# RIVERA

> District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · December 10, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11221590

## Case

- **Full name:** Christopher A. Rivera v. Joseph Simpson, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 10, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11221590

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHRISTOPHER A. RIVERA, :
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-CV-5174
:
JOSEPH SIMPSON, et al., :
Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM

HODGE, J. DECEMBER 10, 2025

Christopher A. Rivera filed this civil rights action against the Northern Lancaster County
Regional Police Department (“NLCRPD”),1 the City of Lancaster, and two NLCRPD police
officers, alleging that police used excessive force when they arrested him. (ECF No. 2.) Rivera
also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 3.) The City of Lancaster filed a
Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). (ECF No. 7.) Rivera’s
request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. For the following reasons, claims
against the NLCRPD and the City of Lancaster will be dismissed from the lawsuit with prejudice.
The claims alleged against Defendants Joseph Simpson and Ryan Goss in their official capacities
will be dismissed without prejudice. The excessive force claims against Simpson and Goss in their
individual capacities will also be dismissed without prejudice. Rivera will be permitted to file an

1 Rivera named the “Northern Lancaster Regional Police Department” in the caption of the
Complaint but identified the officers as members of the “Northern Lancaster County Regional
Police Department”. (ECF No. 2 at 1, 2.) (emphasis added). The latter name is correct, and the
Court will refer to the department in this memorandum using the correct name.
amended complaint to cure the defects identified in this Memorandum. The Court will grant the
City of Lancaster’s Rule 12 Motion.
I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS2
Rivera states that his claims arise from an incident that occurred at the Calm Spa located

at the Penn Town Shopping Center. (Compl. at 4.) On August 27, 2024, Rivera claims that
Simpson, an officer with the NLCRPD, “yelled to get on the ground as I was fleeing the scene.”
(Id. at 2, 5.) Simpson opened fire twice and shot Rivera in the lower back and the back of his left
leg. (Id. at 5.) Goss, also an officer with the NLCRPD, accompanied Simpson and witnessed the
event. (Id. at 2, 5.)
Publicly available court records confirm that Rivera was charged with two counts each of
robbery, rape, and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, plus four counts of sexual assault arising
from offenses that occurred on August 27, 2024. Commonwealth v. Rivera, CP-36-CR-0004880-
2024 (C.P. Lancaster). Rivera was found guilty of all charges on November 3, 2025 and he
presently awaits sentencing. (Id.) Rivera asserts that, among the discovery he obtained in the case

was body cam footage of the incident and a statement by Goss apparently confirming that “no one
announced that [he], or his partner were law enforcement or police department” before using force.
(Compl. at 7, 4.) He alleges that Simpson “[a]cted out of code of conduct as a law enforcement
[officer] by not stating that he was an officer.” (Id. at 3.)

2 The facts set forth in this Memorandum are taken from Rivera’s Complaint (“Compl.”),
which consists of the Court’s form complaint plus additional pages that Rivera attached. (ECF
No. 2.) Publicly available records have also been consulted in this screening under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Buck v. Hampton Twp. Sch. Dist., 452 F.3d 256, 260 (3d Cir. 2006). The Court
adopts the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF docketing system. Where the Court quotes from
the Complaint, punctuation, spelling, and capitalization errors will be cleaned up as needed.
Rivera alleges that Simpson’s use of deadly force qualifies as “malfeasance, misfeasance,
and nonfeasance.” (Id.) He claims that he has suffered injuries requiring multiple surgeries. (Id.
at 5.) He alleges that he has permanent nerve damage to his left leg and still requires a second
surgery to reverse the ileostomy procedure and remove one of the bullets. (Id. at 5, 8.) Rivera

seeks money damages to compensate for the emotional and psychological scars as well as to pay
for medical bills. (Id. at 5.)
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rivera will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis because it appears that he is
incapable of prepaying the fees to commence this civil action.3 Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires the Court to dismiss the Complaint if it fails to state a claim. Whether
a complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard
applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), see Tourscher v.
McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to determine whether the
complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted); Talley v.
Wetzel, 15 F.4th 275, 286 n.7 (3d Cir. 2021). At this early stage of the litigation, the Court will
accept the facts alleged in the pro se complaint as true, draw all reasonable inferences in the
Plaintiff’s favor, and ask only whether the complaint contains facts sufficient to state a plausible
claim. See Shorter v. United States, 12 F.4th 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2021), abrogation on other grounds

3 Rivera submitted a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis consisting of a sworn
affidavit attesting that he is unable to pay the costs of the proceedings (ECF No. 1) and a copy of
his Prison Trust Fund Account statement for the six months preceding the date Rivera filed this
action (ECF No. 3). The Court will consider these submissions to be substantial compliance with
the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. However, pursuant to that Act, Rivera must
still pay the filing fee in installments because he is a prisoner.
recognized by Fisher v. Hollingsworth, 115 F.4th 197 (3d Cir. 2024). Conclusory allegations do
not suffice. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Because Rivera is proceeding pro se, the Court construes the allegations of the Complaint
liberally. Vogt v. Wetzel, 8 F.4th 182, 185 (3d Cir. 2021). However, “pro se litigants still must

allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim.” Id. (quoting Mala v. Crown Bay
Marina, Inc., 704 F. 3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013)).
III. DISCUSSION
Rivera asserts constitutional violations based on his allegation that Simpson used excessive
force during the August 27 arrest. The vehicle by which federal constitutional claims may be
brought in federal court is 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege
the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show
that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). “A defendant in a civil rights action must have personal
involvement in the alleged wrongs” to be liable. See Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207

(3d Cir. 1988); Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2020).
A. Claim Against NLCRPD
Rivera names the NLCRPD in the caption of his Complaint, but he does not allege any
factual allegations or claims against it within the Complaint. Even if he had, those claims would
be dismissed with prejudice because the NLCRPD is not a proper defendant under § 1983.
Following the decision in Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978), courts have
concluded that a police department is a sub-unit of the local government and, as such, is merely a
vehicle through which the municipality fulfills its policing functions. See, e.g., Johnson v. City of
Erie, Pa., 834 F. Supp. 873, 878-79 (W.D. Pa. 1993). Thus, while a municipality may be liable
under § 1983, a police department, as a mere sub-unit of the municipality, may not. Id.; Martin v.
Red Lion Police Dept., 146 F. App’x. 558, 562 n.3 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (stating that police
department is not a proper defendant in an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it is a sub-
division of its municipality); Murrell v. Michael, No. 20-113, 2021 WL 254064, at *4 (M.D. Pa.

Jan. 26, 2021) (dismissing county police department because it was not a proper defendant in a §
1983 action). NLCRPD and any claims Rivera has alleged against it will be dismissed for failure
to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
B. Claim Against the City of Lancaster
Like the NLCRPD, Rivera also names the City of Lancaster in the caption of his Complaint
but fails to assert any facts or claims against it in the body of the Complaint. In order for Rivera
to assert a plausible municipal liability claim under Monell, he must allege that the municipal
defendant’s policies or customs caused the alleged constitutional violation. See Monell, 436 U.S.
at 694; Natale v. Camden Cnty. Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 583–84 (3d Cir. 2003). The Plaintiff
“must identify [the] custom or policy, and specify what exactly that custom or policy was” to

satisfy the pleading standard. McTernan v. City of York, 564 F.3d 636, 658 (3d Cir. 2009).
“[M]unicipal liability attaches only when execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether
made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official
policy, inflicts the injury.” Peña v. City of Lancaster, No. 21-590, 2022 WL 44005, at *2 (E.D.
Pa. Jan. 5, 2022) (cleaned up) (dismissing the County of Lancaster from case when its employees
had no personal involvement with alleged civil rights violation).
Not only does Rivera fail to assert a constitutional violation due to a policy or custom of
the City of Lancaster, but he also does not claim that the alleged events of August 27 or actions by
NLCRPD officers have any connection to the City. (See Compl. at 2 (identifying officers as
NLCRPD employees)). To the extent that Rivera intends to assert a claim against the City of
Lancaster, it would not be plausible because there are no facts alleged “allow[ing] the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (citation omitted); see also Peña, 2022 WL 44005, at *2 (noting that the County of

Lancaster did not employ the City of Lancaster’s police officers who were involved in shooting
and concluding that plaintiff failed to plausibly allege personal involvement by County).
Accordingly, the City of Lancaster and any claims alleged against it will be dismissed from this
action.
C. Official Capacity Claims
Rivera has checked the box on the form indicating that he seeks to name Defendants
Simpson and Goss in their official capacities. Official capacity claims are indistinguishable from
claims against the entity that employs the officials, here, apparently Lancaster County. See
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165–66 (1985) (“Official-capacity suits . . . ‘generally
represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.’”

(quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 690 n.55)). “[A]n official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than
name, to be treated as a suit against the entity.” Id. Thus, Rivera’s claims against Simpson and
Goss in their official capacities are, in essence, claims against Lancaster County.
Rivera has not alleged that a policy or custom of Lancaster County violated his civil rights
pursuant to Monell.4 The official capacity claims will thus be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §

4 Local governments, such as Lancaster County, can be liable as “persons” under § 1983,
however, this liability extends only to “their own illegal acts.” Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51,
60 (2011) (emphasis in original) (quoting Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 479 (1986)); see
also Monell, 436 U.S. at 665–83. This limitation is based on the well-established principle that
municipalities “are not vicariously liable under § 1983 for their employees’ actions.” Connick,
563 U.S. at 60. In other words, municipal liability cannot be predicated on a respondeat superior
basis. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 691 (“[A] municipality cannot be held liable solely because it
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), but Rivera may reassert an official capacity claim/Monell claim alleged against
the appropriate municipality should he amend his complaint.
D. Individual Capacity Claims
1. Excessive Force Claim Against Simpson

Rivera asserts a claim against Simpson in his individual capacity for use of excessive force
during his arrest in violation of the Constitution. (Compl. at 2.) A plaintiff’s claim that excessive
force was used at arrest is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment “reasonableness” standard.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989)); see also Santini v. Fuentes, 795 F.3d 410, 417 (3d
Cir. 2015). The Court must give “careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular
case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to
the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade
arrest by flight.” Graham, 490 U.S. at 396; see also Estate of Smith v. Morasco, 430 F.3d 140,
148 (3d Cir. 2005). Additional relevant factors include “the possibility that the persons subject to
the police action are themselves violent or dangerous, the duration of the action, whether the action

takes place in the context of effecting an arrest, the possibility that the suspect may be armed, and
the number of persons with whom the police officers must contend at one time.” Moore v.
Vangelo, 222 F. App’x 167, 170 (3d Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). The reasonableness of force
depends on “the totality of the circumstances,” considered from “the perspective of a reasonable
officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Johnson v. City of
Philadelphia, 837 F.3d 343, 350 (3d Cir. 2016).

employs a tortfeasor— or, in other words, a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a
respondeat superior theory.”) (emphasis in original).
Rivera’s excessive force claim is underdeveloped as pled. The only factual allegations
Rivera makes about the shooting—as opposed to allegations about injuries he has suffered—are
that Defendant Simpson “yelled get on the ground as I was fleeing the scene and opened fire at me
twice,” and that neither officer identified themselves as police during the encounter. (Id.) These

discrete allegations, presented with no other facts, fail to allege a plausible claim that Simpson
acted unreasonably. For example, Rivera does not describe the “scene” from which he was
“fleeing,” but publicly available court dockets indicate that Rivera was convicted in November
2025 of multiple counts of robbery, rape, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, and sexual assault
based on events that occurred on August 27 preceding the officers’ chase and Rivera’s shooting.
See Rivera, CP-36-CR-0004880-2024. By his own admission then, Rivera avers that he was
attempting to flee from the scene where several violent crimes had occurred and police on the
scene were attempting to apprehend the suspect. Estate of Smith, 430 F.3d at 148 (considering in
the assessment of an excessive force claim “the severity of the crime[s] at issue,” and “whether he
actively is resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight” in the reasonableness of the

force); Moore, 222 F. App’x at 170 (considering “the possibility that the persons subject to the
police action are themselves violent or dangerous,” “whether the action takes place in the context
of effecting an arrest,” and “the possibility that the suspect may be armed”). Rivera further admits
that, as he fled, police shouted an order for him to get on the ground that went unheeded. (Compl.
at 5.) Rivera provides no context for the event preceding the chase, the duration of the pursuit, his
own actions after police ordered him to get down, or how the police identifying themselves would
have changed his behavior. Without these facts, the excessive force claim cannot rise “above the
speculative level,” see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and is not plausible. See
Jones v. Mermon, 507 F. App’x 100, 103 (3d Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of
Fourth Amendment excessive force claim based on collision after high speed pursuit when plaintiff
failed to plead how the pursuit started, why police were pursing him, what happened during the
pursuit, how the crash happened, and who was involved in the crash); see also Davis v.
Schermerhorn, No. 24-0493, 2024 WL 1517536, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 8, 2024) (dismissing

excessive force claim as undeveloped when plaintiff alleged he was slammed to the ground and
placed in too-tight handcuffs but provided no details about the circumstances leading to his
encounter with officers); Koyi v. Borough of Tinton Falls, No. 21-352, 2023 WL 7195170, at *5
(D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2023) (dismissing claim alleging excessive force that failed to include “details
about the circumstances that brought Plaintiff and the officers together [at the scene], what
happened leading up to the use of excessive force, and which officer(s) allegedly used excessive
force”). This claim will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), without prejudice to
Rivera reasserting it in an amended complaint.
2. Excessive Force Claim Against Goss
Even though Rivera did not indicate that he intends to sue Goss in his individual capacity,

the Court will liberally construe the Complaint to assert a claim against him in his individual
capacity. See Coward v. City of Philadelphia, No. 21-1619, 2021 WL 4169422, at *3 (E.D. Pa.
Sept. 13, 2021) (permitting claim against defendant in his individual capacity to proceed even
though “[plaintiff] did not check the box indicating a desire to sue [that defendant] in his individual
capacity” where the allegations clearly sought relief based on the defendant’s conduct). Rivera
only alleges that Goss was present when Simpson exerted excessive force, and that Goss did not
identify himself as an officer. (Compl. at 4-5.) These allegations clearly fall far short of stating
an excessive force claim. A plaintiff cannot state an excessive force claim by “haul[ing] before a
jury all officers who were in the immediate vicinity of where excessive force occurred . . . . That
is simply not the law.” See Jutrowski v. Twp. of Riverdale, 904 F.3d 280, 289 (3d Cir. 2018)
(quotation marks omitted) (“a defendant’s § 1983 liability must be predicated on his direct and
personal involvement in the alleged violation”); Burley v. Gagacki, 729 F.3d 610, 619 (6th Cir.
2013) (“To establish liability against an individual defendant acting under color of state law, a

plaintiff must show that the defendant was ‘personally involved’ in the use of excessive force.”);
Witters v. Smith, 736 F. Supp. 3d 238, 247 (M.D. Pa. June 10, 2024) (dismissing Fourth
Amendment claim against parole agent who was present when fellow agent shot plaintiffs’ dog
based on lack of personal involvement); Est. of Fisher by & through Fisher v. City of Pittsburgh,
No. 24-1234, 2025 WL 1898113, at *4 (W.D. Pa. May 8, 2025), report and recommendation
adopted as modified, No. 24-1234, 2025 WL 1604034 (W.D. Pa. June 6, 2025) (dismissing with
prejudice excessive force claim alleged against officer who did not shoot suspect and was not
involved in the decision to use deadly force)(citing McKay v. Krimmel, No. 22-1302, 2023 WL
4231714, at *2 (3d Cir. June 28, 2023) (“Police officers may not be held liable under section 1983
merely because they were members of a group of which some other members were guilty of

abuses.” (cleaned up))). To the extent that Rivera has asserted a claim of Goss’s individual liability
for excessive force, the claim will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Because the
claim is so underdeveloped, the dismissal will be without prejudice.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss with prejudice Rivera’s claims against
the Northern Lancaster County Regional Police Department and the City of Lancaster. The claims
alleged against Defendants Simpson and Goss in their official capacities will be dismissed without
prejudice. The excessive force claims alleged against Defendants Simpson and Goss in their
individual capacities will be dismissed without prejudice. Rivera will be granted leave to file an
amended complaint if he is able to correct the defects identified by the Court. An appropriate
Order will be entered with additional information about amendment.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Hon. Kelley B. Hodge
__________________________________
KELLEY BRISBON HODGE, J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11221590. Public record. Not legal advice.