Haines v. Does 1 -5 (Five Unknown Sheriff's Deputies)

1

CLIFFORD HAINES, ESQ. Appellant v. DOES 1 -5 (FIVE UNKNOWN SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES) Appellees

No. 1027 EDA 2022

No. J-A10008-23

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

January 18, 2024

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment Entered June 13, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s) 171202397.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KING, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.^[*]

MEMORANDUM

KING, J.

Appellant, Clifford Haines, Esq., appeals pro se from the judgment entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, in favor of Appellant and against Appellees, Deputy Sheriff's Officer Samuel Frank ("Officer Frank") and Deputy Sheriff's Officer Edwin Lopez ("Officer Lopez"), and in favor of Appellees, Deputy Sheriff's Officer Jason Kolody ("Officer Kolody") and Deputy Sheriff's Officer Branden Broadbent ("Officer Broadbent"), following a jury trial.^[1] We affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows.

Appellant was injured on August 22, 2017, in the course of his arrest for assaulting a law enforcement officer at the Justice Juanita Kidd Stout Criminal Justice Center in Philadelphia ("CJC"). Appellant commenced this action by filing a complaint on December 18, 2017. He filed an amended complaint on January 23, 2018, and a second amended complaint on June 5, 2018, which included counts of assault and false arrest against Officers Frank, Lopez, Kolody, Thomas, and Broadbent, and a count of intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED") against Inspector Anthony Laforet who was responsible for security of the CJC.^[2]

On January 27, 2021, Appellees informed Appellant that they intended to subpoena Appellant's treating psychologists, Dr. Robert Garfield and Dr. Robert Heasley, for records concerning diagnosis and treatment of Appellant. On January 29, 2021, Appellant unilaterally withdrew the IIED claim against Inspector Laforet. Appellant objected to the subpoenas on February 8, 2021. On February 12, 2021, Appellees filed a motion for extraordinary relief requesting that the court permit Appellees to depose Drs. Garfield and Heasley, arguing that Drs. Garfield and Heasley possessed information relevant to Appellant's psychological state on the date of the incident and how the incident affected Appellant. Appellant again objected to Appellees' proposed subpoenas and Appellees filed a motion to strike Appellant's objections. On March 15, 2021, the trial court denied Appellees' motion to strike Appellant's objections without prejudice for Appellees to request depositions or documents if Appellant placed his emotional status at issue. (See Order, dated 3/15/21).

On December 15, 2021, Appellant filed several motions in limine, including a motion in limine to preclude Appellees from eliciting evidence from Drs. Garfield and Heasley. The trial court denied the order on December 28, 2021,^[3] reasoning that "despite having voluntarily dismissed the count in his complaint for [IIED]," Appellant "is seeking to claim damages for anxiety and other emotional injuries." (Order, dated 12/28/21) (unnecessary capitalization omitted). Therefore, the court denied Appellant's motion unless Appellant "entered into a stipulation that no damages are being sought for anxiety, emotional distress, or any mental injuries that [Appellant's] expert has opined were the direct manifestation of a physical injury that occurred as a result of the incident." (Id.)

The case proceeded to a jury trial on January 3, 2022. At trial, Appellant introduced evidence that he was at the CJC on August 22, 2017, while representing a client in an unrelated criminal matter. Appellant did not bring his official court attorney ID with him that day; therefore, he had to place his cell phone in a locked pouch and enter the CJC through the main entrance where he was required to pass through a metal detector and have his possessions x-rayed and his cell phone locked.^[4] Prior to the start of the hearing, Appellant returned to the CJC lobby in order to access his phone. He attempted to exit through the screening entrance and was redirected by Officer Frank, who told him he needed to exit on the other side. (N.T. Trial, 1/3/22, at 157).

After exiting, Appellant approached Officer Rosalind Mason and asked how to remove his phone from the pouch. Appellant testified at trial that Officer Mason was rude and not particularly helpful to him and did not smile at him when he approached. (N.T. Trial, 1/4/22, at 98-99). Appellant explained that he was trying to find out if the officer could help get the YondR bag opened quicker, and Officer Mason simply directed him to the YondR desk. (Id. at 105). Appellant further testified that Officer Mason was not "being particularly polite or helpful to a member of the public." (Id. at 115).

Appellant elaborated that Officer Mason was not helpful because "she was not warm. She was not gracious. She was abrupt. She didn't smile. All the things that…officers are supposed to do when they interact with the public." (Id. at 117).

At trial, Officer Mason testified that Appellant approached her and asked her "how to f***ing get his phone out of the pouch." (N.T. Trial, 1/5/22, at 152). She explained that Appellant was very aggressive and very upset. (Id. at 153). During the encounter, Appellant waved his business card in her face and stated "here is my card. How can I get this the eff out?" (Id.)

Finally, Appellant proceeded to the YondR desk where he was able to retrieve his phone. After leaving the YondR desk, Appellant re-entered through the main security entrance. After passing through the metal detectors, Appellant initially began to walk away; however, he then turned around and confronted Officer Frank. At trial, Officer Frank testified that Appellant advanced toward him and said: "Thanks for your f***ing help." (N.T. Trial, 1/3/22, at 170, 217-18). Officer Frank told Appellant to back up, but Appellant did not comply and continued forward. Officer Frank stepped backwards four times and told Appellant three times to back up; however, Appellant continued to advance closer to Officer Frank. (Id. at 219-21). Officer Frank testified that he put his arm up to create a safe distance, and Appellant struck Officer Frank's arm away. (Id. at 174, 225-26). Officer Frank explained that after Appellant "smacked [his] hand" he told Appellant: "Give me your hand, you are under arrest." (Id. at 178, 228). Appellant stated: "I'm not giving you s**t," and pulled his arm up close to his body. (Id. at 228).

Security video of the encounter was played for the jury numerous times at trial. In addition, the officers attempted to explain what ensued as Officer Frank arrested Appellant. Officer Frank testified that he attempted to grab Appellant's arm and bring it behind Appellant's back to place him under arrest; however, Appellant kept resisting and pulling his arms away. Officer Frank explained that Officers Lopez, Kolody, Broadbent and Thomas joined in the struggle to handcuff Appellant. Appellant was initially leaning over the conveyor belt; but then he stood back up and pulled forward, pulling Officer Frank on top of him on the conveyor belt. Officer Frank explained that the momentum of the rollers of the conveyor belt then took everybody off the belt and onto the floor. (Id. at 235). Finally, the officers were able to get the handcuffs onto Appellant's hands and attempted to escort him out of the public area. (Id. at 238-39).

Officer Thomas testified that he rushed over to assist when he first noticed the encounter between Appellant and Officer Frank. Officer Thomas explained that he grabbed Appellant's feet, which were swinging around because Appellant was on top of the conveyer belt rollers and his feet were swinging around the other officers. (N.T. Trial, 1/3/22, at 96-104). Officer Thomas explained that he did not take any actions with the intent to injure Appellant, but he acted to control the situation and still maintain a secure area. (Id. at 125).

Officer Lopez testified that he was working at the x-ray machine on the morning of the incident. After Appellant passed through security, Officer Frank told him that some "old guy" just cursed him out. Officer Lopez suggested that Officer Frank let it go, and the two continued working until Appellant reappeared. When Appellant passed through security the second time, Officer Frank pointed Appellant out to Officer Lopez. Shortly thereafter, Officer Lopez noticed a physical confrontation between the two and, coming to the aid of his fellow officer, he reached out and grabbed Appellant, pulling him away from Officer Frank and toward the conveyor belt, which was in between them. (N.T., 1/4/22, at 16, 19). Ultimately, everybody who was on the conveyor belt fell off the end onto Appellant. (Id. at 23).

Appellant testified at trial that after he arrived at the CJC he gave his cell phone to a woman who sealed it in the YondR bag. Appellant explained that when he appeared in the courtroom, he realized that he had not turned his phone off prior to placing it in the bag, so he returned to the lobby to have the bag opened so that he could turn off his phone. Appellant stated that he attempted to go through the same entrance that he had come in because the woman who sealed the YondR bags was there. (N.T. Trial, 1/4/22, at 55-56). Appellant explained that Officer Frank told him to "Go the other way," so Appellant turned around and went out the other exit area. (Id. at 57). Appellant said that as he exited, he approached Officer Mason and asked her to open the pouch for him, and she "wasn't particularly helpful" and told him he had to go to the line for the YondR bags. (Id.)

Appellant then...