Arroyo v. Walsh

317 F. Supp. 869, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11001
CourtDistrict Court, D. Connecticut
DecidedJuly 8, 1970
DocketCiv. A. 13100
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 317 F. Supp. 869 (Arroyo v. Walsh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arroyo v. Walsh, 317 F. Supp. 869, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11001 (D. Conn. 1970).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

LUMBARD, Chief Judge: *

Wilson Ruiz Arroyo brings suit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988 against Anthony Vida, John Lorenzo, Anthony Tom, Donald Murray and Robert Moore, police officers of Bridgeport; the Mayor of Bridgeport, the Superintendent of Police and six police commissioners of the City, charging them with violation of his civil rights. More specifically he alleges that when he was arrested on the night of September 18, 1968, after driving at 45 miles per hour through a stop sign and colliding with another car, Officers Vida and Lorenzo beat him with their fists and with a stick, breaking his nose and causing severe pain and suffering.

On all the evidence I must conclude that Vida and Lorenzo used excessive force and I direct entry of judgment against them in the sum of $2,500. See Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961); Nesmith v. Alford, 318 F.2d 110 (5th Cir. 1963); Stringer v. Dilger, 313 F.2d 536 (10th Cir. 1963). As to the other defendants the complaint is dismissed. There has been no showing that the Mayor and the Police Superintendent improperly trained the police or acquiesced in the denial of Arroyo’s civil rights. Nor does the complaint make sufficient allegation and showing to support the plaintiff’s prayer, as a representative of Puerto Ricans in Bridgeport, that a receiver be appointed to process complaints regarding police treatment of Puerto Ricans. See Powell v. Workmen’s Comp. Board, 327 F.2d 131 (2 Cir. 1964); Valley v. Maule, 297 F. Supp. 958 (D.Conn.1968).

It is now well established that local law enforcement officers who act under color of state law and who use excessive force in the enforcement of state laws are subject to civil liability under § 1983 as thereby they deprive those so injured of rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States. See Monroe v. Pape, supra; Brazier v. Cherry, 293 F.2d 401 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 921, 82 S.Ct. 243, 7 L.Ed.2d 136 (1961); Hardwick v. Hurley, 289 F.2d 529 (7th Cir. 1961); Coleman v. Johnston, 247 F.2d 273 (7th Cir. 1957); Davis v. Turner, 197 F.2d 847 (5th Cir. 1952); Downie v. Powers, 193 F.2d 760 (10th Cir. 1951).

The undisputed facts show that about 9:00 P.M. on the evening of September 18, 1968, Arroyo was driving east on Crescent Street at a speed of 45 m. p. h. in his Chevrolet car although he had no license to drive. He failed to slow down when he came to the stop sign at the intersection of Pembroke Street and collided with a car which had just entered the intersection from Pembroke. Arroyo’s car careened ahead at about 30 miles an hour until it came to a stop near a telephone pole 452 feet from the point of collision. Because of damage to the car, it could go no further. Vida and Lorenzo had been following Arroyo’s car and when they drew up alongside they proceeded to arrest Arroyo. While the manner of Arroyo’s leaving his car and *871 his conduct immediately thereafter is in dispute, it is agreed that Arroyo was subdued, handcuffed and placed in the rear seat of the police car. The police called for an ambulance and then returned to the scene of the collision. Arroyo was then placed in the ambulance and taken to the Bridgeport Hospital where he was x-rayed and the doctor in attendance found that Arroyo had a comminuted fracture of the nose, the bone having been shattered into many little sharp pieces, and five stitches were needed to close the wound.

The officers filed charges against Arroyo for resisting arrest, Conn.G.S. § 53-165; evading responsibility, Conn.G. S. § 14-224; running through a stop sign, Conn.G.S. § 14-301; driving without a license, Conn.G.S. § 14-36(a); and driving with faulty equipment, Conn. G.S. § 14-80. He was released on $450 bail sometime in the morning. Some months later, on February 13, 1969, apparently because the police or the city counsel failed to supply particulars in response to a motion made by Arroyo’s attorney, the charges were dismissed. In view of Arroyo’s admission that he was driving in excess of the speed limit, that he had no license to drive and that he failed to stop at the stop sign, the failure to supply particulars and prosecute the charges seems incomprehensible. Within a few days after the charges had been dismissed, Arroyo gave the City Clerk of Bridgeport a Notice of Intention to bring an action, and this action was commenced on April 23, 1969.

The testimony of Arroyo and that of a bystander, Johnny Garcia, differs sharply from that given by Vida and Lorenzo regarding Arroyo’s treatment by the .two police officers. Arroyo, who was 19 years old at the time of the accident, came to the United States from Puerto Rico in April 1967 and lived with his grandmother and his uncle in September 1968. He testified through an interpreter as it was apparent that his understanding of English was still somewhat limited at the time of trial in May 1970. Arroyo concedes that on the evening of September 18 he was driving about 45 m. p. h. on Crescent Street. As he came to the stop sign at the intersection of Pembroke Street he put his foot on the brake but the car did not stop; he then collided with James Brasiel’s car in the middle of the intersection. Arroyo said he was not injured by the crash into Brasiel’s car; he did not have the seat belt on, and the windshield was not broken. His car veered but kept going on Crescent Street until it came to a stop against a pole near the curb. At that point the car could no longer be driven.

Although he had no wounds and was not bleeding, Arroyo felt dizzy. The two policemen came alongside and took him out of the car. They beat him with their fists and broke his watch. They handcuffed his hands behind his back, took him by the hair and smashed his face against the glass of the back window of his car, and then put him in the police car. The driver of the car, whom Arroyo identified as Vida, hit him on the nose with a short club and said “I feel like killing you as though you were a dog.” By this time Arroyo was bleeding from his face and nose. Almost immediately after he was taken back to the intersection an ambulance arrived and he was taken to the hospital where he was x-rayed and five stitches were taken in his nose.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

City of Saint Albans v. Botkins
719 S.E.2d 863 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2011)
Sprague v. City of Burley
710 P.2d 566 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1985)
City of Mason v. Banks
581 S.W.2d 621 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1979)
United States v. Carson
434 F. Supp. 806 (D. Connecticut, 1977)
Brudney v. Ematrudo
414 F. Supp. 1187 (D. Connecticut, 1976)
Human Rights Commission v. Assad
349 N.E.2d 341 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1976)
Stokes v. Lecce
384 F. Supp. 1039 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1974)
Smith v. Jones
379 F. Supp. 201 (M.D. Tennessee, 1973)
Aldridge v. Mullins
377 F. Supp. 850 (M.D. Tennessee, 1972)
Hairston v. Hutzler
334 F. Supp. 251 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1971)
Wright v. McMann
321 F. Supp. 127 (N.D. New York, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
317 F. Supp. 869, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arroyo-v-walsh-ctd-1970.