Donnelly v. Kutztown Area Transp. Serv., Inc.

198 F.Supp.3d 499

Michael DONNELLY, Plaintiff,

v.KUTZTOWN AREA TRANSPORT SERVICE, INC., Clarence E. Howell, and Matthew K. Angstadt, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-1128

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed July 29, 2016

J. Todd Savarese, Churchville, PA, Dean W. Ibrahim, Ibrahim & McKillop, P.C., Doylestown, PA, for Plaintiff.

Susan R. Engle, David S. Cohen, William M. Brennan, Mintzer, Sarowitz, Zeris, Ledva & Meyers LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Smith, District Judge

The plaintiff, Michael Donnelly ("Donnelly"), a student at Kutztown University (the "University") in 2014, has sued a provider of emergency medical care (but not the University) and two of its employees in connection with an underage drinking incident on campus. The essentials of the incident are largely undisputed. Corporal Paul Long ("Corporal Long") of the University's Department of Public Safety responded to a call from a building administrator concerning the presence of alcohol in Donnelly's dorm room. After observing that Donnelly appeared to be visibly intoxicated, Corporal Long administered a breath test, which registered a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.111%. Upon obtaining this result, Corporal Long put in a call for an alcohol evaluation. He requested an evaluation only of Donnelly, despite there being six other underage students in the room who had admitted to alcohol use. In turn, and after being notified through a chain-of-communication that the University required its services, the defendant, Kutztown Area Transport Service, Inc. ("KATS"), through its employees, arrived on the scene and ultimately transported Donnelly to the hospital. Although Donnelly's blood-alcohol concentration had risen to a level of 0.124% by the time he was evaluated at the hospital, he was released in short order.

The broader context of this incident is, in contrast, hotly disputed as Donnelly maintains that he has fallen victim to the "Kutztown Special."¹ While the precise nature and breadth of this scheme remains unclear, Donnelly suggests that it is something like a tacit conspiracy between the University and KATS to exploit college underage drinking—an "alcohol epidemic"² —for their mutual benefit. While University police officers would create the conditions for a medical transport, the conspiracy goes, KATS would then bill students for unnecessary medical expenses. In return, the University would be able to insulate itself from any liability related to an intoxicated student's actions by getting him or her off the campus and into a hospital until he or she sobered up. The defendants naturally take issue with this characterization of what they view as an otherwise routine business (no doubt public-service oriented) relationship.

With this dispute came litigation and Donnelly now seeks to expose the conspiracy through the courts. In addition to a variety of state-law claims, he advances a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. But he has only sued private actors and such a claim requires some form of state (governmental) action. So he argues that the conspiracy can move this case from the private to the public realm. Because the parties have conducted discovery with respect to the state-action issue, evidence must support this argument. Unfortunately for Donnelly, the evidence actually produced would not allow a reasonable jury to credit his state-action argument. The court therefore enters judgment in favor of the defendants on the section 1983 claim. All is not lost for Donnelly, however, for he originally wanted to be in state court. He is only here because of the removal process. With the federal claim out of the picture, he will get his first-choice forum back.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Donnelly commenced this action by filing a complaint against the defendants, KATS and two of its employees (Clarence E. Howell ("Howell") and Matthew K. Angstadt ("Angstadt")), on February 2, 2016, in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County. See Compl. Before filing a response to the complaint, the defendants removed this matter to federal court on March 10. See Notice of Removal, Doc. No. 1. They subsequently filed a motion to dismiss on March 18. See Mot. to Dismiss, Doc. No. 3. In that motion, the defendants asked the court to dismiss not only Donnelly's section 1983 claim, but also to dismiss one of his various state-law claims and to strike his request for punitive damages as well. See id. Noting that the vitality of Donnelly's federal claim, as the only claim anchoring this court's original jurisdiction, would likely be forum-determinative, the court ordered expedited discovery on the state-action issue (the sole ground raised concerning the dismissal of the section 1983 claim) and reserved discussing any other issues. See Order, Doc. No. 5. After the completion of discovery, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on June 8 limited to the issue of state action. See Mot. for Summ. J., Doc. No. 17. Donnelly filed his response to the motion on June 22. See Pl.'s Resp. The defendants filed a reply brief on June 28. See Reply, Doc. No. 21. The court held oral argument on July 1.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

For purposes of setting up the state-action analysis, the following facts are recited after viewing the summary judgment record in the light most favorable to Donnelly, which essentially means that the court credits his story.³ The court begins with some contextual facts and moves towards the particulars surrounding Donnelly's February 5, 2014 encounter with KATS.

KATS is the primary emergency medical services provider for the University, having continuously served it since 1984. See Pl.'s Statement of Facts at ¶¶ 49-50, Doc. No. 20. "On average, KATS conducts 350 transports from the grounds of [the University] each year." Id. at ¶ 51 (footnote omitted). KATS operates from a location that is a "2.0 mile drive away from the center of campus." Defs.' Statement of Facts at ¶ 4, Doc. No. 17; see Pl.'s Statement of Facts at ¶ 4. In some contrast to the University itself, KATS is a "private business entity." Pl.'s Statement of Facts at ¶ 5; see Defs.' Statement of Facts at ¶ 5.

In addition to providing emergency medical services, KATS "also provided taxi-style transportation for students going to off-campus medical, non-emergency appointments on a year to year basis beginning...with the 2015/2016 school year." Defs.' Statement of Facts at ¶¶ 6-7; see Pl.'s Statement of Facts at ¶¶ 6-7. Moreover, "KATS, along with other local ambulance agencies, would provide standby services during university functions, such as during commencement proceedings and athletic events, on a per event, as-needed basis." Defs.' Statement of Facts at ¶ 9; see Pl.'s Statement of Facts at ¶¶ 9, 56. Besides providing these services to students, KATS trained University police "in the use of Narcam [sic],⁴ an overdose treatment designed to reverse the effects of a narcotic overdose." Defs.' Statement of Facts at ¶ 8; see Pl.'s Statement of Facts at ¶ 8. KATS also helped the University in drafting applicable protocols concerning its use. See Pl.'s Statement of Facts at ¶ 53.

A collaborative relationship between KATS and the University also seems to have played a role in formulating (perhaps "reformulating" would be more accurate) University policy initiatives dealing with college drinking.⁵ See Pl.'s Statement of Facts at ¶ 10. Originally, the University drafted its "policy governing the handling of intoxicated students" at a time when its Health Center operated around the clock. Id. at ¶ 32. In part, the purpose of such a policy is to "insulate [the University] police department from liability." Id. at ¶ 42. The policy at that time mandated that the appropriate personnel transport any intoxicated student to the Health Center for evaluation and, if necessary, treatment. See id. at ¶ 33. At some point, the University revised its policy when the Health Center "ceased operating 24-hours a day."⁶ Id. at ¶ 34. According to the revised policy, University police officers "were required to transport intoxicated students to the Health Center if it was open; otherwise, police were required to notify the appropriate emergency medical unit for evaluation and transportation to a medical facility." Id. at ¶ 35 (internal quotation marks omitted). The University once again revised its policy "as a result of a meeting that took place... at the University." Id. at ¶ 37 (internal quotation marks omitted). Both KATS and the Director of the EMS Council were in attendance. See id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The major policy change stemming from this meeting revolved around the recording of a student's blood-alcohol concentration.⁷ See id. at ¶ 38. Culminating in its current form, the policy underwent a final revision in 2013 in identifying Central Processing as another location where intoxicated students could be transported. See id. at ¶ 39.

Within the framework of University policy, a certain course of conduct is called for when the University receives a call regarding underage drinking. University police officers are initially "authorized to evaluate an underage student for potential intoxication by observing physical clues such as slurred speech, a positive preliminary breath test, red glassy eyes, alcohol odor, and swaying while standing." Defs.' Statement of Facts at ¶ 12; see Pl.'s Statement of Facts at ¶ 12. As relevant to this case, an officer is then authorized to request an alcohol evaluation of a student with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08%-0.12%, presumably by an entity like KATS, "only if [the student] is exhibiting signs of intoxication that renders [him or her] a danger to [himself or herself] or others." Pl.'s Statement of Facts at ¶ 13 (internal quotation marks omitted). As a logistical matter, "[t]he call for an alcohol evaluation is a three-prong process by which the responding officer contacts Kutztown...