vacating claims against individuals in their official capacities because “the analysis as to the [entity] applies” to the official-capacity claims
How later courts described this case
- vacating claims against individuals in their official capacities because “the analysis as to the [entity] applies” to the official-capacity claims
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ARDELL KENNEDY,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION
V. NO. 19-01076
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 15th day of June 2020, upon consideration of Defendants’
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 38), Ardell Kennedy’s Response (ECF
No. 40) and Defendants’ Reply (ECF No. 42) and following oral argument by counsel for
the parties (ECF No. 44), it is ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part.: Specifically:
1) The Motion is GRANTED and judgment ENTERED in Defendants’ favor
on:
a) All federal claims against Lieutenant Gregory Brown, Officer Ronald
Jackson and the City of Philadelphia;
b) All federal claims against Officer Hugo Lemos and Officer Joseph
Koger in their official capacities;2
1 This Order applies only to the federal claims against the Defendants; the parties have agreed
to stipulate to the disposition of all state-law claims. See (Hr’g Tr. 39:9-14, ECF No. 44).
2 A suit against a municipal employee in his official capacity “is, in all respects other than
name, to be treated as a suit against the [municipal] entity.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166
(1985). Because Kennedy concedes his claims against the City cannot survive summary judgment,
his claims against the individual defendants in their official capacity likewise fail. See Barna v. Bd.
of Sch. Dirs. of Panther Valley Sch. Dist., 877 F.3d 136, 150 n.11 (3d Cir. 2017) (vacating claims
against individuals in their official capacities because “the analysis as to the [entity] applies” to the
official-capacity claims).
c) The federal conspiracy claims against Lemos and Koger;
d) The federal failure-to-intervene claim against Koger.
2) The Motion is DENIED as to the federal false-imprisonment and malicious-
prosecution claims against Lemos. All other federal claims against Lemos—
other than the false-arrest claim—are deemed WITHDRAWN.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gerald J. Pappert
GERALD J. PAPPERT, J.