IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

-----------------------------------------------------------

MICHAEL HOGAN, :

837 West Grant Street :

Easton, PA 18042, :

:

ANN HOGAN, :

837 West Grant Street :

Easton, PA 18042, :

Plaintiffs : CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-CV-

:

-v- :

:

CITY OF EASTON, : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

1 South Third Street :

Easton, PA 18042, :

:

THOMAS GOLDSMITH, :

FORMER MAYOR, :

CITY OF EASTON :

(individually and in his official capacity) :

1 South Third Street :

Easton, PA 18042, :

:

LARRY PALMER, :

FORMER CHIEF OF POLICE, :

CITY OF EASTON POLICE DEPARTMENT :

(individually and in his official capacity) :

1 South Third Street :

Easton, PA 18042, :

:

JOHN MAZZEO, JR., :

FORMER CAPTAIN, :

CITY OF EASTON POLICE DEPARTMENT :

(individually and in his official capacity) :

1 South Third Street :

Easton, PA 18042, :

:

BRIAN T. HERNCANE, :

CITY OF EASTON POLICE DEPARTMENT :

(individually and in his official capacity) :

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 1 of 28
2

1 South Third Street :

Easton, PA 18042, :

:

CHRISTOPHER G. MILLER, :

CITY OF EASTON POLICE DEPARTMENT :

(individually and in his official capacity) :

1 South Third Street :

Easton, PA 18042, :

:

STEVEN J. PARKANSKY, :

CITY OF EASTON POLICE DEPARTMENT :

(individually and in his official capacity) :

1 South Third Street :

Easton, PA 18042, :

:

SCHELDON M. SMITH, :

CITY OF EASTON POLICE DEPARTMENT :

(individually and in his official capacity) :

1 South Third Street :

Easton, PA 18042, :

:

MICHAEL ORCHULLI, :

CITY OF EASTON POLICE DEPARTMENT :

(individually and in his official capacity) :

1 South Third Street :

Easton, PA 18042, :

:

DAVID M. BEITLER, :

CITY OF EASTON POLICE DEPARTMENT :

(individually and in his official capacity) :

1 South Third Street :

Easton, PA 18042, :

:

DOMINICK W. MARRACCINI, :

CITY OF EASTON POLICE DEPARTMENT :

(individually and in his official capacity) :

1 South Third Street :

Easton, PA 18042, :

:

JOHN D. REMALEY, :

CITY OF EASTON POLICE DEPARTMENT :

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 2 of 28
3

(individually and in his official capacity) :

1 South Third Street :

Easton, PA 18042, :

:

EUGENE SCOTT CASTERLINE, :

CITY OF EASTON POLICE DEPARTMENT :

(individually and in his official capacity) :

1 South Third Street :

Easton, PA 18042, :

:

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, :

Northampton County Government Center :

669 Washington Street :

Easton, PA 18042, :

Defendants. :

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Michael Hogan and Ann Hogan bring this suit to recover for federal constitutional and

statutory violations, as follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Michael Hogan is a resident of 837 West Grant Street in the City of Easton,

Northampton County, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

2. Plaintiff Ann Hogan is a resident of 837 West Grant Street in the City of Easton,

Northampton County, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

3. Defendant City of Easton is a municipality in Northampton County, Pennsylvania. 

4. Defendant Thomas Goldsmith was at all relevant times, the Mayor of the City of

Easton, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. He is sued in his individual and official capacities. At all

relevant times, Defendant Goldsmith had policymaking authority for the City and was responsible for

supervising the actions of the Police Department and its officers.

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 3 of 28
4

5. Defendant Larry Palmer was at all relevant times the Chief of the Police Department of

the City of Easton, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. He is sued in his individual and official

capacities. At all relevant times, Defendant Palmer had policymaking authority for the City and was

responsible for supervising the actions of the Police Department and its officers.

6. Defendant John Mazzeo, Jr. was at all relevant times a Captain with the Police

Department of the City of Easton, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. He is sued in his individual and

official capacities. At all relevant times, Defendant Mazzeo was the SWAT supervisor and was

responsible for supervising the other police officers identified herein.

7. Defendant Michael J. Orchulli was at all relevant times a Lieutenant with the Police

Department of the City of Easton, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. He is sued in his individual and

official capacities. At all relevant times, Defendant Orchulli was the shift supervisor and was

responsible for supervising the other police officers identified herein.

8. Defendant Steven J. Parkansky was at all relevant times a Lieutenant with the Police

Department of the City of Easton, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. He is sued in his individual and

official capacities. At all relevant times, Defendant Orchulli was a supervisory official and was

responsible for supervising the other police officers identified herein.

9. Defendant Brian T. Herncane was at all relevant times a Patrol officer with the Police

Department of the City of Easton, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. He is sued in his individual and

official capacities.

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 4 of 28
5

10. Defendant Christopher G. Miller was at all relevant times a Patrol officer with the

Police Department of the City of Easton, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. He is sued in his

individual and official capacities.

11. Defendant Scheldon M. Smith was at all relevant times a Patrol officer with the Police

Department of the City of Easton, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. He is sued in his individual and

official capacities.

12. Defendant David M. Beitler was at all relevant times a Patrol Officer with the Police

Department of the City of Easton, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. He is sued in his individual and

official capacities.

13. Defendant Dominic W. Marraccini was at all relevant times a Patrol Officer with the

Police Department of the City of Easton, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. He is sued in his

individual and official capacities.

14. Defendant John D. Remaley was at all relevant times a Detective with the Police

Department of the City of Easton, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. He is sued in his individual and

official capacities.

15. Defendant Eugene S. Casterline was at all relevant times a Detective with the Police

Department of the City of Easton, Northampton County, Pennsylvania. He is sued in his individual and

official capacities.

16. Defendant Northampton County is a municipality located within the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania.

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 5 of 28
6

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

17. Jurisdiction in this Court is asserted under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1331 and

§1343. This action arises under the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended 42 U.S.C.

§1983, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §12132.

18. Venue is appropriately laid in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) in that the

actions complained of took place within the District and the Plaintiffs and Defendants have carried on

business within the District.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ON THE MERITS

19. On February 25, 2002, at approximately 9:31 p.m., Defendants Orchulli, Remaley,

Marraccini, Beitler and Casterline fired at least fourteen (14) shots at Michael Hogan from close range,

striking him at least three (3) times and nearly killing him.

20. At the time these Defendants shot Mr. Hogan, he was in his own home, following the

instructions of Defendant Miller, and attempting to surrender to the police.

21. Born in August 1967, Mr. Hogan is a high school graduate and a United States Marine

Corps veteran. 

22. Mr. Hogan had never been arrested before and had no prior criminal record.

23. Michael Hogan and Ann Hogan have been married since November 1991.

24. At the time of the events at issue herein, Mr. Hogan had a significant psychiatric

impairment; the U.S. Social Security Administration found Mr. Hogan disabled in August 2001. 

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 6 of 28
7

25. Mr. Hogan has an Axis I diagnosis of Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Panic Disorder,

and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder as well as an Axis II diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder

and Histrionic Personality Disorder.

26. Mr. Hogan has a history of experiencing panic attacks, during which he loses control

over his actions, trembles, becomes nauseated, suffers abdominal distress, tachycardia, parasthesias,

elevated blood pressure, and unsteady balance; he becomes debilitated and unable to perform any

productive activity.

27. Following these severe and often long lasting episodes, Mr. Hogan has experienced

depressive episodes with a diminished interest in all activities, a loss of physical energy and feelings of

worthlessness.

28. Mr. Hogan’s borderline personality disorder can cause his thinking to be dichotomous

with no flexibility. 

29. Meanwhile, the histrionic component of Mr. Hogan’s personality disorder can cause

Mr. Hogan to display dramatic emotional behaviors.

30. On the night of February 25, 2002, as a result of his mental health disorder, Mr. Hogan

began to experience deterioration in his emotional condition and started to display irrational thinking,

precipitating an attempt by Mrs. Hogan to intervene and redirect Mr. Hogan.

31. At Mrs. Hogan’s request, John Ditmars, a neighbor and close friend, came to the

Hogan residence to assist Mrs. Hogan in calming Mr. Hogan, to redirect him, and to avert further

emotional deterioration.

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 7 of 28
8

32. While Mr. Ditmars was talking to Mr. Hogan, Mrs. Hogan, attempting to err on the

side of caution in the event additional assistance was necessary, dialed 911 and was connected to the

emergency dispatch service operated by Defendant Northampton County.

33. Defendant Northampton County did not provide adequate training or supervision to its

911 dispatchers, and, in particular, failed to train and supervise its dispatchers regarding the

requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the rights of individuals with mental health

disabilities.

34. It was the policy, custom and practice of Defendant Northampton County to disregard

the needs of those with psychiatric disabilities, and as a result, the County failed to provide adequate

training to supervisors and dispatchers in connection with incidents involving emotionally disturbed

persons.

35. Pursuant to the County’s policy, practice and custom, the County dispatch service did

not ask Mrs. Hogan whether any of the people involved suffered from any disabilities, had any

emotional disturbances, or required any reasonable accommodations.

36. The County dispatch service advised Defendant officers that there was a domestic

disturbance and that there was a possibility that a gun was involved.

37. By the time the police arrived at the Plaintiffs’ home, Mr. Hogan had calmed down

considerably, he was unarmed, there was no dispute in progress, and there was no need for the police

to be there or to remain. 

38. Officer Herncane arrived at the Plaintiffs’ residence at approximately 8:05 p.m., while

Mrs. Hogan was outside on the front porch, and Mr. Hogan was inside by himself.

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 8 of 28
9

39. Officer Herncane asked Mrs. Hogan only where Mr. Hogan was and what his name

was.

40. In direct response, Mrs. Hogan advised Officer Herncane that his name was Michael

Hogan, that he was inside the residence and that there was no one else inside, whereupon, without

further inquiry, notice, or consent, Officer Herncane proceeded immediately into the Plaintiffs’

residence.

41. Officer Herncane did not ask Mrs. Hogan any questions about the reported basis for

the call or about Mr. Hogan’s mental state, and made no effort to determine whether there was any

actual need or proper basis for the police to enter into the Plaintiffs’ residence.

42. Officer Herncane’s entrance into the Plaintiffs’ residence was contrary to accepted and

proper police practices and in violation of the Plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional and statutory

rights.

43. Officer Herncane did not have a search warrant or an arrest warrant, he did not have

probable cause to enter the residence, he did not have consent to enter the residence, and there were

no exigent circumstances justifying his entrance into the residence. 

44. Officer Miller arrived approximately thirty (30) seconds after Officer Herncane and

immediately followed him into the residence, without speaking to Mrs. Hogan or anyone else.

45. Officer Miller also entered the Hogan residence improperly and in violation of the

Hogans’ federal rights; he did not have a search warrant or an arrest warrant, he did not have probable

cause to enter the residence, he did not have consent to enter the residence, and there were no exigent

circumstances justifying his entrance into the residence. 

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 9 of 28
10

46. Contrary to accepted and proper practice, Defendant officers arrived at the Hogan

residence with their vehicles’ emergency lights flashing.

47. Before the officers entered his home, and upon seeing the flashing lights of police

vehicles outside, Mr. Hogan, who did not have his glasses on, went down into his basement in an

attempt to avoid any interaction with the police.

48. Contrary to and in violation of the Plaintiffs’ clearly established constitutional and

federal statutory rights, and contrary to accepted police practices, Officers Herncane and Miller

entered the residence and immediately began yelling for Mr. Hogan.

49. Mr. Hogan replied from the basement, asking the officers why they were there, and

whether he had done anything wrong.

50. The officers answered Mr. Hogan and confirmed that he had not done anything wrong,

and that he had not committed any crime.

51. Mr. Hogan repeatedly and adamantly told the officers that he did not want them in his

house, that they were violating his constitutional rights, and that they should leave.

52. The officers did not leave.

53. Lt. Orchulli and Officer Smith arrived within approximately ten (10) minutes or less,

immediately and illegally entered the residence, and remained there despite Mr. Hogan’s repeated

demands that the officers leave.

54. Mr. Hogan’s cousin, E. Bruce (“Buddy”) Shull, who is a police officer in a neighboring

municipality, had arrived on the scene earlier, and Mr. Hogan’s sister, Sara Hogan, who is an attorney,

also arrived.

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 10 of 28
11

55. The police officers on the scene were promptly advised by Mr. Hogan’s family

members that he was an emotionally disturbed person, that he suffered from anxiety and panic

disorders and depression, and that he should be approached in a quiet, calm manner.

56. Defendant officers, acting with deliberate indifference, willfully disregarded this

information, and instead approached Mr. Hogan in a loud, hostile and confrontational manner.

57. Defendant officers repeatedly violated accepted police practice standards for

responding to domestic disturbances and for dealing with emotionally disturbed persons.

58. Defendant officers, including but not limited to Defendant Miller, repeatedly lied to Mr.

Hogan, squandering opportunities to establish his trust.

59. Despite accepted police practice standards which dictate against the presence of K-9

units when responding to a domestic disturbance and when dealing with an emotionally disturbed

person, Defendant officers brought police dogs to the scene and allowed them to remain there.

60. When Mr. Hogan heard the police dogs barking, he commented on their presence and

the officers responded by blatantly lying to Mr. Hogan, denying that the dogs were there.

61. When Mr. Hogan demanded to know why the officers were in his house, Officer Miller

said that they would leave as soon as they checked that Mr. Hogan was all right.

62. Mr. Hogan advised them that he was indeed all right, and insisted again that they were

violating his constitutional rights and that they should leave, but the officers remained.

63. Lt. Orchulli repeatedly cursed at Mr. Hogan and treated him in a demeaning manner.

64. At each turn, Defendant officers, acting with deliberate indifference, heightened the level

of confrontation and escalated the tension.

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 11 of 28
12

65. Mr. Hogan at various times asked the police to let him speak with his cousin, police

officer Buddy Shull, and he also asked to be able to speak with his lawyer, Theresa Hogan; Ms. Hogan

is a fifteen (15) year veteran legal practitioner in the City of Easton, who was known to the Defendants.

66. Defendant officers, acting with deliberate indifference, refused to utilize these peaceful

mechanisms for resolving the stand-off they had created, and instead isolated Mr. Hogan from his

private sources of aid.

67. Defendants further escalated the situation, contrary to accepted police practices and

contrary to Plaintiffs’ constitutional and federal statutory rights, as Defendant Orchulli and Defendant

Mazzeo activated Defendant City’s SWAT team.

68. At or about the same time, Defendants Mazzeo, Parkansky, Beitler, Marraccini,

Remaley, and Casterline, along with other police officers, improperly and unconstitutionally entered and

remained on the Plaintiffs’ property despite Mr. Hogan’s insistence that the police leave.

69. Mr. Hogan, continuing his desperate efforts to avoid a confrontation with police and in

desperate fear of harm to himself, told the officers that if they could just tell him what he did wrong he

would come upstairs, and that, if he did not do anything wrong, they should leave.

70. The officers acknowledged that Mr. Hogan had not done anything wrong but that they

were nonetheless not going to leave his house.

71. Mr. Hogan could hear the officers engaging in loud destructive action above the

basement, which turned out to be their removal of the basement door from its hinges and the moving of

his furniture.

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 12 of 28
13

72. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct, including their reckless actions and inactions,

Mr. Hogan’s emotional state decomposed.

73. Mr. Hogan felt trapped and was severely fearful of the police officers surrounding him.

74. Mr. Hogan felt like a cornered animal.

75. Mr. Hogan became increasingly despondent about the situation, and the Defendant

officers knew and/or reasonably should have known of his deteriorating emotional state. 

76. As Defendant officers were aware, Mr. Hogan had a shotgun in his basement, which he

picked up in self-defense.

77. For approximately an hour and a half, Defendants Miller and Orchulli communicated

with Mr. Hogan, under the supervision of Defendant Parkansky.

78. As a result of the despondency and feelings of desperation brought on by Defendants’

actions and inactions, Mr. Hogan announced that he was going to count down and that if the police did

not leave, something bad would happen; he counted down, but the police did not leave.

79. In frustration that the Defendant Officers would not leave his home although they had

confirmed that Mr. Hogan had done nothing wrong, and out of continuing fear that he would be harmed

by the officers, Mr. Hogan counted down again, and this time when he got to zero and the police had

not left, Mr. Hogan fired one lone shot of birdshot into the basement wall; Mr. Hogan neither intended

to cause any harm nor did he cause any harm.

80. Defendant officers, acting like they believed that Mr. Hogan may have shot himself,

called out to him to determine whether he had done so.

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 13 of 28
14

81. Mr. Hogan immediately realized that he had erred in firing his weapon, and after a

period of silence, told the police that he was all right and that he had not meant to do what he had done.

82. At all relevant times, Defendant officers knew and/or should have known that Mr.

Hogan was not a viable threat to them and they made it clear to Mr. Hogan that they did not consider

him to be a viable threat. 

83. Defendant officers continued to escalate the tension and advised Mr. Hogan that, even

though they might have been able to leave, they were not going to leave. 

84. The officers said that if Mr. Hogan put his gun down they would let him talk to his

cousin, police officer Buddy Shull.

85. Mr. Hogan complied, but the officers reneged on their promise, refusing Mr. Hogan the

opportunity to speak with Mr. Shull.

86. Defendants’ conduct caused Mr. Hogan’s mental state to decompose further.

87. Mr. Hogan released water from the steam boiler in his basement and told the police that

he had turned the gas on and that if they shot at him they would cause the house to blow up.

88. The police had officers outside Mr. Hogan’s basement windows, who could see that he

was releasing water, not gas, into the basement.

89. Mr. Hogan never intended to harm the officers and never attempted to harm the

officers.

90. Mr. Hogan was exhausted and wanted the confrontation to end.

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 14 of 28
15

91. As confirmed by the current Chief of Police, Steven Mazzeo, who was then a

Lieutenant, Officer Miller instructed Mr. Hogan to come to the top of the steps, lay down his weapon

on the landing, and surrender.

92. Eventually there was a prolonged period during which Mr. Hogan could not hear any

noises on the floor above him, and he believed that the officers were no longer in the immediate vicinity

of the landing at the top of his basement steps and that it was now safe for him to surrender without

being harmed.

93. He disarmed his weapon, and in an attempt to demonstrate that it was unloaded and

could not be fired, and therefore was not a threat, Mr. Hogan pulled the bolt back and the lever down.

94. Mr. Hogan climbed the steps and arrived on the landing at the top of the steps in a nonthreatening manner intending to fully surrender to the police.

95. As he bent over to surrender his complete safe weapon by placing it down on the floor,

Defendants Orchulli, Remaley, Marraccini, Beitler and Casterline, without providing any warning,

opened fire on Mr. Hogan, firing at least 14 shots.

96. Because the officers were positioned at opposite ends of the house targeting Mr.

Hogan in the middle, when some of their shots missed Mr. Hogan they ricocheted in the direction of the

officers on the other side of the house.

97. After at least one of the Defendant officers fired live rounds at Mr. Hogan, Defendant

Casterline fired an allegedly non-lethal weapon that filled the house with smoke, making it impossible

for the officers to see that Mr. Hogan had already been hit.

98. Nonetheless, the officers continued to fire on Mr. Hogan.

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 15 of 28
16

99. Defendant officers’ shots hit Mr. Hogan in his stomach, his right hand, and his left wrist,

causing an arterial bleed. 

100. With Mr. Hogan laying on the floor, the officers yelled, “don’t move!” and “show us

your hands!”

101. Defendant Mazzeo came over to where Mr. Hogan laid bleeding on the floor and

stepped on Mr. Hogan’s wrist, crushing his wrist, making an audible crunch, and causing Mr. Hogan to

pass out momentarily. Mr. Hogan regained consciousness when the officers hand-cuffed and dragged

him across the floor to the next room.

102. Defendant officers then left Mr. Hogan to die on the floor.

103. Defendant officers did not attend to Mr. Hogan’s wounds. 

104. Instead, Mr. Hogan’s cousin Buddy Shull entered the residence and attempted to stop

Mr. Hogan’s bleeding.

105. Despite activating SWAT, Defendants did not have an ambulance immediately available

at Plaintiffs’ residence, which caused a delay in getting Mr. Hogan the immediate medical attention he

required. 

106. Ultimately, Mr. Hogan had to be evacuated via helicopter to a trauma unit.

107. Mr. Hogan spent approximately eight (8) days in the hospital, followed by

approximately five (5) months recuperating at home.

108. At all relevant times, Defendants knew and/or should have known that Mr. Hogan had

serious mental and emotional health problems.

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 16 of 28
17

109. Nonetheless, Defendants created and/or substantially increased the risk of harm to Mr.

Hogan.

110. Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Mr. Hogan’s serious medical needs

and significantly restricted his freedom to act on his own behalf.

111. Defendants have acted with malice and/or callous indifference toward Plaintiffs’ federal

constitutional and statutory rights.

112. At all times during the events described above each of the Defendant officers agreed

with and assisted each of the other officers in performing the various actions described and lent their

support and the authority of their office to each other during said events.

113. Defendants each advised, assisted, ratified and/or directed the actions taken against

Mr. Hogan.

114. Each of the Defendant officers played a substantial role and provided input which

affected the adverse actions against Plaintiffs.

115. Defendant officers used unnecessary, unreasonable and excessive force against Mr.

Hogan.

116. Defendants’ conduct shocks the conscience.

117. Defendants acted with malice and/or deliberate indifference toward Plaintiffs and their

federal rights.

118. Mr. Hogan’s serious life-threatening injuries were a foreseeable and direct result of

Defendants’ actions and inactions.

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 17 of 28
18

119. Defendants violated the Plaintiffs’ clearly established and well settled federal

constitutional rights, including but not limited to the right to liberty, and personal security, the right to be

free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to be free from the use of excessive,

unreasonable and unjustified force.

120. Mr. Hogan’s constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of Defendants’

actions.

121. City of Easton police officers, including those named as defendants herein, have a

pattern and practice of using unreasonable and excessive force and violating the civil rights of those with

whom they come into contact.

122. Defendants City, Goldsmith, Palmer, Mazzeo, Orchulli and Parkansky have, with

deliberate indifference, failed to adequately train, supervise and discipline their officers to prevent civil

rights violations within the City, and the injuries to Plaintiffs were caused by, and were a foreseeable

consequence of, such failures.

123. Defendants City, Goldsmith, Palmer, Mazzeo, Orchulli and Parkansky have, with

deliberate indifference, failed to adequately train and supervise their officers concerning the proper way

to respond to a report of a domestic disturbance, and the injuries to Plaintiffs were caused by, and were

a foreseeable consequence of, such failures.

124. Defendants City, Goldsmith, Palmer, Mazzeo, Orchulli and Parkansky have, with

deliberate indifference, failed to adequately train and supervise their officers concerning the proper use

of K-9 units, and the injuries to Plaintiffs were caused by, and were a foreseeable consequence of, such

failures.

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 18 of 28
19

125. Defendants City, Goldsmith, Palmer, Mazzeo, Orchulli and Parkansky have, with

deliberate indifference, failed to adequately train and supervise their officers concerning the proper use

of police vehicle emergency lights, and the injuries to Plaintiffs were caused by, and were a foreseeable

consequence of, such failures.

126. Defendants City, Goldsmith, Palmer, Mazzeo, Orchulli and Parkansky have, with

deliberate indifference, failed to adequately train and supervise their officers concerning the proper use

of negotiators, and the injuries to Plaintiffs were caused by, and were a foreseeable consequence of,

such failures.

127. Defendants City, Goldsmith, Palmer, Mazzeo, Orchulli and Parkansky have, with

deliberate indifference, failed to adequately train and supervise their officers concerning the proper way

to respond calls involving emotionally disturbed persons, and the injuries to Plaintiffs were caused by,

and were a foreseeable consequence of, such failures.

128. Defendants City, Goldsmith, Palmer, Mazzeo, Orchulli and Parkansky have, with

deliberate indifference, failed to adequately train and supervise their officers concerning the proper way

to handle a barricaded gunman situation, and the injuries to Plaintiffs were caused by, and were a

foreseeable consequence of, such failures.

129. Defendants City, Goldsmith, Palmer, Mazzeo, Orchulli and Parkansky have, with

deliberate indifference, failed to adequately train and supervise their officers concerning the proper

activation and use of SWAT, and the injuries to Plaintiffs were caused by, and were a foreseeable

consequence of, such failures.

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 19 of 28
20

130. Defendants City, Goldsmith, Palmer, Mazzeo, Orchulli and Parkansky have, with

deliberate indifference, failed to adequately train and supervise their officers concerning the proper use

of force and deadly force, and the injuries to Plaintiffs were caused by, and were a foreseeable

consequence of, such failures.

131. Defendants City, Goldsmith, Palmer, Mazzeo, Orchulli and Parkansky have, with

deliberate indifference, failed to adequately train and supervise their officers concerning the proper use

of firearms in a setting with poor visibility, and the injuries to Plaintiffs were caused by, and were a

foreseeable consequence of, such failures.

132. Defendants City, Goldsmith, Palmer, Mazzeo, Orchulli and Parkansky have, with

deliberate indifference, failed to adequately train and supervise their officers concerning the proper

provision of medical care to injured suspects, and the injuries to Plaintiffs were caused by, and were a

foreseeable consequence of, such failures.

133. Defendants Goldsmith, Palmer and Mazzeo, Orchulli and Parkansky knew and/or

reasonably should have known that they and the City had provided inadequate training, supervision and

discipline to Defendant officers, and that this failure of training, supervision and discipline was likely to

result in the constitutional and statutory violations that caused Mr. Hogan’s injuries.

134. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' unlawful and discriminatory actions

and inactions against Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs have suffered grievously and needlessly.

135. Defendants’ actions and inactions have caused Mr. Hogan permanent disabling and

disfiguring injuries.

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 20 of 28
21

136. Defendants’ actions and inactions have caused Michael Hogan and Ann Hogan

extreme emotional distress.

137. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' actions and inactions as alleged,

Michael and Ann Hogan have experienced extreme mental and physical pain and suffering, the loss of

liberty, the loss of their ability to enjoy the pleasures of life.

138. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions and inactions, Mr. Hogan has

lost earnings and earning capacity and he has lost the ability to provide services and earnings to his

family.

139. Plaintiffs suffered damage to their real and personal property and other incidental

damages as a result of Defendants’ actions and inactions.

140. Also as a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs were forced to incur significant

medical expenses.

141. As a further result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff Ann Hogan has suffered a loss of

consortium, including a loss of Michael Hogan’s services, contributions, society, comfort and

companionship.

COUNT I - VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

DEFENDANTS CITY OF EASTON AND NORTHAMPTON COUNTY

142. The allegations of all the preceding and subsequent sections and paragraphs of this

Complaint are realleged herein as if fully set forth.

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 21 of 28
22

143. Mr. Hogan was at all relevant times, a person with a disability, as such term is defined

by the Americans with Disabilities Act, in that he had a significant impairment of one or more major life

functions, had a record of being so impaired, and/or was regarded by Defendants as being so impaired.

144. As reflected in the actions taken against Mr. Hogan, it was the policy and custom of the

City of Easton and Northampton County to discriminate against and fail to accommodate persons with

disabilities, including emotionally disturbed persons.

145. Prior to the events described herein, the City of Easton and Northampton County

developed and maintained policies and/or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the rights of

persons with disabilities, including the rights of emotionally disturbed persons, which caused the

violation of Mr. Hogan’s rights.

146. It was the policy and/or custom of the City of Easton to inadequately and improperly

supervise police interactions with emotionally disturbed persons. 

147. It was the policy and/or custom of the City of Easton and Northampton County to

inadequately supervise and train its officials, including those identified herein, thereby failing to

adequately prevent violations of the rights of people with disabilities including the rights of emotionally

disturbed persons, such as Mr. Hogan.

148. The City and County did not require appropriate in-service training and/or re-training of

officials concerning the rights of people with disabilities, including the rights of emotionally disturbed

persons.

149. Defendants City and County violated Michael Hogan’s federally guaranteed right to be

free from discrimination on the basis of disability by failing to make reasonable modifications to their

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 22 of 28
23

policies, practices and procedures to ensure that his needs as an individual with a disability would be

met.

150. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiffs were injured as stated herein.

COUNT II - VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983

DEFENDANT CITY OF EASTON

151. The allegations of all the preceding and subsequent sections and paragraphs of this

Complaint are realleged herein as if fully set forth.

152. The decisions and actions of the officials of the City of Easton as set forth herein

represented and constituted the official policy and/or customs of the City of Easton.

153. As reflected in the actions taken against Mr. Hogan, it was the policy, practice and/or

custom of the City of Easton to use excessive force against people within the City.

154. Prior to the events described herein, the City of Easton developed and maintained

policies, practices and/or customs exhibiting deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of

persons within the City, which caused the violation of Mr. Hogan’s rights.

155. It was the policy and/or custom of the City of Easton to inadequately and improperly

investigate citizen complaints of constitutional violations by city officials, and such violations were

instead tolerated by the City.

156. It was the policy, practice and/or custom of the City of Easton to inadequately

supervise and train its officials, including those identified herein, thereby failing to adequately prevent

and discourage further civil rights violations on the part of its officials. 

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 23 of 28
24

157. The City did not require appropriate in-service training or re-training of officials who

were known to have engaged in civil rights violations.

158. As a result of the policies, practices and/or customs of the City, including those

identified above, City officials, including those named herein, believed that their unconstitutional and

unlawful actions would not be investigated or censured, but would be tolerated. 

159. The City’s policies, practices and customs demonstrate a deliberate indifference on the

part of policymakers of the City of Easton -- including Defendants Goldsmith and Palmer -- to the

constitutional rights of persons within the City, and were the cause of the violations of Plaintiffs’ rights as

alleged herein.

160. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiffs were injured as stated herein.

COUNT III - 42 U.S.C. 1983

DEFENDANTS GOLDSMITH, PALMER, MAZZEO, ORCHULLI AND PARKANSKY

161. The allegations of all the preceding and subsequent sections and paragraphs of this

Complaint are realleged herein as if fully set forth.

162. Defendants Goldsmith, Palmer, Mazzeo, Orchulli and Parkansky inadequately

supervised and trained the City’s police officers, including those identified herein, thereby failing to

adequately prevent and discourage civil rights violations on the part of its officials. 

163. Defendants Goldsmith, Palmer, Mazzeo, Orchulli and Parkansky acted with deliberate

indifference to the constitutional rights of persons within the City, and were the cause of the violations of

Plaintiffs’ rights as alleged herein.

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 24 of 28
25

164. Defendants Goldsmith, Palmer, Mazzeo, Orchulli and Parkansky failed to adequately

and properly investigate citizen complaints of constitutional violations by city officials, and such

violations were instead tolerated.

165. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiffs were injured as stated herein.

COUNT IV - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

VIOLATION OF FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS

DEFENDANTS HERNCANE, MILLER, SMITH, ORCHULLI, MAZZEO, BEITLER,

MARRACCINI, REMALEY, CASTERLINE AND PARKANSKY

166. The allegations of all the preceding and subsequent sections and paragraphs of this

Complaint are realleged herein as if fully set forth.

167. Defendants Herncane, Miller, Smith, Orchulli, Mazzeo, Beitler, Marraccini, Remaley,

Casterline, and Parkansky, acting in concert under color of law, denied Michael Hogan and Ann Hogan

their rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, including their right to be

free from unreasonable searches and seizures, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended,

42 U.S.C. § 1983.

168. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiffs were injured as stated herein.

COUNT V - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - UNREASONABLE USE OF FORCE

VIOLATION OF FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS

DEFENDANTS HERNCANE, MILLER, SMITH, ORCHULLI, MAZZEO, BEITLER,

MARRACCINI, REMALEY, CASTERLINE, AND PARKANSKY

169. The allegations of all the preceding and subsequent sections and paragraphs of this

Complaint are realleged herein as if fully set forth.

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 25 of 28
26

170. Defendants Herncane, Miller, Smith, Orchulli, Mazzeo, Beitler, Marraccini, Remaley,

Casterline, and Parkansky, acting in concert under color of law, denied Mr. Hogan his rights under the

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, including his right to be free from the use of

excessive force, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

171. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiffs were injured as stated herein.

COUNT VI - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

VIOLATION OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS

DEFENDANTS HERNCANE, MILLER, SMITH, ORCHULLI, MAZZEO, BEITLER,

MARRACCINI, REMALEY, CASTERLINE, AND PARKANSKY

172. The allegations of all the preceding and subsequent sections and paragraphs of this

Complaint are realleged herein as if fully set forth.

173. Defendants Herncane, Miller, Smith, Orchulli, Mazzeo, Beitler, Marraccini, Remaley,

Casterline, and Parkansky, acting in concert under color of law, denied Mr. Hogan his rights under the

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, including his right to personal security and to

be free from arbitrary government action that shocks the conscience, in violation of the Civil Rights Act

of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

174. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiffs were injured as stated herein.

COUNT VII - 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - ABUSE OF PROCESS

VIOLATION OF FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS

DEFENDANTS ORCHULLI & SMITH

175. The allegations of all the preceding and subsequent sections and paragraphs of this

Complaint are realleged herein as if fully set forth.

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 26 of 28
27

176. Defendants Orchulli and Smith have instituted civil litigation against Mr. Hogan in the

Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Pennsylvania.

177. Defendants Orchulli and Smith have employed legal process against Mr. Hogan for

unlawful purposes, including to harm and intimidate Mr. Hogan and to keep him from vindicating his

federal civil rights.

178. Defendants Orchulli and Smith have used legal process against Mr. Hogan primarily to

accomplish a purpose for which such process was not designed.

179. Defendants Orchulli and Smith have violated Mr. Hogan’s rights under the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution, including his right to be free from abuse of process, in

violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

180. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff Michael Hogan has been injured as stated

herein, and as suffered added emotional distress and incurred legal expenses to defend himself against

Defendant Orchulli and Smith’s improper legal action.

REQUESTED RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court find and determine, after trial by jury as

appropriate, that Plaintiffs have suffered substantial and continuing injury as a result of deprivation of

their civil and Constitutional rights, discrimination, and otherwise wrongful conduct and award the

following relief, as appropriate:

(a) a declaration that Defendants have violated Plaintiffs’ civil rights;

(b) compensatory damages in excess of $150,000;

(c) prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs;

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 27 of 28
28

(d) punitive damages against the individual defendants in their individual capacities;

(e) such other legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Date: February 23, 2004 

JORDAN B. YEAGER

Attorney I.D. No. 72947

BOOCKVAR & YEAGER

8 West Oakland Avenue

Doylestown, PA 18901

215-345-8581

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case 2:04-cv-00759-TR Document 1 Filed 02/23/2004 Page 28 of 28