VELAZQUEZ v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sherman McCoy,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Philadelphia, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 21-1458
Lead Case
Jamaal Simmons,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Philadelphia, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 19-1648
James Frazier,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Philadelphia, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 19-1692
Darnell Powell,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Philadelphia, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 19-2155
Case 2:25-cv-03720-GJP Document 34 Filed 03/18/26 Page 1 of 5

Arkel Garcia,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Philadelphia, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 21-2884
Marvin Hill,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Philadelphia, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 23-1002
Rafiq Dixon,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Philadelphia, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 23-1650
Dwayne Handy,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Philadelphia, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 24-1905
Case 2:25-cv-03720-GJP Document 34 Filed 03/18/26 Page 2 of 5

Curtis Kingwood,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Philadelphia, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 24-4681
Ronald Thomas,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Philadelphia, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 24-4914
Donta Regusters,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Philadelphia, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-865
Corey Gibbs,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Philadelphia, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-2810
Case 2:25-cv-03720-GJP Document 34 Filed 03/18/26 Page 3 of 5

Neftali Velazquez,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Philadelphia, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-3720
ORDER
AND NOW, this 18th day of March, 2026, upon consideration of the City’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 129), the plaintiffs’ response (Dkt. No. 149),
the City’s reply (Dkt. No. 164), the plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.
Nos. 133 & 139), the City’s response (Dkt. No. 146) and the plaintiffs’ reply (Dkt.
No. 161), it is ORDERED the City’s Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part and the plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED:
1. 	Judgment shall be entered in favor of the City on the plaintiffs’
unconstitutional-custom, failure-to-supervise and failure-to-discipline
claims.
2. 	The City’s motion is denied as to the plaintiffs’ failure-to-train claim.
It is further ORDERED the City’s Motion to Preclude Dr. Richard Hough (Dkt.
No. 126) and Motion to Preclude Dr. Christopher Chapman (Dkt. No. 127) and the
plaintiffs’ Motion to Preclude Dr. Daniel Kennedy (Dkt. Nos. 130 & 137) and Motion to
Preclude Dr. Lou Reiter (Dkt. No. 131) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Case 2:25-cv-03720-GJP Document 34 Filed 03/18/26 Page 4 of 5

The parties’ motions may be re-filed prior to trial, if necessary, more narrowly
tailored to the plaintiffs’ failure-to-train claim.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gerald J. Pappert
Gerald J. Pappert, J.
Case 2:25-cv-03720-GJP Document 34 Filed 03/18/26 Page 5 of 5