Lopez v. City of Lehigh Cnty.

1

GEORGE IVAN LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF LEHIGH COUNTY, et al. Defendants.

Civil Action No. 21-CV-4388

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

January 11, 2022

MEMORANDUM

GERALD J. PAPPERT, J.

George Ivan Lopez, a convicted prisoner currently incarcerated at SCI-Phoenix on the capital case unit, filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons that follow, on statutory screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim.

I

Lopez has named the following Defendants: “City of Lehigh County, ” Lehigh County District Attorney James B Martin (“DA Martin”), Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro (“AG Shapiro”), Joseph Hanna, and “Jane and John Doe.” (ECF No. 2 at 3-4.)^[1] All Defendants are sued in their individual and official capacities. (Id.) Lopez claims he “is a wrongfully convicted prisoner, ” asserting that his First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been violated. (Id. at 3.)

Lopez contends that between 2019 and 2021, he “has made numerous attempts via letters to all named defendants pertaining to the creation of a ‘Conviction Integrity Unit (‘CIU') at the Lehigh County District Attorney's Office, as afforded to the Philadelphia county only.” (Id. at 4.) (italics in original). Lopez questions why only one Pennsylvania County is “afforded CIU protection, ” “depriving the other 66-counties of the same equal protection rights and moreso [sic] due process of law.” (Id.) (bolded emphasis in original). Lopez asserts that the “Philadelphia Conviction Integrity Unit (‘PCIU') . . . has had hundreds of submissions in the first year alone” based on such claims including, but not limited to, police and prosecutor misconduct, corruption, actual innocence, and wrongful conviction. (Id. at 5.) Lopez asserts that by virtue of the PCIU,

all access to the court, Due Process and Equal Protection discovery, investigation and equal treatment of law, among other reliefs and privileges are afforded only to the Philadelphia convicted prisoners to insure there are not any miscarriages of justice. However, all other 66-counties in Pennsylvania as Lehigh County similarly situated prisoners are deliberately denied their constitutional rights to equitable treatment of law.

(Id. at 6.) (bolded emphasis in original). Lopez further asserts that the PCIU “has included discovery as part of its efforts to remedy the root cause of problematic wrongful convictions” and has permitted open discovery “to ensure that defendants have access to all exculpatory and impeachment material in their possession.” (Id. at 7.)

Lopez has provided the foregoing as background to his claims, asserting that he can “demonstrate that the defendants [DA Martin, AG Shapiro, and the City of Lehigh] have intentionally and with fraudulent intent concealed exculpatory evidence from him with respect to []his criminal prosecution and conviction in Lehigh County.” (Id.) Lopez avers that the exculpatory evidence “is in the sole possession of the defendants and which establishes [he] is actual[ly] innocent” and demonstrates “clear and convincing evidence of ‘Prosecutorial/Police/judicial misconduct and corruption' on the highest of levels at the Lehigh County Courthouse Attorney General's office.” (Id. at 7-8.)

Lopez asserts that DA Martin, AG Shapiro and the City of Lehigh “have engaged in criminal conspiracy with the sole intent to fraudulently conceal exculpatory evidence pertaining to the jailhouse informant, Daniel Lopez, AKA Timoteo Paladino and co-defendant Miguel Moreno, among countless documentation of exculpatory and impeachment evidence” and have “conspired to intentionally deprive” him of due process and equal protection by refusing to provide him “with his inherent right to full discovery” as delineated in Brady v. Maryland. (Id. at 8.) Lopez asserts that he learned about the existence of exculpatory evidence in August 2021 that “was being withheld and suppressed by [DA Martin, AG Shapiro, and the City of Lehigh]” which has been fraudulently concealed for decades, and which “establishes a wrongful conviction has taken place by way of fraud by officers of the court.” (Id. at 9.)

Lopez contends that he has set forth a plausible “claim of deprivation of his constitutional rights to equal protection, equal treatment and moreso, deprivation Due Process of the law” and avers that the defendants are responsible “for the perpetuation of a miscarriage of justice” against him, “an actual innocent man” with respect to his criminal case, “Commonwealth v. George Ivan Lopez, Case # 1884/1995” in the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas. (Id. at 10, 12-13.) Lopez asserts that he “has informally pleaded with the defendants repeatedly for years to produce the requested discovery materials and has refused to do so under color of state law . . . [and he] will continue to suffer irreparably injuries by the defendant's fraudulent concealment of evidence.” (Id. at 13.) Lopez also avers that defendants have violated both 28 U.S.C. §241 and §242. (Id. at 11-12.)

In his request for relief, Lopez seeks the following: (1) a copy of his entire homicide file including witness statements, investigative reports, and prosecutor's notes; (2) Lehigh County Prison's daily log from January 1, 1995 through July 24, 1995, which refers to all cell movement sheets regarding Commonwealth witness “Daniel Lopez, AKA Timoteo Paladino;” (3) any and all statements made by Daniel Lopez to the police and criminal history and police reports in totality; (4) Clerk of Quarter Session files pertaining to himself and Daniel Lopez and Miguel Moreno; and (5) Miguel Moreno's polygraph testing in its totality, and all police statements and visits with the District Attorney and defendants in this case. (Id. at 15.) Lopez asserts that the “requested documentation are [sic] crucial to further establish all the claims and constitutional violations that has create[d] a gross miscarriage of justice.” (Id. at 10.) Lopez also seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount. (Id. at 15.)

Public dockets reflect that on March 19, 1996, Lopez was convicted of first-degree murder, robbery, theft, receiving stolen property, and criminal conspiracy, in connection with the death of David Bolasky.^[2] See Commonwealth v. Lopez, CP-39-CR-0001894-1995 (C.P. Lehigh); Commonwealth v. Lopez, 739 A.2d 485, 489 (Pa. 1999). Following the penalty phase hearing, the jury returned a death sentence, and Lopez was formally sentenced to death on April 17, 1996. Lopez, 739 A.2d at 487. Lopez filed a direct appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and on October 1, 1999, his conviction was affirmed. Lopez, 739 A.2d at 500. Thereafter, the United States Supreme Court denied Lopez's petition for writ of certiorari. Lopez v. Pennsylvania, 530 U.S. 1206 (2000).

Lopez sought relief in Pennsylvania state court pursuant to Pennsylvania's Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”). See Commonwealth v. Lopez, 854 A.2d 465 (Pa. 2004). The PCRA court denied him relief, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed this decision on July 22, 2004. Lopez, 854 A.2d. at 472. Lopez filed a second PCRA petition on May 9, 2005, which was denied by the PCRA Court and affirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on August 20, 2012. See Commonwealth v. Lopez, 51 A.3d 195 (Pa. 2012). Since that date, Lopez has filed three additional PCRA petitions, all of which were dismissed by the PCRA Court and affirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. See Commonwealth v. Lopez, 161 A.3d 171 (Pa. 2017); Commonwealth v. Lopez, 196 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2018), and Commonwealth v. Lopez, 249 A.3d 993, 1001 (Pa. 2021).

On April 27, 2005, Lopez filed a federal habeas petition, raising, inter alia, a claim that an undisclosed plea deal existed between co-defendant Moreno and the Commonwealth. Lopez averred that the prosecution committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose its whole deal with Moreno, that in exchange for his testimony against Lopez, Moreno would not only avoid the death penalty, but he would also receive a significantly reduced charge of third-degree murder and a significantly reduced sentence. Lopez v. Beard, Civ. A. No. 04-4181, 2020 WL 4201507, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 1, 2020) (Surrick, J.). Lopez contends that had the jury known about the whole deal, the jury would have evaluated Moreno's testimony differently and would have reached a different verdict. (Id.)

On April 6, 2020, Lopez filed a Motion for Judgment on Claim XVII of his Petition for Habeas Corpus. See id., ECF No. 135. In the motion, he argued that “[b]ased upon the evidence of record, as well as that developed through the discovery process, it is clear that there was an undisclosed agreement between the Com monwealth and its witness, Miguel Moreno” which ultimately resulted in Moreno pleading guilty to third-degree murder. Id. at 1. The Court permitted Lopez to conduct discovery “regarding the undisclosed plea agreement with Moreno, ” and it was represented in the motion that “discovery is now complete.”^[3] Id. at 2, 5.

By Memorandum and Order filed July 21, 2020, the Court denied Lopez's motion for judgment, noting that

[a]ddressing first the evidentiary components of the Brady analysis, we consider whether the Commonwealth suppressed evidence favorable to Lopez, i.e., an additional agreement between the prosecution and Moreno. We previously granted Lopez leave to conduct discovery on this issue. See Lopez, 2019 WL 2162300, at *4; Lopez 2017 WL 1293389, at *7. In his Motion, Lopez contends that his “discovery efforts have been largely fruitless as none of the witnesses have a recollection of the events sufficient to explain the Moreno anomaly.” However,

...