Some police misconduct claims survive dismissal after passengers were rammed by unmarked police vehicles.
Untitled
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
Some police misconduct claims survive dismissal after passengers were rammed by unmarked police vehicles.
Why it matters
In Carter v. City of Portland, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon partially granted and partially denied a motion to dismiss claims brought by Nichelle Carter, a passenger who alleges Portland Police Bureau officers rammed the vehicle she was riding in on New Year's Day 2024. The court dismissed the municipal liability claim against the City of Portland, the emotional distress claims against two specific officers (Jesse and Bird), and the negligent supervision claim against one officer, but allowed most of Carter's remaining federal and state law claims to proceed.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects Nichelle Carter as the plaintiff and the named Portland Police Bureau officers and the City of Portland as defendants. More broadly, it is relevant to Portland residents and others who may bring civil rights or tort claims arising from police use of force.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Aug 26, 2026
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible appeal to the circuit court.
View possible path
- Decision issued Aug 26, 2026
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible appeal to the circuit court
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
District court
Decision issued
Aug 26, 2026
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Nichelle Carter alleges that in the early morning hours of January 1, 2024, Portland Police Bureau officers driving unmarked SUVs, with no emergency lights or sirens, twice rammed a black sedan in which she was a backseat passenger on Northeast Broadway Street in Portland, Oregon. After the collisions, officers pointed guns at the passengers, then apparently realized they had targeted the wrong people, with one officer saying 'It's not them' and another responding that 'these guys are older.' Carter filed ten claims, including federal constitutional claims for excessive force and unlawful seizure under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, as well as multiple state law tort claims including assault, battery, negligence, and emotional distress. Defendants moved to dismiss several of those claims for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Specifically, the court dismissed the Monell municipal liability claim against the City of Portland, meaning the city itself is no longer a defendant on that particular theory. The court also dismissed the intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims as to defendants Jesse and Bird specifically, and dismissed the negligent supervision claim against defendant Morales. However, the court allowed all remaining claims, including the core federal constitutional excessive force and unlawful seizure claims and most state law tort claims against the other individual officers, to move forward. The court's ruling means that Carter's lawsuit continues on most fronts. The individual officers named in the excessive force and unlawful seizure claims still face those allegations, and the state law tort claims against most defendants remain active. The case is a lead and trailing case consolidated before the same judge, with a separate but related lawsuit by plaintiff Malvin Abel also pending. No dissent is applicable, as this is a district court ruling by a single judge.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON MALVIN ABEL, an Oregon resident, Case No. 3:24-cv-02028-IM (lead case) Plaintiff, v. OPINION AND ORDER CITY OF PORTLAND, an Oregon municipal GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART corporation; MICHAEL CURRIER, individually DEFENDANTS’ PARTIAL and in his official capacity; GEORGE MOTION TO DISMISS ANDERSON, individually and in his official PLAINTIFF CARTER’S capacity; NICHOLAS MORALES, individually AMENDED COMPLAINT and in his official capacity; JOSEPH JESSE, individually and in his official capacity; JESSICA BIRD, individually and in her official capacity; DOES 1-6, individually and in their official capacity; Defendants. NICHELLE CARTER, an Oregon resident, Plaintiff, Case No. 3:25-cv-02446-IM (trailing case) v. CITY OF PORTLAND, an Oregon municipal corporation; MICHAEL CURRIER, individually and in his official capacity; GEORGE ANDERSON, individually and in his official capacity; NICHOLAS MORALES, individually and in his official capacity; JOSEPH JESSE, individually and in his official capacity; JESSICA BIRD, individually and in her official capacity; CAMILO PENA, individually and in his official capacity; PATRICK MAWDSLEY, individually and in his official capacity; Defendants. IMMERGUT, District Judge. Before this Court is Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Nichelle Carter’s Amended Complaint (“Motion”), ECF 33.1 Carter filed this lawsuit against the City of Portland and Portland Police Bureau (“PPB”) officers, alleging that the officers violated her civil rights when they rammed into a vehicle in which she was a passenger and when they subsequently concealed what had occurred during the ramming incident. Amended Complaint, ECF 26 ¶ 1. Carter brings ten claims against Defendants, including federal constitutional excessive force and unlawful seizure claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state law tort claims.2 Id. ¶¶ 43–126. Defendants3 now move to dismiss several of Carter’s claims for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Motion, ECF 33 at 3. Specifically, Defendants move to dismiss (1) all seven state law tort claims against the individual Defendants; (2) the intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims against Joseph Jesse and Jessica Bird; (3) the municipal liability claim against the City of 1 Citations to docket entries are to the docket in Carter v. City of Portland et al., 25-cv-02446. 2 Carter’s ten claims include the following federal constitutional claims (Claims 1–3) and state law tort claims (Claims 4–10): (1) an excessive force claim against Defendants Michael Currier, George Anderson, and Nicholas Morales, Amended Complaint, ECF 26 ¶¶ 43–49; (2) an unlawful seizure claim against Currier, Anderson, Morales, Camilo Pena, and Patrick Mawdsley, id. ¶¶ 50–59; (3) a municipal liability claim against the City of Portland, id. ¶¶ 60–66; (4) an assault claim against the City of Portland, Currier, Anderson, Morales, Pena, and Mawdsley, id. ¶¶ 67–73; (5) a battery claim against the City of Portland, Currier, Anderson, and Morales, id. ¶¶ 74–79; (6) an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against all Defendants, id. ¶¶ 80–91; (7) a negligent supervision claim against the City of Portland and Morales, id. ¶¶ 92– 98; (8) a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim against all Defendants, id. ¶¶ 99–111; (9) a negligence claim against the City of Portland, Currier, and Anderson, id. ¶¶ 112–17; (10) a false arrest claim against Currier, Anderson, Morales, Pena, and Mawdsley, id. ¶¶ 118–26. 3 The moving defendants include all individual defendants, except Michael Currier, who is separately represented. For simplicity, this Court refers to the moving defendants as Defendants. Portland under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); (4) the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim as to all Defendants; (5) the negligent supervision claim as to Nicholas Morales; (6) the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim as to all Defendants; and (7) the negligence claim as to all Defendants. Id. Carter filed a Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion (“Response”), ECF 37, and Defendants filed a Reply in Support of their Motion (“Reply”), ECF 38. The parties do not request a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, and this Court finds that the Motion is suitable for decision without oral argument. L.R. 7-1(d)(1); see also Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998). For the below reasons, this Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF 33. This Court grants Defendants’ requests (2) and (3) in full, and request (4) as to only Defendants Jesse and Bird. This Court otherwise denies Defendants’ remaining requests in their Motion to Dismiss. FACTUAL BACKGROUND4 On January 1, 2024, at around 1:40 a.m., Plaintiff Carter was a backseat passenger in a black sedan traveling on Northeast Broadway Street in Portland, Oregon. Amended Complaint, ECF 26 ¶¶ 16, 20. The sedan was following traffic laws when an unmarked PPB sports utility vehicle (“SUV”) rammed into the driver’s side of the sedan. Id. ¶ 19. The SUV was driven by Defendant Currier and did not have emergency lights or sirens on at the time of the collision. Id. The impact from the collision caused Carter to hit her head against the back passenger window. Id. ¶ 20. Within a few seconds of this first collision, another police SUV driven by Defendant Anderson, with Defendant Morales as a passenger, rammed into the back of the black sedan. Id. ¶ 21. 4 These facts are taken from the well-pleaded allegations of Carter’s Amended Complaint, which at this stage of the litigation, this Court accepts as true. Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). After this second collision, approximately six PPB officers, including Currier, Anderson, and Morales, exited their vehicles, yelling at the sedan’s passengers to put their hands up. Id. ¶ 24. Carter alleges that the officers pointed guns at her and the other individuals in the sedan. Id. The officers yelled at the driver to exit the vehicle, and after the driver complied, one officer said, “It’s not them.” Id. ¶ 25. A second officer asked, “Are you sure?”, to which another officer replied, “Yes, these guys are older.” Id. ¶¶ 26–27. An officer apologized for the damage and explaine
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.