Grubbs v. Univ. of Del. Police Dep't

174 F.Supp.3d 839

Jason W. Grubbs, Plaintiff,

v.University of Delaware Police Department, et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 15–195–SLR

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

Signed March 29, 2016

Jason W. Grubbs, Plaintiff, pro se.

Christofer C. Johnson, Esquire, Assistant City Solicitor, City of Wilmington Law Department, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Defendant City of Wilmington.

Joseph C. Handlon, Esquire and Roopa Sabesan, Esquire, Deputy Attorneys General. State of Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington Delaware. Attorneys for Defendants Kathleen Jennings, Danielle Brennan and Michael Degliobizzi.

Richard D. Abrams, Esquire and Daniel P. Bennett, Esquire of Mintzer, Sarowitz, Zeris, Ledva & Meyers, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for Defendants Newark Delaware Police Department, Cpl James Marconi, MS/CPL Greg D'Elia, Sgt Andrew Rubin, George F. Stanko, Thomas J. Buglio, Michael K. Van Campen, City of Newark, Chief Paul M. Tiernan, DC/LT Mark Farrall, Detective James Skinner and DC/LT/CPT Kevin Feeney.

James Darlington Taylor, Jr., Esquire, Allison Jean McCowan, Esquire and Dawn Kurtz Crompton, Esquire, of Saul Ewing LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for University of Delaware Police Department, Sgt. Maier, Chief Patrick Ogden, Detective Jay Protz, Officer Sean Hogan, Sgt. Jeffrey Gates, Emmet M. Robinson, University of Delaware and Udaily.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROBINSON, District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

On March 2, 2015, pro se plaintiff Jason W. Grubbs (“plaintiff”) filed this action against thirty-five different individuals and entities for claims emanating from his arrest and prosecution. (D.l. 1) Plaintiff alleges civil rights violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. IV, V, VI, VIII, XIV. Plaintiff also asserts violations of Delaware state law, including claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, assault, battery, defamation, invasion of privacy, negligent publication, gross negligence, malice, negligent infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, conspiracy, and tortious interference. Prior to filing an answer to plaintiff's complaint, defendants moved for dismissal, (D.l.13, 23, 78, 102, 112, 140, 148, 172)

By order dated November 30, 2015, the Flonorable Gregory M. Sleet granted the motions to dismiss filed by defendants Delaware Business Daily, Kennetttimes.com, CBS Broadcasting Inc., Daily News L.P., Delmarva Broadcasting Company, Pacific and Southern Company, Inc., Cora Van Olson, Newark Post Online, and Huffington Post. (D.l.177) The court found that plaintiff had failed to state viable causes of action under § 1983 on counts one through twelve and fourteen, and that plaintiff had filed the complaint outside Pennsylvania's one-year statute of limitation for the actions of defamation, and negligent, reckless and intentional publication.

On December 16, 2015, the case was reassigned to the undersigned. Pending before the court are fully briefed motions to dismiss filed by: (1) defendants Kathleen Jennings, Danielle Brennan, Michael Degliobizzi (collectively, “State defendants”) (D.l.140, 141, 150, 153); (2) City of Wilmington (D.l.23, 24, 118); (3) Newark Delaware Police Department (“NPD”), City of Newark, CpI James Marconi, MS/CPL Greg D'Elia, Sgt Andrew Rubin, George F. Stanko, Thomas J. Buglio, Michael K. Van Campen, City of Newark, Chief Paul M. Tiernan, DC/Lt. Mark Farrall, Detective James Skinner and DC/LT/Cpt Kevin Feeney (collectively, “Newark defendants”) (D.l.148, 149, 152, 155); (3) University of Delaware Police Department (“UDPD”), Sgt Maier, Chief Patrick Ogden, Detective Jay Protz, Officer Sean Hogan, Sgt Jeffrey Gates, Emmet M. Robinson, University of Delaware (“UD”), and Udaily (collectively, “UD defendants”). (D.l.172, 173, 175, 178) Also ripe for review are plaintiff's motions for default judgment and to seal a document. (D.l.96, 97, 156, 158, 174, 179, 181) The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

II. BACKGROUND¹

Plaintiff's complaint alleges the following facts.² At approximately 10:30 p.m. on April 20, 2013, plaintiff was jogging on the sidewalk in the area of the University of Delaware (“UD”) campus.³ (D.l. 1 at ¶ 44, 45, 77) Suddenly, an unmarked police vehicle drove directly toward plaintiff, sliding to a complete stop.⁴ Plaintiff surmised that the driver of the vehicle was drunk and dangerous. (Id. at ¶¶ 77, 78, 210) Defendants Maier⁵ and Marconi⁶ exited the vehicle, without identifying themselves, and approached plaintiff.⁷ Plaintiff was handcuffed, thrown to the ground and placed under arrest. (Id. at ¶¶ 98, 77–79, 83–84) While on the ground, an unidentified officer struck, kicked and twisted plaintiff's right ankle, while remarking that plaintiff would not be jogging for a while. After defendants Maier and Marconi assisted plaintiff to his feet, a K–9 dog ran up and bit plaintiff on the medial side of his right thigh, causing pain and injury. (Id. at ¶¶ 47, 99, 229) Plaintiff requested, but was not afforded, medical care. (Id. at ¶¶ 114–118)

Plaintiff was transported to NPD for processing. (Id. at ¶ 48) Many hours after arriving, plaintiff was moved to an interrogation room for questioning by defendants Skinner⁸ and Protz.⁹ Plaintiff was asked the reason he was jogging on the UD campus and engaging in “sexually deviant activities.”¹⁰ (Id. at ¶ 50) Questioning stopped after plaintiff requested an attorney. Plaintiff was moved to a holding cell overnight where the sound of opening and closing cell doors interfered with his ability to sleep. (Id. at ¶ 51)

By the next morning, the dog bite and ankle injury were causing plaintiff severe pain. He requested medical treatment. Defendant Skinner denied his request. (Id. at ¶ 52) Plaintiff was charged with 18 different criminal offenses and ordered transferred to the UDPD for further processing. (Id. at ¶ 53)

Defendant Hogan¹¹ transported plaintiff to the UDPD detention center. (Id. at ¶¶ 55–57) During the drive, defendant Hogan addressed plaintiff as “prisoner” and took him to a fast food restaurant to purchase a “prisoner meal.” Defendant Hogan ignored plaintiff's request for medical care for his ankle and dog bite.

Later that morning, additional criminal charges were filed, resulting in 34 counts of conduct spanning the course of about two years on and around the area of UD's campus. Specifically, plaintiff was charged with: two counts of possession of illegal drugs, seven counts of criminal trespass, two counts of lewdness, one count of resisting arrest, and twenty-two counts of indecent exposure. (Id. at ¶ 58) Plaintiff was fingerprinted, strip-searched and treated for his injuries. (Id. at ¶ 59) Photographs were taken of plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff was forced to change in an open cell in front of men, women and cameras. (Id. at ¶ 61) At approximately 9:00 p.m., plaintiff posted bond and was released. (Id. at ¶ 60)

Sometime on April 22, 2013, defendant NPD Chief of Police Paul Tiernan issued a five-page news release detailing the arrest and charges filed against plaintiff. The news release details the events and associated charges for multiple incidents of indecent exposure dating back to June 2011, and accuses plaintiff of sexually assaulting “dozens and dozens” of women through indecent exposure, groping, and masturbation. (Id. at ¶¶ 166–167) The news release indicated the investigation was continuing and encouraged any additional victims to contact police, while also noting that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Along with the news release, two photos (purportedly of plaintiff) were published. One of the photos (“field photo”) shows a shirtless, bald man either pulling up or down his boxer shorts.

Later in the morning of April 22, 2013, plaintiff was informed by friends and colleagues that there were numerous articles on the Internet, identifying him as the “UD Flasher, Moonlight Derriere, and Naked Man.” (Id. at ¶¶ 63, 164) Defendant UDaily¹² posted an online article based on the news release. (D.l. 79 ex. 1) A note was posted on defendant UDPD's Facebook page stating that plaintiff had been arrested on multiple counts of indecent exposure and related charges stemming from incidents on campus and in the area. This Facebook posting also included a link to the news release. All publications indicated that police had finally caught their man and the community was now safe. (Id. at ¶ 172)

Similar articles soon appeared in over “30 newspapers/online publications,” making headlines on major networks across the nation. (Id. at ¶¶ 64, 165) The news release was the source of information. The field photo was published with almost every article, identifying plaintiff as the perpetrator. The stories indicated that the community was safe because police had apprehended the perpetrator.

The intense media coverage continued for approximately one year after plaintiff's arrest as local television stations and Internet websites and blogs reported on the pending criminal trial and published the field photo identifying plaintiff as the perpetrator. (Id. at ¶¶ 137, 170, 174) Accompanying the coverage was information for “victim recruitment.” No additional victims came forward to identify plaintiff as the perpetrator. (Id. at ¶¶ at 65, 126, 170, 174)

Sometime during the investigation, defendants Protz and Skinner visited plaintiff's workplace, seeking certain information and records. As a result of defendants Skinner and Protz's inquiries and the intense media coverage, plaintiff was terminated from his job.

The criminal trial against plaintiff was postponed five times due to the prosecutor's requests and judge reassignment. (D.l. 1 at ¶¶ 68, 321) The prosecutor assigned to the case, defendant Degliobizzi,¹³ stated that “up until the date of [plaintiff's] arrest, there was not much evidence.” (Id. at ¶ 142) D...