McMillan v. Lycoming Cnty.

1

DONDRE MCMILLAN, Plaintiff, v. LYCOMING COUNTY, MICHAEL CORTER, TYSON HAVENS, MICHAEL A. CASCHERA, III, CLINTON GARDNER, JOHN and/or JANE DOES, and RYAN GARDNER, Defendants.

No. 4:23-CV-00561

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

January 26, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Matthew W. Brann Chief United States District Judge

I. BACKGROUND

On October 9, 2023, Plaintiff, Dondre McMillan, filed a fourteen-count Amended Complaint asserting multiple constitutional violations and claims based on Pennsylvania state law against the Defendants. On October 23, 2023, two Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) were filed by the Defendants. These motions are now ripe for disposition; for the reasons that follow, they are granted in part and denied in part.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Dismiss Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), courts dismiss a complaint, in whole or in part, if the plaintiff fails to “state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Following the landmark decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly^[1] and Ashcroft v. Iqbal,^[2] “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”^[3] The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has instructed that “[u]nder the pleading regime established by Twombly and Iqbal, a court reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps:” (1) “take note of the elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim”; (2) “identify allegations that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth”; and (3) “assume the[] veracity” of all “well-pleaded factual allegations” and then “determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.”^[4]

When deciding a motion to dismiss, a court generally considers only the allegations in the complaint, exhibits attached thereto, and facts of public record.^[5]Normally, to consider anything beyond those sources, a motion to dismiss must be converted to a motion for summary judgment.^[6] But consideration of materials outside the complaint is not completely barred on a 12(b)(6) motion. Courts may consider any documents that are integral or explicitly relied upon in the complaint.^[7]“However, before materials outside the record may become the basis for a dismissal, several conditions must be met.”^[8] “For example, even if a document is ‘integral' to the complaint, it must be clear on the record that no dispute exists regarding the authenticity or accuracy of the document.”^[9] It must also be clear that there exists no material disputed issues of fact regarding the relevance of the document.^[10] In this matter, this Court finds that these conditions have been met, and will consequently consider the Defendants' attachments.

B. Facts Alleged in the Amended Complaint

The facts alleged in the Amended Complaint, which this Court must accept as true for purposes of this motion, are as follows.

1. The Parties

Dondre McMillan, a black male residing in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, asserts a series of claims stemming from interactions with law enforcement officers employed by Lycoming County.^[11] Michael Corter is a white law enforcement officer with the City of Williamsport's Bureau of Police.^[12] Tyson Havens, Michael A. Caschera, III, and Clinton Gardner are white employees of Lycoming County's Narcotic Enforcement Unit (“NEU”).^[13] Havens and Caschera are detectives while Clinton Gardner is a law enforcement officer.^[14] Defendants John and/or Jane Doe(s) “were law enforcement officers employed by” Lycoming County “as part of its NEU.”^[15] Ryan Gardner was, at the time, Lycoming County's District Attorney.^[16]

2. McMillan's First Interaction with Law Enforcement

On the evening of May 26, 2019, Plaintiff visited a bar with a friend in Williamsport, Pennsylvania; his friend parked his vehicle in a bank parking lot. Corter and Officer Zachary Saylor saw McMillan return to the parked car while patrolling nearby.^[17] The events that follow are disputed by the parties.^[18]

a. Plaintiff's Version of the Events

McMillan alleges that he dropped his cell phone on the ground while approaching the vehicle.^[19] Corter and Saylor then approached him, and Corter “falsely accused” him of dropping a firearm.^[20] McMillan attempted to show Corter that he had in fact dropped his phone.^[21] Corter and Saylor searched both McMillan and the parked vehicle, but no firearm was found.^[22]

At this time, Plaintiff's friend arrived at the scene and informed the officers that he had placed his registered firearm “behind the tire of his vehicle” and “that the Plaintiff did not touch, possess, handle or have any knowledge of that firearm.”^[23] Despite these statements, Corter “arrested and charged [McMillan] with a felony of possession of a firearm and a felony of carrying a firearm without a license.”^[24]

From McMillan's point of view, Corter's Affidavit of Probable Cause “lacked exculpatory evidence” such as his assertion “that he dropped his cell phone on the pavement,” and his friend's statements that he had “placed his registered firearm behind the tire of the vehicle and that the Plaintiff did not touch, handle, or have any knowledge of the firearm.”^[25]

b. Defendant Corter's Version of the Events

Corter presents a different version of that night in his Affidavit of Probable Cause. While on patrol, Corter contends that he heard what sounded like a handgun falling to the pavement.^[26] Saylor then said he saw a gun at McMillan's feet “with [him] standing there with his hands in front of his body as [if] he [had] just dropped the gun.”^[27] After making contact with McMillan, Corter patted him down “for officer safety.”^[28] Corter then told McMillan that he had “heard him drop a handgun and that [his] partner [had] observed a gun at his feet.”^[29] At this point, Saylor saw a “clear plastic cylinder containing marijuana” in “the front drivers” seat of the car.^[30] Upon searching the vehicle, Saylor also found “a 40 [caliber] magazine fully loaded.”^[31] During this search, Plaintiff's friend returned and “stated that he had a license to carry and that he has a handgun in the center console of his vehicle.”^[32] Saylor did not locate this handgun in the car, and “at that time [Corter] instructed [Saylor] to look under the vehicle.”^[33] Saylor then found “a black Glock 27 40 [caliber] handgun with an extended magazine,” and Corter “ran a triple I on McMillan and discovered that he was a felon not to possess.”^[34] Corter subsequently arrested McMillan.^[35]

3. Events Leading up to McMillan's First Trial

After his arrest, McMillan remained incarcerated until he was acquitted at trial in April 2021.^[36] At a pretrial Suppression Hearing,^[37] Plaintiff testified in his own defense.^[38] Leading up to the trial, District Attorney Ryan Gardner had two DNA tests performed on the gun.^[39] Neither test provided any evidence against McMillan, but the charges were not withdrawn.^[40] At a pretrial hearing in March 2021, “when confronted by the lack of evidence, Assistant District Attorney Martin Wade stated, ‘Well we need to push this trial to teach [Corter] a lesson.'”^[41]Plaintiff believes this decision “was made at the behest of Defendant Ryan Gardner.”^[42] Due to these charges, McMillan was held in custody for twenty-three months.^[43]

4. Second Interaction with Law Enforcement

On June 10, 2021, Havens, Caschera, Clinton Gardner and the Defendant Doe(s) (collectively the “Traffic Stop Defendants”) pulled Plaintiff over for tinted windows, but he asserts that his windows were down at the time of the stop.^[44] During this stop, the Traffic Stop Defendants had McMillan exit his car and searched it without his consent.^[45] No illegal contraband was found during this search.^[46] The Traffic Stop Defendants proceeded to order McMillan “to remove his pants, underwear, and socks on the side of a public roadway” and searched his person.^[47] The entirety of this interaction lasted fifteen to thirty minutes.^[48] Plaintiff believes that these actions were taken “in conspiracy with, and at the direction of,” District Attorney Ryan Gardner in “retaliation for” testifying at the Suppression Hearing and due to his race.^[49] He further asserts that he “has actual knowledge of [other, similar] occurrences involving” the Traffic Stop Defendants.^[50]

McMillan's “vehicle, laptop, house keys, and cell phone” were also confiscated by the Traffic Stop Defendants during this stop.^[51] He eventually retrieved his car but never recovered his cell phone.^[52] A “find my iPhone” search located it first at Caschera's residence and then at a new address.^[53]

On October 27, 2021, “Caschera criminally charged the Plaintiff with felonies of delivery of a controlled substance and conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance.”^[54] McMillan contends that Caschera “stated multiple falsehoods in his affidavit of probable cause.”^[55] In doing so, McMillan believes that Caschera “fabricated the evidence” to charge him “with a serious crime”^[56] and acted “in conspiracy with, and at the direction of,” District Attorney Ryan Gardner “in retaliation” for his Suppression Hearing testimony and due to his race.^[57]

In connection with these charges, Plaintiff was incarcerated from his arrest on October 28, 2021 until June 28, 2022.^[58] After filing a habeas corpus motion, his “criminal charges of delivery of a controlled substance and conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance were nolle prossed due to a lack of evidence.”^[59]

III. ANALYSIS

In the Amended Complaint, McMillan has asserted fourteen counts against...