Bey v. Amoroso

1

RESHAN SAVAGE BEY Plaintiff v. AYLSSA AMOROSO, et al., Defendants

Civil Action No. 24-CV-1786

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

June 20, 2024

MEMORANDUM

NITZA I. QUINONES ALEJANDRO, J.

Reshan Savage Bey, a pretrial detainee housed at the Philadelphia Detention Center, filed a lengthy and repetitive 98-page pro se civil rights Complaint naming as Defendants Assistant District Attorney Aylssa Amoroso, SEPTA police officers Sgt. Bryan Carney, Anthony Michetti, and Grabov, and the City of Philadelphia.^[1]The individuals are each named in their individual and official capacities. Bey has also applied to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reason set forth the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted and the case will be dismissed on statutory screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS^[2]

In his complaint, Bey asserts that Defendant Carney conducted an investigation of an April 29, 2022 robbery at 15^th and Market Streets in Philadelphia that violated his rights. (Id. at 19-20, 29.) Bey went to SEPTA police headquarters on April 30, 2022 and was interviewed. (Id. at 19.) The victim allegedly failed to identify Bey from a photo lineup. (Id. at 19-20.) Nonetheless, Bey asserts he was unlawfully detained on May 4 2022 by Defendant Grabov at 15^th and Market Streets for about 20-45 minutes when allegedly there was no warrant for his arrest on robbery charges. (Id. at 13, 19.) He claims that Carney instructed officers in the area to stop him for the alleged robbery. (Id. at 19-20.) He was released on that date, but Carney was “very aggressive, hostile” and made false allegations that Bey was “on surveillance robbing and assaulting someone at gunpoint, who is artistic [possibly meaning autistic], and that I was expelled from public transportation for one (1) year.” (Id. at 20.)

Then, on June 7, 2022 at the same location, Defendant Michetti approached Bey and asked him for identification, stating there was a warrant for Bey's arrest. (Id. at 13.) When Bey asked to see the warrant, Michetti refused to produce it or describe the basis for the warrant. (Id. at 13, 20.) When Bey produced identification showing his name as Rashan I. Savage, he was arrested for the April 29 robbery, but the charges were later dismissed for lack of evidence on November 15, 2022. (Id. at 13.) He asserts that while he was in custody at SEPTA police headquarters he had to wear “an arm band that clearly indicated [he] was unlawfully arrested,” was handcuffed and placed in a cold cell when he refused to be fingerprinted, and was not allowed to make a phone call. (Id. at 23.) He claims he was unlawfully detained from June 7, 2022 until November 15, 2022. (Id. at 6.) Bey asserts constitutional claims based on false arrest and false imprisonment due to the June 7th arrest. (Id. at 16, 19-23.) He also raises a First Amendment retaliation claim against Carney, Michetti, and Grabov based on the May 4, 2022 stop, alleging that the stop occurred because Bey had filed an amended complaint on April 12, 2019 alleging a false arrest claim based on an incident on April 6, 2018, that also happened at 15^th and Market Streets. (Id. at 25-26.)

On September 5, 2023, two unknown non-defendant Philadelphia police officers allegedly came to Bey's residence with a subpoena for refiling the dismissed charges. (Id. at 7, see also Id. at 13.) At a hearing on October 12, 2023, Bey challenged the court's jurisdiction under the common law and the law of admiralty, but he claims that the Judge would not answer him and ADA Amoroso allegedly failed to object to his jurisdictional challenge. (Id. at 7.) He refused to participate in any mental health evaluation. (Id.) At his next court dates on December 14, 2023 and February 15, 2024, he again objected to the court's jurisdiction and refused to participate in mental health evaluations. (Id. at 7-8, 14, 18-19.) He claims that Amoroso and the presiding judge were “cohorting” to have him forcibly abducted to Norristown State Hospital (“NSH”) for sixty days without his consent. (Id. at 8.) After the February 15th hearing he was allegedly placed in a cell, strip searched, had his legal material temporarily held, handcuffed to another prisoner, and transferred to Curran-Fromhold Correctional Center. (Id.) His request for court transcripts were also refused and documents he submitted to the court were not filed on the docket. (Id. at 8-9.)

Bey asserts that Amoroso and “said SEPTA transit police officers” - presumably Carney, Michetti, and Grabov - engaged in a “fraudulent non-disclosure of adhesion impaired contracting,” by which he appears to refer to the criminal complaint, subpoena, and an allegedly forged affidavit of probable cause in his criminal case. (Id. at 9.) These documents, he asserts, resulted in his being falsely imprisoned even though the victim failed to identify him and Amoroso failed to prove the state court had jurisdiction. (Id. at 12-13.)

Bey asserts that at the February 15, 2024 hearing he was erroneously ordered by a Common Pleas Court judge to be confined at NSH. (Compl. at 5.) He was, instead, confined at a county prison for a “psychological disorder.” (Id.) He asserts that ADA Amoroso refiled criminal charges against him three times “without substantial evidence,” leading to the charges being dismissed due to lack of evidence and lack of prosecution, apparently because the alleged victim failed to identify Bey. (Id. at 6.) In doing so, Bey asserts that Amoroso committed barratry and champerty. (Id. at 6, 16.)

Finally, Bey asserts a claim for municipal liability against the City of Philadelphia alleging that the City has a policy of malicious prosecution as shown by the initiation, dismissal, and refiling of the charges lodged against him. (Id. at 27.) He claims the City is thus liable for the actions of ADA Amoroso and the SEPTA police officers because it failed to investigate, supervise, discipline, and educate them on constitutional axioms, treaties, and international laws, rights, and freedoms. (Id. at 28.) Bey seeks money damages. (Id. at 29.)

Publicly available court dockets reflect that Bey charged under the name of Rashan I. Savage with robbery involving the infliction of serious bodily injury, recklessly endangering another person, simple assault, theft by unlawful taking, and related charges. Commonwealth v. Savage, MC-51-CR-9513-2022 (M.C. Philadelphia). At a preliminary hearing on June 9, 2022, the charges were held for court. On October 19 and 26, 2022, orders were entered to conduct a mental health evaluation to determine whether Bey was competent to stand trial. At another preliminary hearing on November 15, 2022, the charges were dismissed for lack of evidence and Bey was released from custody. The criminal complaint was then refiled on December 9, 2022 but dismissed for lack of prosecution on March 27, 2023. The charges were refiled again on April 12, 2023 but again dismissed for lack of prosecution on June 6, 2023. Finally, the charges were reinstated on August 11, 2023 and a commitment order was entered on February 15, 2024. The case remains pending and Bey remains in custody.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court will grant Bey leave to proceed in forma pauperis.^[3]Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires the court to dismiss the complaint if it fails to state a claim. Here, the Court must determine whether the Complaint contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). ‘“At this early stage of the litigation,' ‘[the Court will] accept the facts alleged in [the pro se] complaint as true,' ‘draw[] all reasonable inferences in [the plaintiff's] favor,' and ‘ask only whether [that] complaint, liberally construed, . . . contains facts sufficient to state a plausible [] claim.'” Shorter v. United States, 12 F.4th 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 774, 782 (7th Cir. 2015)). Conclusory allegations do not suffice. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Because Bey is proceeding pro se, the Court construes the allegations of the Complaint liberally. Vogt v. Wetzel, 8 F.4th 182, 185 (3d Cir. 2021). However, ‘“pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim.'” Id. (quoting Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013)).

III. DISCUSSION

Bey asserts constitutional violations. The vehicle by which federal constitutional claims may be brought in federal court is 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). “A defendant in a civil rights action must have personal involvement in the alleged wrongs” to be liable. See Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988); see also Jutrowski v. Twp. of Riverdale, 904 F.3d 280, 290 (3d Cir. 2018) (“Each Government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only liable for his or her own misconduct.”) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677) (emphasis in original).

A. ADA Amoroso

Bey brings § 1983 claims against ADA Amoroso asserting that she sought to have him detained for a mental health evaluation, engaged with the SEPTA officers in a “fraudulent nondisclosure of adhesion impaired contracting” that resulted in his being falsely imprisoned, and refiled criminal charges against him after the Common Pleas Judge dismissed them. These claims are not plausible.

Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity from liability under §...