania State Police testified that the officers remained concerned
about the status of weapons within the home because there was a concern that "he took weapons from the
home and then there was a point where he could have gone back and brought the weapons back into the
home, because it was my [his] understanding that there was a delay in between those two time frames,"
(Doc. 73, at 1f 21).
5
7
f
t
t
Fisher then called and spoke to Mr. Williams over the phone, and Mr. Williams informed
I
Chief Fisher (referencing the mental health warrant) that he was not going.6 (Id. at,-r 18);
(Doc. 94, at,-r 18).
Soon after, Officer Robert Roberts of Tunkhannock Township arrived as the third officer
on the scene, while Officer Mark Papi, also of Tunkhannock Township, arrived as the fourth
officer. Both came in response to a request for assistance from the Overfield Township
Police. (Doc. 73, at,-r 22). Other police officers soon arrived on the scene, including
Corporal James Dunleavy of the Pennsylvania State Police, Chief William Olszewski and
Sergeant Hardy of Tunkhannock Borough, all of whom were briefed on the situation by
Corporal Miller. (ld. at,-r 23).
At some point, Mr. Williams attempted to leave through the back door of his home, but
retreated into his home after the officers told him to stop.? (ld. at,-r 24); (Doc. 94, at,-r 24).
Plaintiff Melinda Williams then arrived at the scene and spoke with Corporal Miller, who
6 Mr. Fisher is the Chief of Police of Overfield Township and was Chief in November of 2012. (Doc. 79,
at 1f 47). Fisher was Mr. Williams' friend and had a good relationship with him. (ld. at 1f 48). Fisher knew
Mr. Williams since 1999 through work, as Mr. Williams was a volunteer firefighter for Lake Winola. (/d. at 1f
49). Fisher knew Mr. Williams to be a peaceable, nonviolent man of good moral character. (Id. at 1f 50).
When Fisher learned that Overfield Township officers were attempting to serve a 302 warrant at Mr.
Williams' home, he called Mr. Williams, who did not answer, and left a message on his machine. (Id. at 1f
51). Mr. Williams called Fisher back and they spoke, with Mr. Fisher describing Mr. Williams' demeanor as
calm and matter-of-fact (and that he was not crying, screaming, or yelling). (Id. at 1f 54). Mr. Williams
made no threats to Fisher, to the police, or anybody during the conversation. (Id. at 1f 55). Chief Fisher
was off duty at the time of the incident and did not come to the scene. (ld. at 1f 73). Miller and the other
Defendants on the scene all thought Fisher should have been there. (Id. at 1f1f 75-76).
7 Around this time Mr. Williams' four dogs were loose outside. The parties dispute whether the police
officers pepper sprayed the dogs. (Doc. 73, at 1f 25); (Doc. 94, at 1f 25).
8
I
J
asked her to call Mr. Williams and convince him to come out. (Doc. 73, at ~ 26). Mrs.
Williams called Mr. Williams and had a brief conversation in which "he just kept saying he
wasn't coming out, he has work, providing for his family." (Id.). Mrs. Williams thereafter
called and spoke with Mr. Williams three to four additional times that afternoon. The parties
dispute the content of those conversations. (Doc. 73, at ~ 27); (Doc. 94, at ~ 27).
Approximately forty-five minutes to one hour after the first officers arrived on the scene,
the mental health warrant arrived. s (Doc. 73, at ~ 28); (Doc. 94, at ~ 28). Plaintiff Melinda
Williams thereafter provided a key to the front door to the police officers. 9 (Doc. 73, at ~ 29);
I
!
(Doc. 94, at ~ 29). Chief Ely, the Chief of Police for Tunkhannock Township, thereafter
I
1
!
approached the home and began to speak with Mr. Williams through aside door to the
home at a distance of approximately fifteen feet. (Doc. 73, at ~ 31); (Doc. 94, at ~ 31).
Chief Ely and Mr. Williams thereafter had a conversation about the warrant and he informed
Mr. Williams that he needed to come out and go to the hospital voluntarily. (ld.). At this
point, Mr. Williams again requested to speak with his wife and mother. (/d.). Although both
Mr. Williams' mother and his wife were on the scene, the police officers refused to permit
either to speak with Mr. Williams. (Doc. 73, at ~ 32); (Doc. 94, at ~ 32).
8 The parties dispute whether Defendant Chief Stanley Ely from Tunkhannock Township arrived before
or after the warrant. Plaintiff maintains that U[a]t the time the warrant arrived, Ely was already at the scene,"
(Doc. 94, at ~ 28), whereas Defendants imply that Chief Ely arrived around the same time as the warrant.
(Doc. 73, at ~ 28).
9 Defendants also maintain that Mrs. Williams provided the officers with a drawing of the floorplan of
the home, an allegation which Mrs. Williams disputes. (Doc. 94, at ~ 29).
9
t
i
t
I
Approximately ten minutes later, Chief Ely again spoke with Mr. Williams from the side
door.10 (Doc. 73, at ~ 35). Around this time the Defendant police officers began to develop
a plan to try and get Mr. Williams to come out of the house. 11 (Doc. 73, at ~ 37); (Doc. 94,
at ~ 37). The police officers discussed, and rejected, several options, including calling the
Pennsylvania State Police Special Emergency Response Team. 12 (Doc. 73, at ~ 39); (Doc.
94, at ~ 39). The Defendants thereafter devised a plan which involved Chief Ely again
approaching Mr. Williams at the basement door and officers taking Mr. Williams into
custody, using force if necessary. (Doc. 73, at ~ 40); (Doc. 93, at ~ 40). According to the
Plaintiff, no law enforcement officer on the scene had the same understanding of the details
of the plan-a proposition that the Defendants contest. (Doc. 79, at ~ 86); (Doc. 89, at ~
86). The parties agree that Officer Mark Papi volunteered to provide "lethal cover" should
10 The parties dispute whether during the conversation-which took place through a basement door
the basement door was ajar. (Doc. 73, at ~35); (Doc. 94, at ~ 35). They also dispute Mr. Williams'
demeanor-specifically, whether Mr. Williams was calm or agitated. (Doc. 73, at ~36); (Doc. 94, at ~ 36).
None of the police officers saw Mr. Williams with any weapons prior to their entry into the home.
(Doc. 73, at ~ 41). The police officers also knew that Mr. Williams was in the home alone and did not
believe he had any hostages. (Id. at ~ 42). In addition, it is undisputed that Mr. Williams did not make any
threats to any of the officers on the scene, (Id. at ~ 43), nor had he done anything to suggest to the officers
that he wished to harm himself. (Id. at ~ 44). All of the Defendants knew that Mr. Williams was mentally ill.
(Doc. 79, at ~ 18).
11
12 The Pennsylvania State Police Emergency Response Team is a team of troopers with extra training
who can be called to come out to handle a situation where law enforcement is responding to a high-risk
incident, such as a barricaded person or high-risk warrant service. (Doc. 79, at ~ 79). In addition, the State
Police on the scene had pOlicies, regulations, field operation guides and training on serving mental health
warrants and dealing with barricaded individuals. (Id. at ~ 83). However, the State Police on the scene
were only asked to 'assist' the defendant officers, not to take charge of the scene. (Id.). When 'assisting,'
State Police do not make decisions to affect or override the agency they are aSSisting. (Id. at ~ 84).
10
t
t
the group of officers need to advance into the home. 13 (Doc. 73, at ~ 41); (Doc. 94, at ~ 41).
Defendant Olszewski told one of the troopers nearby to place an ambulance on standby
before they went into the house "in case something happens."14 (Doc. 79, at ~ 88).
Soon after, Chief Ely approached the basement door a third and final time and spoke
with Mr. Williams. 15 (Doc. 73, at ~ 42). The parties dispute what was said during that
conversation but agree that, as a result, Mr. Williams shut and locked the basement door.16
(Doc. 94, at ~ 42). It is undisputed that, at this time, Mr. Williams was contained in the
house and all of the entry and exit points to the home were covered prior to implementation
of a plan to either enter the home or coax Mr. Williams out. (Doc. 79, at ~ 93). It is also
undisputed that, prior to the implementation of the plan, some of the Defendant law
enforcement officers wielded long guns, rifles and shotguns. (Id. at ~ 94).
13 The parties dispute whether Officer Papi's conduct and the plan for lethal cover was a "standard
tactic when officers deploy Tasers to apprehend an individual." (Doc. 73, at ~ 41); (Doc. 93, at ~ 41).
14 The parties dispute whether the municipalities' policies that were in place at the time of the incident
were followed. (Doc. 79, at mr 89-92); (Doc. 89, at ~ 89-92). They also dispute whether Defendant
Overfield Township had policies regarding serving mental health warrants, and the specific training
regarding barricaded individuals. (Doc. 79, at ~ 92); (Doc. 89, at ~ 92).
15 Each time Mr. Williams and Chief Ely spoke, Mr. Williams would open the door approximately 8-10
inches in order to speak to Ely. (Doc. 79, at ~ 62).
16 The parties agree that Mr. Williams continued to ask to talk to his mother and wife. (Doc. 79, at ~
69). Officer Profi
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?