David M. Henschel v. Worcester Police Department, Worcester, Massachusetts
David M. HENSCHEL, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. WORCESTER POLICE DEPARTMENT, WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS Et Al., Defendants, Appellees
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff Henschel instituted an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the district court, naming as “respondent” “Worcester Police Department, Worcester, Massachusetts, et al.” In his complaint he asserted that he was arrested at approximately 9 p. m. on September 16, 1969, in the “area of Ben’s Cafe * * * by two (2) Detectives and other Police Officers * * * in the employment of the Worcester Police Department;” that these individuals conducted him to various places for identification by witnesses; that all the while he was complaining of a bullet in his side and asking to be taken for emergency relief to a hospital ; that he was then taken to the police station, and from there to the hospital, a total delay of two hours. It is for this delay, and the consequent pain and suffering, that he seeks damages. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of a legally responsible defendant. Plaintiff appealed and we now have a motion for summary dismissal.
We note, in passing, that a hospital record attached to the answer filed by the Worcester City Solicitor as “Attorney for the defendants” (whoever they may be — defense counsel appears to think the City is included) indicates that plaintiff was “not in acute distress,” and that he informed the hospital that the 22-calibre bullet, which was recovered, had been self-inflicted at 1 a. m., to wit, twenty hours before. This might lead one to think the plaintiff’s urgent need to go to the hospital arose more from the arrest than from acute physical discomfort. However that may be, plaintiff has not named, let alone attempted to serve, any defendant subject to the Civil Rights Act. The City of Worcester, if that is the intended defendant, is not liable under this statute. Monroe v. Pape, 1961, 365 U.S. 167 , 81 S.Ct. 473 , 5 L.Ed.2d 492 . Nor is the Police Department a suable entity. United States ex rel. Lee v. People of State of Illinois, 7 Cir., 1965, 343 F.2d 120 . If a Police Department may be successfully sued, it is the city which will pay; the result is the same as suing the city — a result foreclosed by Monroe v. Pape, ante.
For want of any proper party defendant the district court properly dismissed the action.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 20 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that a 3 municipal police department is not a suable entity under § 1983)
-
(dismissing §1983 suit because it was brought against police department rather than municipality itself)
-
(an action against a police department is “the same” as suing the municipality)
Cited by 36 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- David A. Freeman v. Town of Watertown, Watertown Police Department, Chief Justin Hanrahan, Lt. Kenneth Swift, Det. Miguel Colón, John/Jane Does 1-10, Zachary Hurley, and Tara Freeman
- Antonio McKinney v. Trooper Wing; Antonio McKinney v
- Antonio McKinney v. Trooper Wing; Antonio McKinney v
- Antonio McKinney v. Trooper Wing; Antonio McKinney v
- Katie Elie v. Biddeford Police Department
- REARDON v. BACHELDER
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.