Thompkins v. Klobucher

1

BARBARA ANN THOMPKINS, INDIVIDUALLY; AND ERIC KLAVON, HER HUSBAND; Plaintiffs, v. SPC DAVID KLOBUCHER, Defendant,

No. 2:21-CV-00320-CRE

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh

October 3, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION ^[1]

Cynthia Reed Eddy, Chief United States Magistrate Judge.

This civil action was initiated in this court on March 9, 2021, by husband-and-wife Plaintiffs Eric Klavon and Barbara Ann Thompkins, to recover damages for injuries allegedly caused by two police officers, Defendants Alyssa Finnigan and David Klobucher, as well as the Municipality of Penn Hills and the Penn Hills Police Department. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated their civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983, as well as committed various state law torts for their purported use of excessive force during the course of Thompkins's arrest. See Compl. (ECF No. 1). This court has subject matter jurisdiction over the controversy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Presently before the court is a motion for summary judgment filed by the sole remaining defendant, Klobucher, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.^[2] (ECF No. 30). In addition Plaintiffs have filed a motion to strike Defendant's expert report. (ECF No. 29). For the reasons that follow, this court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's motion for summary judgment and defers Plaintiffs' motion to strike at this time.

I. BACKGROUND

The underlying facts of this matter are generally undisputed.^[3] “On June 3, 2020, Penn Hills Police officers were dispatched to 240 Datura Drive, Penn Hills, Pennsylvania in response to a domestic violence call by county dispatch.” Def.'s CSMF (ECF No. 32) at ¶ 1. “This dispatch was in response to a 911 call by [Plaintiff] Klavon, in which he reported that his wife[, Plaintiff Thompkins,] punched him in the face and was acting erratic[ally].” Id. at ¶ 2. Both Officers Klobucher and Finnigan responded, and “[a]ll interactions at issue ... were captured on bodycam video.”^[4] Id. at ¶ 3. “Officer Klobucher arrived first at the location, where he was met by [] Klavon standing in the front yard.” Id. at ¶ 5. “At the scene, [] Klavon reported to Officer Klobucher that his wife, [] Thompkins, had punched him in the face.”^[5] Id. at ¶ 6. Officer Klobucher indicated he intended to arrest Thompkins, and he “then proceeded toward the house.”^[6] Id. at ¶ 9. “Thompkins was inside the home and gave Officer Klobucher permission to enter the house.” Id. at ¶ 10. Officer Finnigan then arrived, and the officers asked Thompkins what happened. “Thompkins freely told Officer Klobucher that she punched her husband in the mouth.”^[7] Id. at ¶ 15. Officer Klobucher responded, “That sounds pretty simple. Stand up.”^[8] Video (ECF No. 33) at Ex. 10. Thompkins immediately stood up. Then, Officer Klobucher stated, “you're under arrest,” while at the same time reaching with both of his arms^[9] and grabbing onto Thompkins's right arm in an effort to place it behind her back to get her into handcuffs.

The bodycam videos of Klobucher and Finnigan clearly and accurately depict the events that led from this point to Thompkins's broken arm. The video shows that Thompkins immediately started screaming, “No,” along with other expletives. Klobucher testified that he “then manipulated her arm and pushed her up towards and onto a wall.” Def.'s Depo. (ECF No. 33-5) at 53. A scuffle ensued, and then Klobucher “took [Thompkins] down face-first onto the ground.” Id. at 54. Specifically, Klobucher testified that he “had control of her right arm with [his] left arm and [he] grabbed her hair with [his] other arm ... and pulled her to the ground, pushed her to the ground.”^[10] Id. at 55. At her deposition, Thompkins testified that after she yelled “no,” “they just grabbed [her], and they threw [her] up against the wall.” Pl.'s Depo. (ECF No. 33-4) at 34. She testified that after they “threw [her] on the floor, [she] said you're hurting my arm, and he just kept twisting till it snapped, and [she] screamed, and [she] said you just broke my arm, and [Klobucher] didn't stop.” Id. at 36.

At his deposition, Klobucher testified that “the technique he utilized to gain control of [] Thompkins['s] hands to be a ‘Kimura hold,' a mixed-martial arts technique.” Def.'s CSMF (ECF No. 32) at ¶ 57. Klobucher testified that a Kimura “is a manipulation more of the shoulder joint.” Def.'s Depo. (ECF No. 33-5) at 29. Klobucher testified that the Kimura is “an effective handcuffing technique.” Id. at 31. When applying this technique, Klobucher does not release the hold until he knows that he has control. Id. at 33. During training, he knows when to stop in order to prevent injury. Id. During the course of the arrest, once Thompkins was on the ground, he “began twisting her arm behind her back.” Id. at 57. He then “placed [his] knee on her upper back” for a few seconds until the handcuffs were placed by Finnigan. Id. at 58.

“Once the handcuffs were applied to Ms. Thompkins,” Ms. Thompkins stated that they broke her arm, and eventually was returned to a standing position.^[11] Def.'s CSMF (ECF No. 32) at ¶ 27. Ms. Thompkins again stated, “My arm is broken.” Thompkins continued to complain of arm pain. The officers assessed Thompkins and concluded she did not present a medical emergency. Id. at ¶ 31. The officers “transported [] Thompkins to the Penn Hills Police Station, which transportation took a matter of a few minutes.” Id. at ¶ 32. Officer Klobucher asked EMS staff to evaluate Thompkins while she was at the police station. Id. at ¶ 34. “EMS staff recommended that Ms. Thompkins be transported to the hospital for further evaluation due to her subjective complaints of pain.” Id. at ¶ 36. At the hospital, the physician examined Ms. Thompkins and ordered x-rays. Id. at ¶ 39. The x-rays revealed a fracture. She “was discharged from the hospital that evening, with directions to follow up with an orthopedic doctor, which she did approximately five days later.” Id. at ¶ 40. Ms. Thompkins “underwent successful open reduction internal fixation surgery to repair her fractured right humerus at UPMC Presbyterian on June 12, 2020.”^[12] First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (ECF No. 6) at ¶ 46.

On March 9, 2021, Plaintiffs instituted the instant action, and on May 10, 2021, Defendants filed an Answer. (ECF Nos. 1, 7). The parties engaged in the discovery process. During the course of discovery, the parties disagreed about the use of expert testimony regarding the use of force in this matter, and this Court permitted the parties to file motions to strike experts along with motions for summary judgment. Thus, on March 14, 2022, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike Defendant's expert report. (ECF Nos. 29, 30). Both parties responded to the motions, and both motions are ripe for disposition. (ECF Nos. 36, 37, 40, 41, and 42).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party establishes “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56(a). A genuine issue of material fact is one that could affect the outcome of litigation. Willis v. UPMC Children's Hosp. of Pittsburgh, 808 F.3d 638, 643 (3d Cir. 2015) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). However, “[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” N.A.A.C.P. v. North Hudson Reg'l Fire & Rescue, 665 F.3d 464, 475 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)).

The initial burden is on the moving party to adduce evidence illustrating a lack of genuine, triable issues. Hugh v. Butler Cnty. Family YMCA, 418 F.3d 265, 267 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986)). Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the non-moving party must present sufficient evidence of a genuine issue, in rebuttal. Santini v. Fuentes, 795 F.3d 410, 416 (3d Cir. 2015) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 587). When considering the parties' arguments, the court is required to view all facts and draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. (citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962)). The benefit of the doubt will be given to allegations of the nonmoving party when in conflict with the moving party's claims. Bialko v. Quaker Oats Co., 434 Fed.Appx. 139, 141 n.4 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Valhal Corp. v. Sullivan Assocs., 44 F.3d 195, 200 (3d Cir. 1995)).

Nonetheless, a well-supported motion for summary judgment will not be defeated where the non-moving party merely reasserts factual allegations contained in the pleadings. Betts v. New Castle Youth Dev. Ctr., 621 F.3d 249, 252 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Williams v. Borough of West Chester, 891 F.2d 458, 460 (3d Cir. 1989)). The non-moving party must resort to affidavits, depositions, admissions, and/or interrogatories to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue. Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C., 716 F.3d 764, 773 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Excessive Force, the Fourth Amendment, and Qualified Immunity

In this case, Thompkins contends that Officer Klobucher used excessive force against her in violation of her civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See FAC (ECF No 6). “Section 1983 provides a civil remedy for the ‘deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.'” Klein v. Madison, 374...