IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CIVIL ACTION

NATHANIEL JOHNSON :

801 North Duke Street :

Lancaster, PA 17602 :

Plaintiff, :

: No.:

v. :

:

CITY OF LANCASTER :

120 North Duke Street :

Lancaster, PA 17602 :

and :

WILLIAM HEIM :

Lancaster City Police Chief :

c/o Lancaster City Bureau of Police :

39 East Chestnut Street :

Lancaster, PA 17602 :

and :

MICHAEL J. GERACE :

Lancaster City Police Officer :

c/o Lancaster City Bureau of Police :

39 East Chestnut Street :

Lancaster, PA 17602 :

and :

JASON ZIEGLER :

Lancaster City Police Officer :

c/o Lancaster City Bureau of Police :

39 East Chestnut Street :

Lancaster, PA 17602 :

Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

1. This is an action for money damages against the City of Lancaster, Lancaster

City Police Chief William Heim, Lancaster City Police Officer Michael J. Gerace and

Lancaster City Police Officer Jason Ziegler for the violation of plaintiff’s constitutional

rights.

Case 2:03-cv-05517-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/02/03 Page 1 of 16
2

2. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Officer Gerace and Officer Ziegler, with

reckless disregard for his safety, unlawfully used excessive force by forcing plaintiff’s arms

behind his back, twisting his neck, forcefully pushing him into a wall, forcing him face down

on the sidewalk, removing his neck brace, pulling bandaging off his right hand, placing him

in handcuffs and spraying him with pepper spray. The actions of defendants Officer Gerace

and Officer Ziegler were without legal justification and in violation of plaintiff’s rights

under the laws and Constitution of the United States, in particular the Fourth Amendment of

the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. §1983, and his rights under the Constitution and

laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. By assaulting plaintiff as aforesaid, defendants

Officer Gerace and Officer Ziegler directly violated the laws of the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania and the rules and regulations of the City of Lancaster regarding the excessive

use of force.

3. Plaintiff alleges that the City of Lancaster through its supervisors and Police

Chief William Heim failed to provide training and supervision concerning the rights of

citizens and the lawful use of force by police officers, amounting to gross negligence and a

reckless and/or deliberate indifference to the safety and lives of the citizens of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania including plaintiff. Further, defendants City of Lancaster

and Police Chief William Heim are directly liable and responsible for the acts of defendants

Officer Gerace and Officer Ziegler because they repeatedly and knowingly failed to enforce

the laws and guidelines of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the regulations of the

City of Lancaster Police Force pertaining to the use of force by police officers, thereby

creating within the City of Lancaster and the Lancaster City Police Force an atmosphere of

Case 2:03-cv-05517-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/02/03 Page 2 of 16
3

lawlessness in which police officers employed excessive and illegal force and violence in the

belief that such acts would be condoned and justified by their superiors. 

4. Plaintiff files the within civil action complaint and requests judgment against

defendants City of Lancaster, Police Chief William Heim, Officer Gerace and Officer

Ziegler, jointly, severally and in the alternative in a sum in excess of One Hundred Thousand

Dollars ($100,000.00), plus punitive damages, interest, costs, and attorneys fees pursuant to

42 U.S.C. §1988 and damages for delay.

JURISDICTION

5. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Fourth

Amendment to the United States Constitution. Jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C.

Section 1331 and 1334, and the aforementioned statutory and Constitutional provisions. 

Plaintiff further invokes pendant jurisdiction of this court to consider claims arising under

state law.

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff Nathaniel Johnson is, and was at all material times, an adult

individual and citizen of the United States. He currently resides at 801 North Duke Street,

Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602.

7. Defendant City of Lancaster is, and at all times relevant to this complaint

was,

a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania and located in the City and County of Lancaster at 120 North Duke Street,

Case 2:03-cv-05517-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/02/03 Page 3 of 16
4

Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. At all times relevant, defendant City of Lancaster employed

the defendant police officers.

8. Defendant Police Chief William Heim is, and at all times relevant was, the

duly

appointed and acting police chief of the City of Lancaster with a business address of 39 East

Chestnut Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. At all times relevant, defendant Police

Chief William Heim was acting in his capacity as the agent, servant and employee of the

defendant City of Lancaster and the Lancaster City Police Department. He is being sued

individually and in his official capacity.

9. Defendant Michael J. Gerace is, and at all times relevant to this complaint

was, a police officer with the Lancaster City Bureau of Police with a business address of c/o

Lancaster City Bureau of Police, 39 East Chestnut Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

At all times relevant, defendant Officer Gerace was acting in his capacity as the agent,

servant and employee of defendants City of Lancaster and the Lancaster City Police

Department. He is being sued individually and in his official capacity.

10. Defendant Jason Ziegler is, and at all times relevant to this complaint was, a

police officer with the Lancaster City Bureau of Police with a business address of c/o

Lancaster City Bureau of Police, 39 East Chestnut Street, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602. 

At all times relevant, defendant Officer Ziegler was acting in his capacity as the agent,

servant and employee of defendants City of Lancaster and the Lancaster City Police

Department. He is being sued individually and in his official capacity.

Case 2:03-cv-05517-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/02/03 Page 4 of 16
5

11. At all times relevant, and in all the actions described herein, defendants

Officer Gerace and Officer Ziegler were acting under color of law and pursuant to their

authority as Lancaster City Police Officers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

CAUSE OF ACTION

COUNT I

PLAINTIFF, NATHANIEL JOHNSON

v.

DEFENDANTS OFFICER MICHAEL J. GERACE

AND OFFICER JASON ZIEGLER

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 11

the same as if set forth at length herein. 

12. On or about October 14, 2001, at approximately 2:00p.m., an automobile

accident occurred at the intersection of North Duke Street and East Clay Street, in Lancaster

City, Pennsylvania, whereby plaintiff’s lawfully parked vehicle was struck and heavily

damaged by a vehicle directly involved in the accident.

13. At the aforesaid date, time and place, plaintiff Nathaniel Johnson was

lawfully present at the intersection when defendants Officer Gerace and Officer Ziegler

approached plaintiff and demanded he stop talking to the tow truck driver towing his car. 

14. Defendants Officer Gerace and Officer Ziegler forcefully grabbed plaintiff’s

arms, pushed plaintiff to the ground by his neck, choked him and removed the neck brace

plaintiff was wearing due to recent spinal surgery on his neck. 

Case 2:03-cv-05517-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/02/03 Page 5 of 16
6

15. Defendants Officer Gerace and Officer Ziegler pulled plaintiff’s arms up

behind his back, handcuffed plaintiff’s left hand to his left side belt loops, and removed a

splint and bandaging plaintiff was wearing due to recent carpal tunnel surgery on his right

hand. 

16. Defendants Officer Gerace’s and Officer Ziegler’s actions were without

justification or provocation. 

17. By injuring plaintiff through the excessive use of force, defendants Officer

Gerace and Officer Ziegler violated the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the

rules and regulations of the Lancaster City Police Department regarding the use of force.

18. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid actions of defendants Officer

Gerace and Officer Ziegler, plaintiff suffered severe personal injuries including opening of

surgical sutures in plaintiff’s neck only three days after spinal surgery; removal of protective

bandaging from plaintiff’s right hand resulting in bleeding and subsequent infection at the

incision cite; increased swelling and pain around plaintiff’s neck and hand incisions; neck

injury and pain; muscular injury and pain; right shoulder injury; blurred vision in plaintiff’s

left eye; severe pain and suffering; and severe mental and emotional distress. 

19. Defendants Officer Gerace and Officer Ziegler injured plaintiff without just

and legal cause and with reckless indifference to the safety of plaintiff, thereby violating

plaintiff’s rights under the laws and Constitution of the United States, in particular 42 U.S.C.

§1983 and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and plaintiff’s rights

under the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Case 2:03-cv-05517-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/02/03 Page 6 of 16
7

20. As a further direct and proximate result of the actions of defendants Officer

Gerace and Officer Ziegler, plaintiff incurred various medical expenses in an effort to effect

a cure for his injuries and is expected to suffer such loss in the future all to his great

detriment and loss.

21. As a further direct and proximate result of the aforesaid actions of 

defendants Officer Gerace and Officer Ziegler, plaintiff was and may in the future be unable

to engage in his usual daily activities and occupations all to his great detriment and loss.

22. As a direct and proximate result of the above described unlawful, reckless,

arbitrary, intentional and malicious acts of defendants Officer Gerace and Officer Ziegler, all

committed under color of their authority as Lancaster City Police Officers and while acting

in that capacity, plaintiff suffered great bodily harm, all of which is in violation of his rights

under the laws and Constitution of the United States in particular the Fourth Amendment

thereof and 42 U.S.C. §1983.

23. Plaintiff Nathaniel Johnson was a victim of summary punishment at the

hands of defendants Officer Gerace and Officer Ziegler. The punishment administered was

grossly disproportionate to whatever plaintiff’s acts may have been, constituted cruel and

unusual punishment and deprived him of his right to due process of law under the laws and

Constitution of the United States. The infliction of injury upon plaintiff by defendants

Officer Gerace and Officer Ziegler was unwarranted, cruel, arbitrary, reckless, inhumane,

unjustifiable and excessive. 

24. As a further direct and proximate result of the above described acts, plaintiff

was deprived of the rights and immunities secured to him under the Constitution and laws of

Case 2:03-cv-05517-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/02/03 Page 7 of 16
8

the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to be secure in his person and to

be free from punishment without due process.

25. Defendants Officer Gerace and Officer Ziegler subjected plaintiff to these

deprivations of his rights either maliciously, arbitrarily or by acting with reckless disregard

for whether plaintiff’s rights would be violated by these actions.

26. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of defendants

Officer Gerace and Officer Ziegler, plaintiff suffered severe personal injuries as described

above, was forced to endure great physical and mental pain and suffering, forced to incur

medical and legal expenses and deprived of his physical liberty all to his great detriment and

loss.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants Officer Gerace and

Officer Ziegler jointly, severally and in the alternative in a sum in excess of One Hundred

Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) plus punitive damages, interest, costs, attorney’s fees and

damages for delay. 

COUNT II

PLAINTIFF, NATHANIEL JOHNSON

v. 

MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS THE CITY OF LANCASTER

AND POLICE CHIEF WILLIAM HEIM

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through

26, the same as if set forth at length herein.

27. Prior to October 14, 2001, municipal defendants City of Lancaster and

Case 2:03-cv-05517-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/02/03 Page 8 of 16
9

Police Chief William Heim tolerated and ratified a pattern and practice of unjustified

unreasonable and illegal use of force in that:

a. Municipal defendants failed to discipline or prosecute or in any

manner deal with known incidents of abuse of police powers and

improper use of force by officers;

b. Municipal defendants refused to investigate complaints of previous

incidents of abuse of police powers and improper use of force by

police officers and instead officially claimed that such incidents were

justified and proper; and

c. By means of both inaction and cover-up of such abuse of police

powers and excessive use of force by officers, municipal defendants

encouraged police officers including Officers Gerace and Ziegler to

believe that such abuse of police powers and improper use of force

was permissible.

28. Municipal defendants have maintained either an inadequate system or no

system of review of the use of force by police officers, which results in the failure to identify

instances of improper use of force, or failure to discipline, closely supervise or retrain police

officers who improperly use force. Upon information and belief, the system deficiencies

include, but are not limited to:

a. Preparation of investigative reports designed to vindicate the use of

force regardless of whether such actions were justified;

Case 2:03-cv-05517-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/02/03 Page 9 of 16
10

b. Preparation of investigative reports which uncritically rely solely on

the word of police officers involved in the incidents and which

systematically fail to credit testimony by non-police officer witnesses;

c. Preparation of investigative reports which omit factual information

and physical evidence which contradict the accounts of the police

officers involved;

d. Issuance of statements exonerating officers involved in such incidents

prior to the conclusion of investigation; and

e. Failure to review investigative reports by responsible superior officers

for accuracy or completeness and acceptance of conclusions which are

unwarranted by the evidence or which contradict such evidence.

29. Upon information and belief, municipal defendants also maintain a system of

grossly inadequate training pertaining to the law of permissible use of force.

30. The foregoing acts, omissions and systemic deficiencies, policies and/or

customs of municipal defendants have caused police officers of municipal defendants to be

unaware of the rules and laws governing the use of force and to believe that the use of force

is entirely within the discretion of the officer and an improper and excessive use of force

would not be honestly and properly investigated, all with the foreseeable result that officers

are more likely to engage in excessive use of force in situations where such force is neither

necessary, reasonable, nor legal.

31. Municipal defendants failed to promulgate and enforce a policy relating to

Case 2:03-cv-05517-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/02/03 Page 10 of 16
11

the use of force which is not in violation of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

and the United States Constitution, thereby causing and encouraging police officers,

including defendants Officer Gerace and Officer Ziegler to violate the rights of citizens such

as plaintiff.

32. Municipal defendants failed to properly sanction or discipline officers who

are

 aware of and subsequently conceal and/or aid and abet violations of constitutional rights of

citizens including Fourth Amendment rights violations by other police officers, thereby

causing and encouraging police officers, including defendants Officer Gerace and Officer

Ziegler, to violate the rights of citizens such as plaintiff.

33. Municipal defendants have intentionally and/or with conscious indifference to

the danger of harm to citizens like plaintiff, established a system which fails to identify,

track or report instances of improper use of force and which is used by municipal defendants

to conceal the extent to which police officers engage in improper and excessive use of force.

34. The foregoing acts, omission and systemic deficiencies of policies, practices

and customs of municipal defendants have caused police officers of municipal defendant

including defendants Officer Gerace and Officer Ziegler, to be unaware of or to disregard the

rules and laws governing the situations under which it is permissible to engage in the use of

force and to believe that the excessive use of force against citizens without just cause is a

proper police practice entirely within the discretion of the officer and that excessive use of

force resulting in injuries would not be honestly and properly investigated all with the

foreseeable result that officers including defendants Officer Gerace and Officer Ziegler are

Case 2:03-cv-05517-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/02/03 Page 11 of 16
12

more likely to engage in excessive use of force in situations where such action is neither

necessary, reasonable nor legal.

35. At no time, either prior to employment of the defendants Officer Gerace and

Officer Ziegler, or after assignment to duty whereby it was foreseeable that defendants

Officer Gerace and Officer Ziegler would be required to use force, did municipal defendants

take reasonable steps to ascertain whether defendants Officer Gerace and Officer Ziegler

were emotionally capable of performing such police duties and did not have a propensity

toward violence or overreaction in situations they were likely to encounter, or administer

well-known standard tests to ascertain defendants Officer Gerace’s and Officer Ziegler’s

propensity toward violence.

36. Municipal defendants as a matter of policy and practice have with deliberate

indifference failed to adequately train, discipline, sanction or otherwise direct Lancaster City

Police Department officers concerning the rights of citizens particularly the Fourth

Amendment of the United States Constitution, thereby causing the defendants Officer

Gerace and Officer Ziegler in this case, to engage in unlawful conduct described above.

37. Municipal defendants, as a matter of policy and practice, have with deliberate

indifference failed to adequately train, discipline, sanction or otherwise direct Lancaster City

Police Department Officers, including defendants Officer Gerace and Officer Ziegler, who

are aware of and subsequently conceal violations of the constitutional rights of citizens

including Fourth Amendment rights violations by other police officers. Municipal

defendants’ policy and practice, thereby causes and encourages officers, including

Case 2:03-cv-05517-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/02/03 Page 12 of 16
13

defendants Officer Gerace and Officer Ziegler, to engage in unlawful conduct which violates

plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights.

38. Municipal defendants are directly liable for their own acts and omissions,

specifically with regard to the failure to train and the promulgation of violations of the

plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights through the maintenance of a policy, custom, practice

and/or procedure that ratifies, condones, and/or tolerates such violations.

39. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts, omissions, systemic

deficiencies, policies and customs of municipal defendants, defendants Officer Gerace and

Officer Ziegler violated plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights and improperly engaged in the

use of excessive force, thereby causing severe personal injuries, more specifically set forth

above in plaintiff’s complaint.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants jointly, severally, and

in the alternative, in a sum in excess of $100,000.00, plus interest, costs, attorney’s fees and

damages for delay.

COUNT III

PLAINTIFF, NATHANIEL JOHNSON

v. 

DEFENDANTS OFFICER GERACE AND OFFICER ZIEGLER

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 39

the same as if set forth at length herein. 

40. At all times relevant, defendants Officer Gerace and Officer Ziegler, were

acting as officers of the City of Lancaster Police Department, acting at all times within the

course and scope of their authority.

Case 2:03-cv-05517-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/02/03 Page 13 of 16
14

41. The acts of defendants Officer Gerace and Officer Ziegler, alleged in the

preceding paragraphs, constitute the torts of assault and battery, all to the plaintiff’s great

detriment and loss.

42. The acts of defendants alleged in the preceding paragraphs deprived plaintiff

of his rights, privileges, and immunities under the laws and the Constitution of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in particular, the right to be secure in his person and

property, to be free from excessive punishment, and the right to due process secured to him

by Article I, Sections I, VIII, IX, XIII, and XXVI, of the Pennsylvania Constitution and

resulted in the injuries and damages more specifically described in paragraphs 18, 21, 22 and

26.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants, jointly, severally,

and in the alternative in a sum in excess of $100,000.00, plus punitive damages, interest,

costs, attorney’s fees, and damages for delay. 

COUNT IV

PLAINTIFF, NATHANIEL JOHNSON

v. 

ALL DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 42

the same as if set forth at length herein. 

43. The acts of defendants alleged in the preceding paragraphs consist of

violations of plaintiff’s Constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C.

§1983.

Case 2:03-cv-05517-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/02/03 Page 14 of 16
15

44. Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees for the work performed by his attorneys

in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants jointly, severally and

in the alternative in a sum in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) plus

punitive damages, interest, costs, attorney’s fees and damages for delay.

COUNT V

PLAINTIFF, NATHANIEL JOHNSON

v. 

DEFENDANTS OFFICER MICHAEL J. GERACE, OFFICER JASON ZIEGLER,

AND POLICE CHIEF WILLIAM HEIM

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 44

the same as if set forth at length herein. 

45. The herein described conduct of defendants Gerace and Ziegler was

malicious, wanton, willful, reckless and intentionally designed to inflict grievous bodily

injury and mental distress upon plaintiff’s person.

46. As a result of the malicious, wanton, willful, reckless and intentional conduct

of defendants, plaintiff demands punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants jointly, severally and

in the alternative in a sum in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) plus

punitive damages, interest, costs, attorney’s fees and damages for delay.

Case 2:03-cv-05517-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/02/03 Page 15 of 16
16

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through

46 the same as if set forth at length herein.

47. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

Respectfully submitted,

CRYSTLE, ALLEN & GRIMES, LLC

By: 

Kevin C. Allen, Esquire

Attorney for Plaintiff, Nathaniel Johnson

Attorney I.D. No. 55232

143 North Duke Street

Lancaster, PA 17602

Telephone: (717) 393-0600

Facsimile: (717) 396-1028

Case 2:03-cv-05517-PBT Document 1 Filed 10/02/03 Page 16 of 16