IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

QUEEN CARNEY, individually and as : CIVIL ACTION

Administrator of Estate of Edward Pickens :

and : NO. 05-5321

MALIK SEAN PICKENS and JAMAR :

EDWARD PICKENS, by their legal :

guardian, CHALETTE ROLAND, and :

CHALETTE ROLAND, individually and in :

her own right :

and :

EMMANUEL SIDNEY by his legal :

guardian, SARAH SIDNEY, and SARAH :

SIDNEY, individually and in her own :

right, :

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA :

PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT :

OFFICER JOHN RAMIREZ, :

Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM

BUCKWALTER, S. J. August 8, 2007

Presently before the Court is Defendants’, City of Philadelphia (“City”) and

Officer John Ramirez, Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 15) and Plaintiffs’ Response

(Docket No. 17) thereto. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment will be granted.

Case 2:05-cv-05321-RB Document 19 Filed 08/08/07 Page 1 of 14
1. The following abbreviations will be used to cite to the various Exhibits submitted to the court:

Officer Ramirez’s Deposition - ORD.

Officer Wolf’s Deposition - OWD.

Officer Candelaria’s Deposition - OCD.

Leroy Willis’ Deposition - LWD.

2

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On Sunday, August, 3, 2003, the Narcotics Strike Force (“NSF”) of the

Philadelphia Police Department was conducting surveillance outside of 1147 South Ruby Street

for suspected illicit narcotics sales. (Defendants’ Ex. E at 5) . 

1

At approximately 10:05 p.m., Officer Daniel Brooks observed the Decedent,

Edward Pickens (“Decedent”), entering and then leaving the Ruby Street location. (Defendants’

Ex. E at 5). Officer Brooks suspected the Decedent of making an illegal narcotics transaction

and radioed a description of the Decedent to Officers John Ramirez and Jose Candelaria. Id. 

Officers Ramirez and Candelaria were in police uniform and in a marked police vehicle when

they received the radio description of the Decedent. (ORD at 71 ln. 8 and at 61 ln. 16; OWD at

28 ln. 6-8). After the Decedent exited the Ruby Street location, Officer Brooks’ partner, Officer

Mark Wolf, began to follow the Decedent in his unmarked police vehicle. (OWD at 33 ln. 9-10).

Upon receiving the radio description, Officers Ramirez and Candelaria soon

observed the Decedent a few blocks from Ruby Street. (OCD at 36 ln. 17-21). Officer Wolf

drove by Officers Ramirez and Candelaria and radioed them that the individual coming towards

them was the person suspected of the illegal narcotics transaction. (ORD at 61 ln. 16-19). 

In an effort to give an accurate accounting of the events leading up to the

Decedent’s death, the facts below have been separated to give each witnesses’ recollection of the

events that transpired that night.

Case 2:05-cv-05321-RB Document 19 Filed 08/08/07 Page 2 of 14
3

A. Officer Ramirez’s Account

After receiving radio confirmation from Officer Wolf, Officer Ramirez, who was

driving, stopped and exited the vehicle with Officer Candelaria. (ORD at 62 ln. 12-14). Officer

Candelaria was the first to approach the Decedent. (ORD at 62 ln. 22). Officer Ramirez heard

Officer Candelaria say to the decedent “Yo, my man, come here.” (ORD at 62 ln. 16-17). 

Officer Candelaria put his hand on the Decedent’s shoulder and the Decedent turned towards

Officer Candelaria with his gun pointed and fired. (ORD at 62-63 ln. 22, 3-5). Officer

Candelaria fell. (ORD at 63 ln. 5-6). 

After Officer Candelaria fell the Decedent began to run. (ORD at 63 ln. 6-7) 

Officer Ramirez began to run after the Decedent drawing his gun and telling the Decedent

“police, drop the gun, drop the gun, drop the fucking gun.” (ORD at 63 ln. 7-9). While running,

the Decedent had is hand extended holding his weapon and attempting to fire at Officer Ramirez. 

(ORD at 63 ln. 9-11, 22-23). Officer Ramirez fired at the Decedent but missed because the

Decedent had ducked. (ORD at 64 ln. 8). Upon ducking, the Decedent came up quickly with his

gun pointed at Officer Ramirez, at which time Officer Ramirez fired a second shot at the

Decedent. (ORD at 64 ln. 8-12). The Decedent fell to the ground, and Officer Ramirez told him

to drop his gun. (ORD at 92-93 ln. 19, 3). Officer Ramirez did not realize at first that he had hit

the Decedent and Officer Candelaria kicked the Decedent’s gun away from him. (ORD at 93 ln.

5-15). Next, Officers Candelaria and Ramirez exchanged comments and determined that they

were both not injured. (ORD at 93 ln. 18-21). After this exchange, Officer Ramirez went over to

the radio and communicated that shots had been fired and that a supervisor and rescue were

needed. (ORD at 93-94 ln. 24, 1-2). 

Case 2:05-cv-05321-RB Document 19 Filed 08/08/07 Page 3 of 14
2. Initially, Officer Ramirez thought Officer Candelaria had been wounded as evidenced by Officer Ramirez’s

statement that Danny had been shot. Officer Candelaria’s middle name is Danny. (OCD at 63 ln. 15-18). 

4

B. Officer Candelaria’s Account

After Officers Ramirez and Candelaria received the radio communication, Officer

Candelaria approached the Decedent and asked Officer Ramirez, about an unrelated address in an

effort to throw off the Decedent’s suspicion that the Officers were interested in him. (OCD at 40

ln. 14-15). Officer Candelaria said to Officer Ramirez “what’s that address again.” (OCD at 40

ln. 15-16). Then Officer Candelaria grabbed the Decedent from either the side or behind, and

the Decedent turned and put his gun on Officer Candelaria. (OCD at 40 ln. 21-24). The

Decedent told Officer Candelaria to get off of him and then fired his weapon, at which point

Officer Candelaria tripped on nearby steps and fell. (OCD at 40-41 ln. 24-1; 44 ln. 3-7). Officer

Candelaria pulled his gun and saw the Decedent running and pointing his gun at Officer Ramirez

as Officer Ramirez ran after the Decedent. (OCD at 46-47 ln. 19, 3-6). Officer Candelaria

cannot recall whether or not Officer Ramirez said anything to the Decedent while Officer

Ramirez and the Decedent were running. (OCD at 51 ln. 12-18). As Officer Ramirez was

running he fired at the Decedent, the Decedent ducked and came up with his gun pointed again at

Officer Ramirez and Officer Ramirez fired a second shot. (OCD at 47 ln. 5-10). The Decedent

fell after the second shot and Officer Candelaria approached the Decedent and ordered the

Decedent to drop his gun. (OCD at 62 ln. 3-6). The Decedent complied. (OCD at 62 ln. 15-16). 

Officer Ramirez was very upset and he said “shots were fired , they got Danny, shot Danny.” 

(OCD at 63 ln. 10-13). Officer Wolf was the first person on the scene after the incident, and 2

Case 2:05-cv-05321-RB Document 19 Filed 08/08/07 Page 4 of 14
3. Mr. Willis had just received a phone call from his step daughter saying she was on her way home from work and

was about two blocks away and could Mr. Willis open the front door for her because she had forgotten her key at

home. (LWD at 17 ln. 20-24).

5

shortly thereafter Sergeant McCloskey arrived and checked Officer Ramirez’s weapon. (OCD at

64-65 ln. 19-22, 19-24). 

C. Officer Wolf’s Account

After the Decedent left the Ruby Street location Officer Wolf began following the

Decedent. (OWD at 36 ln. 19-20). Officer Wolf radioed a description of the Decedent and the

Decedent’s location and Officers Ramirez and Candelaria were the first to arrive at the location. 

(OWD at 39 ln. 1-3). Officer Wolf observed Officers Ramirez and Candelaria exit their vehicle. 

(OWD at 42 ln. 1). As Officer Wolf passed the Decedent, he saw the Decedent with his right

hand down in his waistband area. (OWD at 42 ln. 11-13). Next, Officer Wolf heard a shot. 

(OWD at 42 ln. 13). Officer Wolf did not see the first shot of the evening. (OWD at 49 ln. 12-

19). Officer Wolf made a u-turn and saw the Decedent with his gun drawn and Officers Ramirez

and Candelaria approaching the Decedent. (OWD at 53 ln. 16-22). Officer Wolf then saw

Officer Ramirez fire two shots and the Decedent fall. (OWD at 42 ln. 21-22). Officer Wolf then

pulled up to the Decedent and saw Officer Candelaria remove a black handgun from the

Decedent’s right hand. (OWD at 61 ln. 5-7). Officer Wolf remembers a supervisor being called

to the scene and some other notifications being made. (OWD at 61 ln. 12-13). 

D. Independent Witness’ Account

Mr. Leroy Willis was drawn to his bedroom window when he heard a vehicle pull

up and skid and a person say “hold it right there.”(LWD at 18 ln. 5-8). Prior to reaching the 3

window, Mr. Willis heard three gunshots fired. (LWD at 27 ln. 20-21). The cadence of the shots

Case 2:05-cv-05321-RB Document 19 Filed 08/08/07 Page 5 of 14
4. Mr. Willis told his wife to call 9-1-1, but he is not sure if she did because they saw a uniformed female police

officer on the scene when they opened their front door and thus assumed help had already been called. (LWD at 31

ln. 7-14). 

6

fired was ‘pow’ slight pause and then ‘pow’ ‘pow,’ i.e. the second two shots were closer

together. (LWD at 30 ln. 5-12). At this point, Mr. Willis looked out the window and saw a man

behind a jeep door holding a gun. (LWD at 24 ln. 20-25). The man was not in police uniform

and his car was not a marked police vehicle. (LWD at 42-43 ln. 24-25, 2-4). Next, Mr. Willis

observed that same man bang on the hood of the jeep saying “mother fucker, mother fucker,

mother fucker, mother fucker” approximately four times. (LWD at 26 ln. 6-9). Mr. Willis then

ran down the stairs of his home to the front door. (LWD at 27 ln. 23-24). Once Mr. Willis 4

reached his front door he saw a female police officer running down the street towards his home

and the gentleman holding the gun by the jeep. (LWD at 31-32 ln. 9-21, 8-10). Upon reaching

the front door, Mr. Willis observed the Decedent laying on the pavement. (LWD at 39 ln. 10-

12). Mr. Willis did not initially see a gun laying near the Decedent’s person, but later he did see

the gun laying next to the Decedent. (LWD at 47 ln. 5-16).

E. Forensic Examination Evidence

A forensic firearms examination revealed that the 9MM handgun recovered from

the Decedent at the scene had been fired one time. (Defendants’ Ex. E at 6). The spent 9MM

cartridge casing did not clear the breech, jamming the weapon, and preventing the Decedent from

discharging a second round. (Defendants’ Ex. E at 6). Further, forensic examination revealed

the presence of gunpowder particles on the front of Officer Candelaria’s police uniform shirt. 

(Defendants’ Ex. E at 6). 

F. Procedural History

Case 2:05-cv-05321-RB Document 19 Filed 08/08/07 Page 6 of 14
7

On or about September 19, 2005, this action was filed in the Court of Common

Pleas for Philadelphia County. On October 11, 2005, this case was removed to the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On January 1, 2007, the Defendants filed

a motion for summary judgment claiming that Officer Ramirez is entitled to qualified immunity

and that insufficient evidence had been alleged to support a finding of municipal liability against

the City. The Plaintiffs filed their response motion stating that summary judgment should be

denied because there are genuine issues of material fact.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion for summary judgment will be granted where all of the evidence

demonstrates “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the nonmoving party

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 ©. A dispute about a material fact

is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving

party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Since a grant of summary

judgment will deny a party its chance in court, all inferences must be drawn in the light most

favorable to the party opposing the motion. U.S. v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962).

The ultimate question in determining whether a motion for summary judgment

should be granted is “whether reasonable minds may differ as to the verdict.” Schoonejongen v.

Curtiss-Wright Corp., 143 F.3d 120, 129 (3d Cir. 1998). “Only disputes over facts that might

affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of

summary judgment.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.

Case 2:05-cv-05321-RB Document 19 Filed 08/08/07 Page 7 of 14
8

III. DISCUSSION

In accordance with the standard for granting summary judgment, the Court will

draw the following inferences in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs: Officers Ramirez and

Candelaria were not in police uniform; Officers Ramirez and Candelaria were in an unmarked

police vehicle; and Officers Ramirez and Candelaria failed to identify themselves as police

officers.

A. Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity is “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to

liability,” and therefore, claims of immunity should be resolved at the earliest possible stage in

the litigation. Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224, 227 (1991) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S.

511,, 526 (1985)). Resolving qualified immunity is a two step process. Saucier v. Katz, 533

U.S. 194, 200 (2001). Initially, the Court must determine whether “the facts alleged, [when]

viewed in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, show that the officer’s

conduct violated a constitutional right.” Curley v. Klem, 298 F.3d 271, 277 (3d Cir. 2002)

(citing Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201). If no constitutional right has been violated then there is no

need for further inquiry. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. However, if the facts alleged do demonstrate

that a constitutional right has been violated, then the Court must determine whether the right

asserted was “clearly established” at the time of the officer’s unlawful conduct. Id. at 201. “The

relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it

would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he

confronted.” Id. at 202. This second inquiry “must be undertaken in light of the case’s specific

context, not as a broad general proposition.” Id. at 201.

Case 2:05-cv-05321-RB Document 19 Filed 08/08/07 Page 8 of 14
9

In the instant case, the Plaintiffs filed suit against Officer Ramirez under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Decedent’s constitutional rights. In response,

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on an assertion of qualified immunity for

Officer Ramirez’s use of deadly force. Officer Ramirez does not contest that he violated the

Decedent’s constitutional rights. Rather, Officer Ramirez asserts that he is entitled to qualified

immunity because he acted as a reasonable Officer under the circumstances he confronted.

Even assuming the Decedent’s constitutional rights were violated and viewing the

facts in a light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the evidence shows that Officer Ramirez saw

Officer Candelaria get shot at and the Decedent, still holding and aiming his gun, begin to run

down the street. It is important to note that the independent witness, Leroy Willis, did not see

any of the shots fired. Rather, Mr. Willis heard three shots fired and the cadence of the shots, is

consistent with the Officers’ account of the events. Both Officers Ramirez and Candelaria stated

that the Decedent fired first at Officer Candelaria and then, Officer Ramirez, in an effort to

apprehend the Decedent, fired one shot which missed and quickly fired a second shot which hit

the Decedent. Additionally, Officer Wolf’s observations of the Decedent’s hand in his

waistband, hearing the initial shot fired, and seeing Officer Ramirez fire two shots quickly, are

consistent with all the accounts.

Furthermore, the forensic firearm examination is objective evidence which

supports Officer Ramirez’s account of the events. The gun removed from the Decedent at the

scene was analyzed and was determined to have jammed, making it impossible for the Decedent

to have fired his weapon a second time. In addition, the gunpowder residue found on Officer

Case 2:05-cv-05321-RB Document 19 Filed 08/08/07 Page 9 of 14
10

Candelaria’s shirt is consistent with the Officers’ accounts that the Decedent fired at Officer

Candelaria.

This Court finds it reasonable for an assisting officer, who has witnessed his

partner being shot at and the person, the Decedent, who shot at his partner begin to run down the

street still holding the gun and attempting to fire it again, to pursue and use deadly force if

necessary to apprehend the suspect. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11 (1985) (quoting

“Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious

physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent

escape by using deadly force.”). Therefore, even when viewed in the light most favorable to

Plaintiffs, it was objectively reasonable under the particular circumstances of this case for Officer

Ramirez to believe his assistance, including the use of deadly force, was lawful. Accordingly,

this Court holds that Officer Ramirez is entitled to qualified immunity.

B. Municipal Liability

For a municipality to be held liable for damages under § 1983, a plaintiff must

demonstrate that the municipality itself has a policy or custom that resulted in a violation of the

plaintiff’s constitutional rights; a municipality cannot be held liable under a theory of respondeat

superior or vicarious liability. Monell .v Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 690-691

(1978). “Policy is made when a ‘decisionmaker possess[ing] final authority to establish

municipal policy with respect to the action’ issues an official proclamation, policy, or edict.” 

Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1480 (3d Cir. 1990) (citing Prembaur v. City of

Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 481 (1986)). A custom can be established by showing a course of

conduct that is “permanent and well settled.” Monell, 436 U.S. at 691. Additionally, when a

Case 2:05-cv-05321-RB Document 19 Filed 08/08/07 Page 10 of 14
11

plaintiff alleges municipal liability under § 1983 based on a custom of failing to train the police

properly a plaintiff must demonstrate that the city was “deliberately indifferent” to the rights of

persons with whom the police come into contact. City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 389

(1989). Once established, the plaintiff is required to show that the municipality’s custom caused

his injury. Berg v. Allegheny County, 219 F.3d 261, 276 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Board of County

Comm’rs of Bryan County v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997)). 

In asserting that the City is liable for the Decedent’s death, Plaintiffs state that

all activities by any alleged defendant were carried out in

furtherance of and in the scope of alleged authority under

color of law and the defendants, City of Philadelphia and

Philadelphia Police Department, did do and perform or fail to

perform the following acts: a. failing to reprimand and/or

discharge or otherwise discipline police officers found to have

engaged in violent and unlawful conduct; b. failing to warn

police officers to avoid violent and unlawful conduct or to

instruct them on techniques devised to do so; c. deliberate

indifference to constitutionally offensive acts carried out

within the Philadelphia Police Department; d. authorizing

either intentionally or tacitly, constitutionally offensive acts;

e. fostering violent and unlawful conduct of police officers by

providing legal counsel to officers alleged to have committed

violent and unlawful acts, and paying monies in satisfaction

of judgments rendered against Philadelphia Police Officers;

and f. failing to enforce existing standards relating to

procedures for investigation, custody, detention and arrest. 

Plaintiff’s Complaint ¶18. The above allegations are unsupported by evidence in the record. 

Quiroga v. Hasboro, Inc., 934 F.2d 497, 500 (3d Cir. 1991) (stating “Quiroga must set forth

specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial and may not rest upon mere allegations, general

denials, or such vague statements ....”). As the Plaintiffs have put forth no other evidence, than

the circumstances of this case, that a custom or policy is maintained by the City that violates a

Case 2:05-cv-05321-RB Document 19 Filed 08/08/07 Page 11 of 14
12

person’s constitutional rights, there is insufficient evidence to establish municipal liability. 

Henderson v. City of Philadelphia, No. 98-3861, 1999 WL 482305, at *22 (E.D. Pa. July 12,

1999) (stating “Plaintiffs’ expert’s conclusory opinion that the city was deliberately indifferent to

the need for further training is insufficient to prevent summary judgment, as the court is not

obliged to accept conclusory legal allegations from either the plaintiffs or their experts.” 

(citation omitted)).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is

granted. An appropriate order follows. 

Case 2:05-cv-05321-RB Document 19 Filed 08/08/07 Page 12 of 14
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

QUEEN CARNEY, individually and as : CIVIL ACTION

Administrator of Estate of Edward Pickens :

and : NO. 05-5321

MALIK SEAN PICKENS and JAMAR :

EDWARD PICKENS, by their legal :

guardian, CHALETTE ROLAND, and :

CHALETTE ROLAND, individually and in :

her own right :

and :

EMMANUEL SIDNEY by his legal :

guardian, SARAH SIDNEY, and SARAH :

SIDNEY, individually and in her own :

right, :

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, :

PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT :

and OFFICER JOHN RAMIREZ, :

Defendants. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 8 day of August 2007, upon consideration of Defendants’

th

Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 15) and Plaintiffs’ Response thereto (Docket No.

17), it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. 

JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendants CITY OF PHILADELPHIA,

PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT AND OFFICER JOHN RAMIREZ, and against

Plaintiffs QUEEN CARNEY, individually and as Administrator of Estate of Edward Pickens and

MALIK SEAN PICKENS and JAMAR EDWARD PICKENS, by their legal guardian,

Case 2:05-cv-05321-RB Document 19 Filed 08/08/07 Page 13 of 14
CHALETTE ROLAND, and CHALETTE ROLAND, individually and in her own right and

EMMANUEL SIDNEY by his legal guardian, SARAH SIDNEY, and SARAH SIDNEY,

individually and in her own right.

This case is CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Ronald L. Buckwalter, S. J. 

 RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, S.J.

Case 2:05-cv-05321-RB Document 19 Filed 08/08/07 Page 14 of 14