In re Jackson

ROBERT JACKSON, SR., ROBERT JACKSON, JR. and MAXINE V. PRIDE, Plaintiffs v. MYCHAEL ALTHOUSE, MAVIS DISCOUT TIRES, POLICE OFFICER WILLIAM J. SUMMERFIELD POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE and HATFIELD TOWNSHIP

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-CV-3287

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

February 6, 2019

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOYNER, J.

This civil rights action has been brought before the Court on Motion of Defendants William J. Summerfield and Hatfield Township for dismissal of Plaintiffs' Complaint against them. For the reasons which follow, the motion shall be granted in part and denied in part.

History of the Case

According to the Complaint filed in this matter, on or about August 18, 2016, Plaintiffs Robert Jackson Sr. and his son, Robert Jackson, Jr. went to the Mavis Discount Tire Store in Hatfield, Pennsylvania to pick up and pay for a set of tires which they had pre-ordered. When Plaintiff Robert Jackson, Sr. presented his bank debit card to the store manager, Defendant Mychael Althouse, to pay for the tires, Defendant Althouse asked for and Plaintiff Jackson, Sr. presented valid identification. Defendant Althouse, however, for some unknown reason, went into the store's back room and called the Hatfield Police Department claiming that Plaintiffs were attempting to commit fraud.

In response to Althouse' call, Defendant Officer William Summerfield responded to the store, together with an unidentified Officer (designated in the Complaint as John Doe) and detained and questioned the plaintiffs. More particularly, the Complaint avers that: "[w]hen the police arrived at the defendant's store, defendant - Mychael Althouse - pointed out plaintiffs in response to which defendants - Officer Summerfield and/or Officer Doe - put his hand over his gun and ordered plaintiff - Robert Jackson, Jr. - to turn around. When plaintiff - Robert Jackson, Jr. - asked said officer what he was supposed to turn around for, said officer then unsnapped his gun holster, putting said plaintiff in fear for his life." (Compl. ¶s 23, 24). "When plaintiff - Robert Jackson, Jr. stepped outside based on orders by the defendant officer - he was able to see what appeared to be a SWAT team of police officers nearby, thereby further putting said plaintiff in fear for his life." (Compl. ¶28). In addition, "the defendant officers ordered plaintiff - Robert Jackson, Jr. - to flip his pocketsinside out," and "[w]hile the defendant officer was detaining plaintiff - Robert Jackson, Jr. - outside of the store, the other police officer defendant ordered Plaintiff - Robert Jackson, Sr. - to provide his identification and debit card and did not allow Robert Jackson, Sr. to leave the store, such action constituting an arrest/detainment." (Compl., ¶s 29, 30). "During all of the above and below activity, it was made clear by defendants - Officer Summerfield and/or Officer Doe - that plaintiffs were being forcibly detained and were not free to leave and were not free to disobey any of the instructions given by these police officers." (Compl., ¶26).

The Complaint also alleges that Plaintiffs Jackson had been driven to the store by Plaintiff Maxine Pride, Plaintiff Jackson, Jr.'s mother, who while her son and his father were being detained, was sitting in her car waiting for them. The Plaintiffs allege that Ms. Pride, too, was detained and that her car was searched "without a warrant, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or any other reasonable basis." (Compl., ¶s 31, 32). Although Plaintiff Pride was told she was not free to leave until after the search of her car had been completed, after the search ended, she was told that she was free to and should, go. Ms. Pride, however, told the officers that she needed to stay as she was the only ride for her son and his father. (Compl., ¶ 33).

Subsequently, the defendant officer(s) determined that the identification and debit card were valid, that Plaintiffs had done nothing wrong and they left the store. Defendant Althouse then completed the purchase of the tires using the debit card that had first been presented to him. (Compl., ¶ 34).

As a result of this incident, Plaintiffs filed this action on August 3, 2018 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and Pennsylvania state law for false arrest, false imprisonment, illegal search and false detainment in violation of their Constitutional rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. By virtue of the Motion which is now before us, Defendants Summerfield and Hatfield Township move to dismiss the claims against them for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and/or on the grounds that they are qualifiedly immune from suit.

Standards Governing Rule 12(b)(6) Motions

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a complaint may be dismissed for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Renfro v. Unisys Corp., 671 F.3d 314, 320 (3d Cir. 2011). In reviewing a challenged pleading, the courts are required to accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor. Ebert v. Prime Care Medical, Inc., No. 14-2020, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1843 at *4 (3d Cir. Feb. 5, 2015); Krantz v. Prudential Investments Fund Management, 305 F.3d 140, 142 (3d Cir. 2002).In so doing, reliance is placed upon "the complaint, attached exhibits, and matters of public record." Ebert, supra, (quoting Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2007)).

Because Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires a 'showing,' rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief, courts evaluating the viability of a complaint must look beyond conclusory statements and determine whether the complaint has alleged enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929, 949 (2007); Renfro, supra. Indeed, it is no longer sufficient to allege mere elements of a cause of action; instead a complaint must allege facts "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Umland v. Planco Financial Services, Inc., 542 F.3d 59, 64 (3d Cir. 2008)(quoting Philips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008)). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). Examination of the context of the claim, including the underlying substantive law is therefore necessary in order to properly assess plausibility. Renfro, 671 F.3d at 321(citing In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, 618 F.3d 300, 320, n. 18 (3d Cir. 2010)).

Discussion

Plaintiffs first invoke 42 U.S.C. §1983 in asserting their First Cause of Action for civil rights violations against the Moving Defendants. Under Section 1983,

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress ...

It has thus been recognized that the threshold inquiry in a §1983 suit is the identification of the specific constitutional right at issue. Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911, 920, 197 L. Ed.2d 312, (2017) (citing Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271, 114 S. Ct. 807, 127 L. Ed.2d 114 (1994) (plurality opinion)). Then, "[a] plaintiff seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983 must demonstrate 'that the defendants, acting under color of law, violated the plaintiff's federal constitutional or statutory rights, and thereby caused the complained of injury.'" Black v. Montgomery County, 835 F.3d 358, 364 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting Elmore v. Cleary, 399 F.3d 279, 281 (2005)).

Plaintiff here has identified the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments as the sources of the constitutional rights which he alleges Defendant violated. It is difficult todiscern how the First Amendment has any application here given that it guarantees the freedoms of speech, religion, the press and the right to peaceably assemble¹ and the Complaint alleges no facts suggestive of a violation of any of these rights.

The Fourth Amendment, however, states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

And the Fourteenth Amendment, in turn provides in relevant part:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, §1.

The Fourteenth Amendment therefore effectively "incorporates" the protections of the Fourth and other Amendments, insofar as it "forbids states from depriving 'any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law"and "contains both substantive and procedural components." Baker, 443 U.S. at 142-143, 99 S. Ct. at 2694; Holland v. Rosen, 895 F.3d 272, 292 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting U.S. Const. Amend. XIV and Steele v. Cicchi, 855 F.3d 494, 501 (3d Cir. 2017)). See also, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 656, 657, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 1692, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961)(noting that "Fourth Amendment's right...