Executive Summary
- U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Schmehl rescheduled the trial for the Muñoz wrongful death lawsuit to July 21.
- Settlement negotiations between the City of Lancaster and the plaintiff failed to reach an agreement.
- The court dismissed the primary claim of excessive force, narrowing the trial’s scope to allegations of deliberate indifference and unlawful detention.
- Officer Karson Arnold was previously cleared of criminal wrongdoing by the Lancaster County District Attorney regarding the 2020 shooting.
A federal judge has rescheduled the trial for the remaining claims in a wrongful death lawsuit filed against the City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, regarding the 2020 police shooting of Ricardo Muñoz. According to court filings, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Schmehl ordered the trial to commence on July 21 at the federal courthouse in Reading, moving the date from its previously scheduled start in March.
The rescheduling follows the cancellation of a settlement conference in December. Court records indicate that talks between attorneys for the city and Muñoz’s mother, Miguelina Peña, failed to produce an agreement on monetary damages. Peña is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as well as legal fees, in relation to the events of September 13, 2020.
The lawsuit stems from an incident where Lancaster police officer Karson Arnold responded to a domestic disturbance call at Peña’s home. According to the Lancaster County District Attorney’s office, body camera footage showed Muñoz, who suffered from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, charging at Officer Arnold with a knife. The officer discharged his weapon four times, fatally wounding Muñoz. District Attorney Heather Adams subsequently cleared Arnold of criminal wrongdoing, concluding he utilized lethal force in response to an imminent threat to his life.
While the initial lawsuit included a claim of excessive use of deadly force, Judge Schmehl has since dismissed that count, along with several others. The upcoming trial will focus strictly on the remaining allegations: that Officer Arnold demonstrated “deliberate indifference” by summoning emergency medical services without personally rendering first aid, and that police unlawfully detained Peña following the shooting. City officials state that Peña was taken to the station willingly, while the plaintiff alleges she was held against her will without charges.
Legal Procedural Analysis
The narrowing of this case to post-incident conduct—specifically the failure to render aid and the nature of the plaintiff’s detention—illustrates the high legal threshold required to sustain excessive force claims in federal court when an officer is confronted with an armed subject. By dismissing the primary force claim yet allowing the procedural and medical indifference claims to proceed, the court is distinguishing between the split-second decision to use lethal force and the subsequent obligations of law enforcement officers at a crime scene. It is important to note that in civil litigation, liability must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, and the dismissal of criminal charges does not automatically preclude civil accountability for specific procedural violations.
