U. Police assault suit still pending

A motion for summary judgment is still pending in the case of Eber Devine v. the University of Pennsylvania.

Devine is a Penn student on leave who has filed a suit for $100,000, stemming from an alleged incident of false arrest, assault and battery by officers of the University of Pennsylvania Police Department in March of 2000.

The motion, filed by counsel for the University, claims that by filing a lawsuit in 2002, Devine was beyond the statute of limitations for such a case. The motion, if successful, would dismiss all charges before ever going to a jury.

The University's motion was filed in November and was followed by a response from the plaintiff in which Devine wrote that the University's claim is "baseless and completely lacks merit."

The suit involves five separate counts, one against the University and four against the officers involved in the arrest.

Devine claims that while walking on Spruce Street the evening of March 15, 2000, he was arrested by the UPPD without reason.

After being taken to police headquarters, Devine alleges that his head was slammed against the wall, nearly knocking him out, and that one of the officers pushed his knee into the side of Devine's head.

In the charge against the University, Devine claims that Penn failed to properly train, supervise and discipline its UPPD officers.

The suit charges the officers with violation of Devine's constitutional rights, false arrest, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful assault and battery.

Though Devine had an attorney at the time of the serving of the suit in the spring of 2002, he is currently representing himself.

The "attorney wasn't working in my best interest," Devine said of his decision to work on the suit pro se.

I feel "relatively comfortable at this point," Devine said. He responded to the motion for summary judgment himself, under the supervision of assisting attorneys.

Phyllis Holtzman, a spokeswoman for the University, said that the University is waiting for a response to the motion and that it is unknown as to when the court will make a ruling, but that these motions typically take a significant amount of time.

"That's all we're going to say right now," she said.

The University denies violating Devine's rights and will defend against the lawsuit vigorously, Holtzman said in an earlier statement.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.