Free Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

· C e 3:00-cv-00681-RNC Document 1 19 Filed O4/14/2004 Page 1 of 2
1 <_ > 11,1
1 FE?
1 LT 1 1.1 li? 1.1: 1 1
1 V I &-TTi`1“i¥;]I'ii‘ Iji`l¥.€l·1”I A 1
1 Ell?i$[Iif§iTE$ DISTRICT COURT 1
· FOR THE 1 I
1 DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 1
J 1
NORMA WATTS, ADMINISTRATRIX OF : CIVIL ACTION NO. g
_ THE ESTATE OF AQUAN SALMON : 3:00CV068l (DJ S) 1
1 vs. 1
1 CITY OF HARTFORD; POLICE : 1
1 DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF :
HARTFORD; JOSEPH F. CROUGHWELL, : 1
1 Individually and in his Official Capacity as : `
_ Chief of Police ofthe City of Hartford; : 1
` OFFICER ROBERT C. ALLAN, : ·
1 Individually and in his Official Capacity :
1 As a Hartford Police Officer : APRIL 14, 2004
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 1
The Plaintiff respectfully moves, pursuant to Connecticut District Court Rule
9(e), that the Court reconsider its Ruling and Order (‘1Ruling”) dated March 31, 2004
granting Deferrdants’ Motion for Summary J udgmenuas to Counts Two, Three and
Eight and ofthe Third Amended Complaint. ("Complaint.") In support of this motion,
the Plaintiff respectfully represents that the Court in its Ruling overlooked several
matters critical to the Plaintiffs claims against the City of Hartford and Chief Joseph 1
Croughwell regarding their unconstitutional failure to supervise and discipline Hartford
Police Department ("HPD”) officers generally, and more specifically, Robert Allan, in
1
Mourz, Coopzn ai MCCANN, LLP • ATTGRNEYS AT LAW
100 ALLYN Srnazr • HARTFORD, CT 06103 • (850) 278-0200 • Fax (860) 278-22.12. • Jums No. 418370
``'` ’*"` `
'i`i`i`i
i'i`i`i `

I ‘ " l............_
l — C se 3:00-cv—OO681-RNC Document 119 Filed O4/14/2004 Page 2 of 2
. I `\ »
1 . K.,} 2 gui)
l
E
J the use of excessive force} The Court, therefore, om the critical issue of whether
{ Plaintiff provided evidence, as she must, that the repeated "failure to discipline other
officers was closely related to and actually caused Allan’s shooting [of Salmon]," stated
! that Plaintiff "offers no such allegation or evidence}? (Ruling at 12).
We respectfully disagree with the Court. ln paragraphs 33 and 35 of the Third
Amended Complaint we allege specifically that the City’s failure properly "to sanction
or discipline police officers" for violating the constitutional rights of citizens constituted
a custom or policy "encouraging said officers, including Defendant Allan, to continue to
engage in unlawful conduct." As to the evidence toysupport this allegation, we
demonstrate in the attached Memorandum in Support of Reconsideration that the Court
overlooked critical evidence of a long history of the use of excessive force by HPD,
especially against minorities, and a landmark decision by the City as a result of a
lawsuit filed in this court to enter into a Consent Decree in 19732, which required,
1 We note here that the Court and Defendants in addressing the failure to supervise issue direct their
attention to the use of deadly force, while the crux of our claim is that the Defendants’ failure to
discipline HPD officers in the use of excessive force gives rise to the Monell counts. Thus, for example,
the failure to discipline Oflicer Allan for putting a gun to the head of a citizen for a motor vehicle stop,
while not involving the use of deadly force, did involve the use of excessive force that would lead him to
conclude that he could with impunity use his gun, whether called for or not.
2 See Cintron v. Vaughn, Docket No. 369 CV 13578, which arose out ofthe shootings of four minorities
by HPD officers in 1969, and which culminated in the l973 Consent Decree that is presently pending
before Special Master Richard Bieder as a result of the shooting in this case. The history of the Cintron
v. Vaughn Consent Decree is addressed in more detail in Plaintiff s Response to Defendant’s Opposition
MONIZ, COOPER 8: MCCANN, LLP • Arronwevs AT Law
100 ALLYN smear • HARTFOR¤, cr oeroe • taco; are-ozoo · rmx (eso) are-2212 · some Ne. aiesvo