HESTER v. ALLENTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE NITZA I QUINONES ALEJANDRO ON 8/21/13. 8/22/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER. (jpd)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION
ROBERT C. HESTER
v.
ALLENTOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.
NO. 13-4249
MEMORANDUM
AUGUST
QUINONES ALEJANDRO, J.
M·
2013
Plaintiff Robert C. Hester, an inmate at the Lehigh County
Prison, filed this pro se civil action against fourteen
defendants based on his allegations that they defamed him and
maliciously prosecuted him.
The Court will grant plaintiff leave
to proceed in forma pauperis, but, for the following reasons,
will dismiss his complaint without prejudice to his filing an
amended complaint.
I.
FACTS
Plaintiff named the following individuals and entities as
defendants in this lawsuit:
(2) Alpha Bail Bonds;
Bail Bonds;
(1) the Allentown Police Department;
(3) Brian D. Raybold, an employee of Alpha
(4) the City of Allentown;
Attorney Craig Sheetz;
(6) Detective Andrew Hackman of the
Allentown Police Department;
Attorney of Lehigh County;
Newspaper;
(5) Assistant District
(7) James B. Martin, the District
(8) Kevin Amerman of the Morning Call
(9) the Lehigh County District Attorney's Office; 1
1
Although the caption identifies this defendant as the
"Lehigh County District Atty.," plaintiff identifies the "Lehigh
County District Atty. Office" as a defendant elsewhere in his
complaint. Accordingly, the Court understands plaintiff to be
suing the District Attorney's Office in addition to the District
1
(10) Mayor Ed Polowski;
WFMZ 69 News;
(11) the Morning Call Newspaper;
(12)
(13) 7 on your side - WABC; and (14) Judge Maria L.
Dantos of the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas.
He alleges
that, since November 28, 2012, the defendants "commited [sic]
defamation of character by causing all type of media coverage
. aimed at [him,]" which "caused injury to and destroyed his
reputation in the community and church."
media coverage included "false statements
(Compl. ~ II.D.)
The
. such as but not
limited to (dirty deacon, self made preacher, scam artist ect.
[sic]) which caused the breakdown of [his] reputation, family,
and ministry."
(Id.)
Plaintiff also alleges that Detective Hackman, ADA Sheetz,
and the Lehigh County District Attorney's office maliciously
prosecuted him by initiating criminal charges against him.
Plaintiff believes that the unspecified "matter(s)" in which he
was involved should have been handled civilly, rather than
criminally.
(Id.)
He contends that Judge Dantos was in cahoots
with the prosecution because she sentenced him outside of the
applicable sentencing guidelines.
In that regard, plaintiff
appears to be referring to several criminal proceedings in the
Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, presided over by Judge
Dantos, in which he pled guilty to passing bad checks.
See CP-
39-CR-0005852-2012; CP-39-CR-0005532-2012; CP-39-CR-5509-2012.
Based on the above, plaintiff initiated this lawsuit, seeking
millions of dollars for the damage to his reputation and for the
Attorney.
2
time he spent in prison.
The Court understands plaintiff to be
asserting a Fourth Amendment claim for malicious prosecution and
a due process claim based on damage to his reputation, pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as related state law claims.
I I .
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court grants plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis because he has satisfied the requirements set out in 28
u.s.c.
§ 1915.
Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B) applies.
That provision requires the Court to dismiss the complaint if it
is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune.
Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under§ 1915(e)
is governed by the same standard applicable to motions to dismiss
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6), see Tourscher v.
McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the
Court to determine whether the complaint contains "sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face."
(2009)
(quotations omitted).
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
Furthermore, "[i]f the court
determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction,
the court must dismiss the action."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h) (3). As
plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court must construe his
allegations liberally.
See Higgs v. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 333,
339 (3d Cir. 2011).
III. ANALYSIS
"[A] suit under§ 1983 requires the wrongdoers to have
3
violated federal rights of the plaintiff, and that they did so
while acting under color of state law."
See Groman v. Twp. of
Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 638 (3d Cir. 1995).
Here, six of the
defendants - Alpha Bail Bonds, Brian Raybold, Kevin Amerman, the
Morning Call Newspaper, WFMZ 69 News, and 7 on your side WABC do not appear to be state actors.
Additionally, the Allentown
Police Department and the Lehigh County District Attorney's
Office are not independent entities susceptible to suit under
1983.
§
See Knauss v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Civ. A. No. 10-2636,
2012 WL 176685, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 20, 2012)
("[A] district
attorney's office is not an 'entity' for purposes of
§
1983 .
. "); DeBellis v. Kulp, 166 F. Supp. 2d 255, 264 (E.D. Pa. 2001)
("[P]olice departments cannot be sued in conjunction with
municipalities, because the police department is merely an
administrative arm of the local municipality, and is not a
separate judicial entity.").
In any event, nothing in the
complaint suggests that the alleged violation of plaintiff's
rights stemmed from a municipal policy or custom so as to support
a plausible
§
1983 claim against the City of Allentown, Lehigh
County, or any other municipal defendant.
See Monell v. Dep't of
Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).
Plaintiff's
§
1983 claims against the remaining defendants
fail for several reasons.
He has not stated a malicious
prosecution claim because, despite alluding to criminal
proceedings, he has not alleged that those proceedings ended in
his favor, that the proceedings were initiated without probable
4
cause, or that the defendants acted maliciously or for a purpose
other than bringing him to justice. 2
564 F.3d 181, 186 (3d Cir. 2009)
See Kessler v. Crisanti,
(en bane).
Instead, the
complaint simply asserts that plaintiff would have preferred that
his conduct be handled civilly rather than criminally.
In any
event, absolute prosecutorial immunity bars plaintiff's claims
against the District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney
Scheetz based on their decision to initiate criminal proceedings
against him.
See Imbler v. Pactman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976)
("[I]n initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's
case, the prosecutor is immune from a civil suit for damages
under s 1983.").
Likewise, absolute judicial immunity precludes
plaintiff's claims against Judge Dantos based on the manner in
which she handled his criminal cases.
See Gallas v. Supreme
Court of Pa., 211 F.3d 760, 768 (3d Cir. 2000)
("The Supreme
Court long has recognized that judges are immune from suit under
section 1983 for monetary damages arising from their judicial
acts.") .
2
The dockets for the state criminal cases cited above
reflect that, in each proceeding, plaintiff pled guilty to one
charge and that several other charges were withdrawn.
For
purposes of a malicious prosecution claim, "favorable termination
of some but not all individual charges does not necessarily
establish the favorable termination of the criminal proceeding as
a whole." Kessler v. Crisanti, 564 F.3d 181, 188 (3d Cir. 2009)
(en bane).
To satisfy the favorable termination element, "a
prior criminal case must have been disposed of in a way that
indicates the innocence of the accused." Id. at 187.
Furthermore, in light of plaintiff's guilty pleas, his malicious
prosecution claims are barred to the extent that success on those
claims would necessarily render his convictions invalid.
See
~~Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 1 486-87 (1994),
5
Plaintiff's constitutional claims based on the allegedly
defamatory comments that caused damage to his reputation also
fail.
Defamation is not actionable under
§
1983 unless a
plaintiff can "show a stigma to his reputation plus deprivation
of some additional right or interest."
Dee v. Borough of
Dunmore, 549 F.3d 225, 233-34 (3d Cir. 2008)
omitted).
(quotations
Outside the public employment context, this standard
generally requires an allegation that the defamation was "coupled
with an alteration in legal status."
1152, 1167 (lOth Cir. 2011)
Brown v. Montoya, 662 F.3d
(citing Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693
(1976)); Behrens v. Regier, 422 F.3d 1255, 1260 (11th Cir. 2005).
Here, plaintiff alleges damage to his reputation and related
damage to his family and ministry.
Those allegations do not
establish the violation of a constitutional right or alteration
of plaintiff's legal status so as to satisfy the "stigma-plus"
test. 3
See Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 234
( 1991)
(" [S] o
long as [the alleged] damage flows from injury caused by the
defendant to a plaintiff's reputation, it may be recoverable
under state tort law but it is not recoverable in a
[civil
rights] action."); Cooley v. Barber, No. 07-3327, 2007 WL
2900550, at *1 (3d Cir. Oct. 4, 2007)
3
(per curiam)
(alleged loss
As with plaintiff's malicious prosecution claims, Judge
Dantos is absolutely immune from liability for any allegedly
defamatory statements made in her judicial capacity while
presiding over plaintiff's case. Similarly, the District
Attorney and Assistant District Attorney Scheetz are entitled to
absolute prosecutorial immunity for allegedly defamatory
statements made while advocating for the State in the course of
judicial proceedings.
6
of private employment due to publication of allegedly defamatory
statements concerning crimes of which plaintiff was acquitted did
not satisfy stigma-plus test) .
To the extent plaintiff sought to bring claims under state
law, it is unclear whether diversity jurisdiction exists over
those claims under 28 U.S.C.
§
1332. 4
Diversity jurisdiction
requires diversity of citizenship among the parties and that the
amount in controversy exceed $75,000.
See 28
u.s.c.
§
1332(a);
Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 419 (3d Cir.
2010)
("Complete diversity requires that[]
a citizen of the same state as any defendant.")
no plaintiff be
As the
complaint does not allege the citizenship of the parties, it is
not clear whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over
plaintiff's remaining claims.
A district court should ordinarily allow a pro se plaintiff
to amend his complaint, unless amendment would be inequitable or
futile.
See Grayson v. Mayyiew State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 113-14
(3d Cir. 2002).
Accordingly, plaintiff will be given leave to
file an amended complaint in the event that he can state a claim
within the Court's jurisdiction.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss the
complaint without prejudice to plaintiff's filing an amended
4
Given the dismissal of plaintiff's federal claims, the
Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his
state law claims.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (3). Accordingly, 28
U.S.C. § 1332 provides the only independent basis for subject
matter jurisdiction.
7
complaint.
An appropriate order follows.
8
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
