Harris v. Wroble

EDWARD HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. TONYA WROBLE, IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A PENNSYLVANIA STATE TROOPER; GARRY HOFFMAN, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MICHAEL SPADA, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A CORPORAL WITH THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE; HOFFMAN KENNELS, THOMAS WHARRY, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DOG ENFORCEMENT OFFICER; Defendants,

No. 2:20-CV-00915-LPL

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh

August 13, 2021

ECF Nos. 22, 38

Cathy Bisson District Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS

LISA PUPO LENIHAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I RECOMMENATION

It is respectfully recommended that the Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff Edward Harris' Complaint filed by Tonya Wroble Michael Spada, and Thomas Wharry (“Commonwealth Defendants”) (ECF No. 22), and by Defendants Gary Hoffman and Hoffman Kennels (ECF No. 38), be granted. The Court recommends that Plaintiff's claims against all Defendants in their official and individual capacities for illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, reckless investigation, equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Pennsylvania state law, be dismissed with prejudice for having been filed outside the two-year statute of limitations period.^[1] In addition, the claims of malicious prosecution and conspiracy against all Defendants in their official and individual capacities should be dismissed with prejudice, as Plaintiff has failed to state those claims and any amendment would be futile.

II. REPORT

A. Factual Allegations and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Edward Harris (“Plaintiff”) brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when his 23 pit bull dogs were seized and forfeited in a search by the Commonwealth Defendants on August 1, 2017. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants relied on false allegations against him to enter his property with a legally insufficient warrant and seize all of Plaintiff's dogs. Id. ¶¶ 10, 12, 13. Plaintiff alleges that Wroble offered no proof when she signed an affidavit attesting that he raised, trained, and fought pit bull dogs. Id. ¶ 32.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hoffman “maliciously labeled the Plaintiff as a dog fighter and directed Defendant Wroble and Spada to proceed against Plaintiff criminally, ” even though Hoffman never saw him around any of the dogs. Id. ¶¶ 19, 20. He alleges that Hoffman told Wroble that he had confiscated the injured dogs from another property owned by someone else, and that the dogs were also owned by someone else. Id. ¶ 25.

On September 1, 2017, Defendant Wroble filed a 69-count criminal complaint against Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 14. A judge dismissed the felonies and misdemeanors charged in that complaint. Id. ¶ 15. Wroble subsequently filed a charge of 23 counts of Cruelty to Animals against Plaintiff on September 13, 2017. ECF No. 39, p. 48. A bench trial was held on March 25, 2019 and Plaintiff was found guilty on all counts. ECF No. 8, Id. ¶ 16. Plaintiff was sentenced to 20 days incarceration per count, to be served concurrently. ECF No. 39, pp. 34-40. At the time of his prosecution in this matter, Plaintiff was incarcerated in federal custody. Id. ¶ 18. He remains in federal custody at USP Hazelton.^[2]

Defendant Wroble allegedly made “false and malicious statements” against Plaintiff at the forfeiture hearing for the dogs. Id. ¶ 31. Plaintiff alleges that this caused him and his family great suffering, and he was hospitalized as a result, while in Fayette County Prison. Id.

Plaintiff alleges that even though Defendant Spada was called to testify at one of his proceedings, he was never “present at the scene.” Id. ¶ 34. His only knowledge of the events came from Defendants Hoffman and Wroble. Id. Plaintiff claims this supports a conspiracy among the three of them against Plaintiff. Id. The conspiracy was for purposes of humiliating and punishing Plaintiff, and to ultimately take his dogs. Id. ¶ 37.

Plaintiff appealed his guilty convictions on the Cruelty to Animals charges. Id. ¶ 38. On November 19, 2019, the Superior Court remanded his case back to the trial court because the clerk of the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas neglected to enter Plaintiff's court appointed attorney's appearance on the docket and then failed to serve the appointed counsel with the court's verdict and sentencing order, Plaintiff's pro se Notice of Appeal, and the court's Rule 1925(b) Order. See Commonwealth v. Harris, No. 560 WDA 2019, 2019 WL 5960639, at *2 (Pa. Super. Ct. Nov. 13, 2019). On December 17, 2019, ^[3] Plaintiff's convictions for 23 counts of animal cruelty were vacated, and a finding of not-guilty was entered into the record. Id. ¶ 41; see also ECF No. 39, pp. 38, 45.

As a result of being arrested and prosecuted for animal cruelty, Plaintiff avers that he suffered economic damages due to the loss of his pit bulls, physical pain and suffering, emotional trauma, fright, horror, and shock. ECF No. 8.

Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis was docketed on June 23, 2020. ECF No. 1. His Complaint was docketed on July 17, 2020. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff alleges six claims against Defendants: 1) violation of his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure; 2) violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right against reckless investigation; 3) conspiracy; 4) violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection as a class of one; 5) malicious prosecution; and 6) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id.

The Commonwealth Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss with accompanying Brief in Support on November 30, 2020. ECF Nos. 22, 33. Plaintiff filed a Brief in Opposition to that motion on February 18, 2021. ECF No. 34. Defendants Gary Hoffman and Hoffman Kennels filed their Motion to Dismiss and accompanying Brief in Support on March 8, 2021. ECF Nos. 38, 39. Plaintiff filed his Brief in Opposition to that motion on April 13, 2021. ECF No. 45. The Motions are ripe for disposition.

B. Legal Standard

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit summarized the standard to be applied in deciding motions to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6):

Under the “notice pleading” standard embodied in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff must come forward with “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” As explicated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), a claimant must state a “plausible” claim for relief, and “[a] claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Although “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, ” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), a plaintiff “need only put forth allegations that raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary element.” Fowler, 578 F.3d at 213 (quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Covington v. Int'l Ass'n of Approved Basketball Officials, 710 F.3d 114, 117-18 (3d Cir. 2013).

Thompson v. Real Estate Mortg. Network, 748 F.3d 142, 147 (3d Cir. 2014).

In addition to the complaint, courts may consider matters of public record and other matters of which a court may take judicial notice, court orders, and exhibits attached to the complaint when adjudicating a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380, 1384 n.2 (3d Cir. 1994) (citing 5A Wright and Miller, Federal Practice, and Procedure: Civil 2d, § 1357; Chester County Intermediate Unit v. Pennsylvania Blue Shield, 896 F.2d 808, 812 (3d Cir. 1990)). A court may also consider indisputably authentic documents. Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 223 (3d Cir. 2004); Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993); Golden v. Cook, 293 F.Supp.2d 546, 551 (W.D. Pa. 2003) (“[C]ourts are permitted to consider matters of which they may take judicial notice, including records and reports of administrative bodies, and publicly available records and transcripts from judicial proceedings ‘in related or underlying cases which have a direct relation to the matters at issue.'”) (citations omitted).

When considering pro se pleadings, a court must employ less stringent standards than when judging the work product of an attorney. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). When presented with a pro se complaint, the court should construe the complaint liberally and draw fair inferences from what is not alleged as well as from what is alleged. Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir. 2003). In a § 1983 action, the court must “apply the applicable law, irrespective of whether the pro se litigant has mentioned it by name.” Higgins v. Beyer, 293 F.3d 683, 688 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Holley v. Dep't of Veteran Affairs, 165 F.3d 244, 247-48 (3d Cir. 1999)). See also Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996) (“Since this is a § 1983 action, the [pro se] plaintiffs are entitled to relief if their complaint sufficiently alleges deprivation of any right secured by the Constitution.”) (quoting Higgins, 293 F.3d at 688). Notwithstanding this liberality, pro se litigants are not relieved of their obligation to allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal claim. See, e.g., Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002); Riddle v. Mondragon, 83 F.3d 1197, 2102 (10th Cir. 1996).

C. D...