COURTS: Coleman judgement dismissed

Judge says city’s failure to respond to lawsuit not deliberate, just overlooked by city

By Rick Pfeiffer

A federal court judge has thrown out a judgment that could have netted a Falls woman a multi-million-dollar payday from the Cataract City.

Chief U.S. District Court Judge William Skretny vacated a default judgment against the city in a civil lawsuit filed by Jaquinda Coleman. Coleman, who suffered a fractured skull and other injuries after a brawl with police erupted outside her apartment in the 4600 block of Hyde Park Boulevard on Feb. 24, 2008, is seeking at least $4.5 million in damages in her suit.

In April, the clerk of the U.S. District Court in Buffalo filed a default judgment against the city because the Corporation Counsel’s office failed to respond to the lawsuit. Coleman’s lawyer then sought an order to force the city to pay his client’s claim.

The city hired an outside lawyer, former federal prosecutor Daniel Oliverio, to seek a reversal of the judgment.

Oliverio argued the city’s failure to respond to Coleman’s lawsuit was “inadvertent and unintentional.” He said city lawyers indicated that the time frame to respond to the lawsuit coincided with the naming of a new corporation counsel, Craig Johnson, and the matter was overlooked during Johnson’s transition.

Coleman’s lawyer, F. David Rusin, argued the city’s failure to respond to the suit was “willful” and said the city offered no proof that its failures were not deliberate.

In a brief, one page ruling, Skretny wrote the city had “established good cause” to set aside the default judgment.

“In particular, this court finds the circumstances of Assistant Corporation Counsel’s error in misdocketing the deadline for an answer (to the lawsuit), compounded by the confusion over the scheduling (of a required pretrial hearing by the city), demonstrates that it was a bona fide mistake,” Skretny wrote. “The default was therefore not willful.”

Skretny also said the city “demonstrated that they have meritorious defenses” and he found no prejudice to Coleman in allowing the lawsuit to go forward.

Coleman’s suit seeks specific damages stemming from claims that police violated her civil rights, assaulted her, falsely arrested her, were negligent in their conduct and inflicted emotional distress on her. She also asks for additional, unspecified punitive damages to be determined by a jury after a trial.

The suit charges the city and a dozen police officers, “known and unknown” with a “willful and intentional attack (on Coleman)” that included beating her, using a noxious chemical spray and then intentionally restraining her without her consent. Coleman’s lawyers also contend that “all of the defendant’s acts ... were without probable or just cause, grounds or provocation and were excessive, unreasonable, unnecessary and without any privilege or justification.”

Officers who responded to the domestic violence call outside of Coleman’s apartment said when they arrived on the scene, family members of a pregnant woman, including Coleman, were “yelling at officers to ‘do (their) job’ and arrest (the woman’s boyfriend).”

Officers said Coleman became agitated after the man involved in the incident was not immediately charged and called one officer “a (expletive) racist pig and a Nazi.” Police said Coleman also began yelling, “I don’t have to listen to you. I only listen to God, you white supremacist.”

After telling Coleman to leave the area, and with family members reportedly “attempting to drag her away,” police said she broke free and again confronted them.

As officers took Coleman by the arm to place her in handcuffs, she yelled, “It’s on.” and took off her glasses and put up her fists. As Coleman charged at an officer, yelling profanities, she was subdued with chemical spray.

The spray briefly stopped Coleman, but she then charged the officer again and was hit with another shot of chemical spray.

Coleman, who is estimated to be 6-feet-2 and weighing 225 pounds, again charged the officer, who had exhausted his supply of chemical spray. The officer who said he “was in fear of being tackled by (Coleman)” and feared she would be able to reach the weapons on his gun belt, struck her with his flashlight. Using a flashlight as a weapon is against police regulation.

In a report on the incident, the officer indicated he “swung the flashlight in a downward motion” attempting to hit Coleman in the rear shoulder to knock her off balance and escape her. However, as Coleman came at the officer she was struck in the head.

In the lawsuit, Coleman’s lawyers claim she continues to suffer “continuous pain and anguish.” She has also suffered “intense emotional distress and embarrassment,” which is likely to continue.

The suit also claims that a lack of training by the Falls Police Department created conditions that allowed officers to “act with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of individuals, (tolerated) misconduct by its police officers and encouraged misconduct” by failing to train of discipline officers.

Coleman threatened to sue the city just hours after the incident. In comments made to a Falls police officer, as she was being treated for her injuries at Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center, Coleman said, “I’m gonna be rich after this. I’ll take a cut on the head.”

Coleman was charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and second-degree obstructing governmental administration. In November 2008, as jury selection for her trial began, Coleman cut a deal with prosecutors that saw her plead guilty to two counts of disorderly conduct, with prosecutors dropping the resisting and obstruction charges.

She was sentenced to 40 hours of community service for her guilty plea. She completed that service on June 6.

In December, Coleman made another deal with prosecutors to settle a menacing case in Town of Niagara Court. She had faced charges of second-degree menacing and second-degree harassment in connection with a knife-wielding incident in the parking lot of a Town of Niagara bar and restaurant on Aug. 28.

Coleman pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct and was fined $325.

Text Only | Photo Reprints