A protestor, who identified himself as the son of Jeremy S. Marr holds a sign containing his father’s photograph during a protest held Thursday, April 16, 2020. The protest was held across the street from the Glasgow Police Department.
(BRENNAN CRAIN/WCLU NEWS)
BOWLING GREEN — A federal judge issued an order Tuesday detailing a lawsuit involving three Glasgow Police officers and the city itself has reasonable ground to move forward.
Judge Greg N. Stivers, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, wrote a 14-page document detailing that some claims would be dismissed while others will remain. The lawsuit stems from the April 14, 2020, arrest and eventual death of Jeremy S. Marr.
The officers involved were Cameron Murrell, Guy J. Turcotte and Hayden Phillips. The judge dismissed the Glasgow Police Department from the case because of certain legal precedents, which detail county and city police departments are not “suable entities.” The judge also ruled the officers cannot be sued in their capacities as officers but rather as individuals in their own capacity.
“Accordingly, because the official capacity claims are duplicative of the claims against Glasgow, Plaintiffs’ official capacity claims against Turcotte, Phillips and Murrell will be dismissed,” the judge said.
Stivers further described the reason the officers can be sued in their individual capacities. He cited a federal law, which describes civil actions for the deprivation of rights.
Part of the law allows “claims against government officers who violate a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force in an arrest or investigatory stop.”
“The Complaint alleges that while the officers were on the scene, Marr posed no threat to anyone present,” Stivers wrote. “Nevertheless, he was thrown to the ground, tased multiple times and held to the ground until he died. The GPD Officers’ actions, as alleged, would give rise to a constitutional violation for use of excessive force.”
The court must consider three factors to determine whether the officers did act with excessive force, including the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or other, and whether he was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. The lawsuit alleges Marr did not pose a threat.
Some parts of the lawsuit were denied allowing for “discovery,” which is a legal term for obtaining documents or evidence to support a particular claim such as body camera footage or testimonies from individuals at the scene. Other parts of the lawsuit were dismissed entirely such as claims against the department and the officers in their official capacities.
A motion to dismiss certain allegations because of certain immunities was also denied. Stivers said the attorney representing Marr would be granted time for discovery regarding immunities protected by “state qualified immunity” and the Claims Against Local Governments Act. Those claims by the city of Glasgow will likely be adjudicated later.
A motion to dismiss a battery claim was denied. The judge said the claim could remain because “Marr’s Estate alleges the GPD officers pinned him on the ground, restricting his breathing as they tased him 8-10 times and kneed him on the side.”
Marr’s Estate also claims negligence, negligent hiring and Loss of Consortium. The latter term describes an instance when a husband or wife loses their spouse’s “services, assistance, aid, society, companionship and conjugal relationship.”
Various deadlines were set for certain filings. A scheduling conference is scheduled May 3 at 9:30 a.m. by phone.
Marr’s estate and his wife, Joanna, are named as the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the officers and the city. David F. Broderick is representing the two entities. Matthew P. Cook and Thomas N. Kerrick are representing the officers and the city of Glasgow.
