A federal judge has denied a request by the estate of corrections officer Rhonda Russell to examine the personnel records of an Altoona police officer who mistakenly shot and killed her nearly two years ago after she was taken hostage by an inmate awaiting a preliminary hearing in the Blair County Central Court building.

Russell, 47, who was alone, guarding several inmates in a holding cell on the morning of Nov. 17, 2021, was suddenly taken hostage by Christopher J. Aikens.

Altoona Police Sgt. George Bistline, who was in the court, responded to the incident and noted that Aikens had Russell’s gun and was telling him to stand back,

Bistline drew his gun and fired at Aikens, but the shot struck and killed Russell.

Her estate has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit naming multiple defendants, including corrections’ personnel, sheriff department employees, the city of Altoona and the estate of Bistline, who at age 72, died shortly after the incident of natural causes.

U.S. District Judge Kim R. Gibson in Johnstown is presiding over the lawsuit and for several months has been considering petitions filed by Blair County, Altoona and the named defendants, including the Bistline estate, to dismiss the civil lawsuit.

The defendants contend they are covered by immunity against civil actions while performing their jobs.

Gibson, at the request of the defendants, has ordered a stay on discovery — the civil process by which the facts of the incident are examined in detail — while he considers the dismissal motions.

The stay order is to remain in effect until the judge decides whether to grant dismissal of the lawsuit or permit it to move forward.

Gibson’s stay order granted an exception under which the Russell estate could seek discovery if it could demonstrate the information it was seeking was “time-sensitive.”

A precedential case for instance was cited in which an exception to a stay order was granted so that the plaintiff could interview an elderly witness whose memory of events was fading.

In the Russell case, Pittsburgh attorney Robert A. Bracken argued that it was necessary to examine Bistline’s police department personnel file to determine if there was any question that on the day of the shooting he might not have been “fit for duty.”

The information is “time-sensitive,” according to the Russell estate, because Pennsylvania has a two-year statute of limitations on civil actions and the two-year period is about to expire.

The question raised in the Russell case “is whether to lift the stay on discovery … so as to permit (the estate) to serve interrogatories and request for production of documents on Altoona in order to discover whether Sergeant Bistline was fit for service,” Gibson outlined.

Gibson, in his opinion issued last week, denied the estate’s request to lift the stay based on a “time-sensitive” argument.

He pointed out that the Bistline estate is contending the officer is protected from civil actions by state-granted immunity, and he stressed that should discovery in the future reveal that the Russell estate may have an argument based on Altoona putting an “unfit officer” into service, “the discovery rule would likely operate to delay the running of the statute of limitations.”

He continued, explaining, “the Court finds it likely that the discovery rule would operate to preserve a claim against Altoona for placing an unfit officer into service … if the (estate) discovers such information for the first time at a date in the future.”

Gibson declared, however, that the question remains whether the law would permit a civil claim involving the fitness of an on-duty officer.

That is a question that would have to be decided later if it becomes relevant, he explained.

Gibson’s next step is to rule whether the civil charges against the defendants will be dismissed based on immunity granted to public officials in the performance of their duties.

The dismissal motions have been pending since last January.

Meanwhile, Aikens has entered guilty pleas to second-degree murder, robbery, kidnapping, assault by a prisoner and firearms offenses.

He is scheduled to be sentenced later this month.

Russell’s estate contends in its civil action that the corrections officer with 16 years on the job was improperly left alone by other officers and sheriff’s deputies to guard five male inmates and that she was never informed that Aikens was a man desperate to escape custody, as was indicated by an attempt to dig through a cell wall at the prison.