Neal Miller v. Joseph Wolk

── Neal Miller v. Joseph Wolk ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: June 03, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 24-1863 ________________ NEAL MILLER; DONNA MILLER, Individually and as Administrators of the Estate of Ryan Miller, a Minor, Deceased, Appellants v. JOSEPH WOLK, Individually and in his Official Capacity; GARY BOVE ________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2:20-cv-06301) District Judge: Honorable Michael M. Baylson ________________ Submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on May 22, 2025 Before: PHIPPS, CHUNG and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: June 3, 2026) ________________ OPINION* ________________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. ROTH, Circuit Judge Fifteen-year-old Ryan Miller borrowed his neighbor’s motor-scooter and rode it on the streets of Philadelphia without a helmet or license plate. Joseph Wolk, a seasoned police officer, decided that these minor infractions justified a high-speed chase through a dense, residential neighborhood, in contravention of numerous applicable police regulations. As a consequence of Wolk’s decision, Ryan is now dead.1 Although the circumstances of his death trouble us, the narrow question before us on appeal is not whether Wolk’s conduct was prudent, just, or good police work, but whether Ryan’s parents have adequately shown that Wolk violated Ryan’s clearly established constitutional rights. Because the record fails to demonstrate that Wolk intended to harm Ryan, we will affirm the District Court’s order granting summary judgment to Wolk. I.2 On May 7, 2019, Wolk was patrolling in Philadelphia when he saw Ryan driving a motor-scooter without license plates or a helmet, both of which constituted summary traffic offenses under Pennsylvania law.3 Wolk activated his lights and sirens and began to follow Ryan, but Ryan sped up and turned onto a four-lane thoroughfare. Wolk followed in pursuit. 1 To distinguish Ryan from his parents, the plaintiffs in this action, we refer to him by his first name. 2 Because we write for the parties, we recite only those facts relevant to our disposition. Because this appeal comes to us on a motion for summary judgment, we review those facts in the light most favorable to the Millers, the non-moving party. See Rivera v. Redfern, 98 F.4th 419, 422 (3d Cir. 2024). 3 See 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 1332, 3525. 2  In doing so, Wolk violated several Philadelphia Police Department policies. Neither the license plate nor helmet infractions were permissible grounds for a vehicular pursuit, and Wolk never informed his superiors about the chase or called for backup.4 Also, before turning into the residential neighborhood, Wolk deactivated his lights and sirens, which would remain deactivated for the remainder of the chase. During the chase, Gary Bove, a civilian tow truck driver with whom Wolk was familiar, took it upon himself to join the chase and pursue Ryan. Bove pursued Ryan—out of Wolk’s line of sight—until Ryan drove through a red light at a busy intersection and f