Molitor v. City of Scranton

JOSEPH MOLITOR, Plaintiff v. CITY OF SCRANTON, PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, JASON GULA, DAVID HEINKE, LAUREN FETCH, LAUREN FORCE Defendants

Civil Action No. 3:20-1266

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

August 31, 2021

MEMORANDUM

MALACHY E. MANNION UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On July 23, 2020, Plaintiff Joseph Molitor (“Plaintiff” or “Molitor”) filed a complaint in this District (Doc. 1), asserting various claims against defendants City of Scranton, Officer Jason Gula of the City of Scranton Police Department, Pennsylvania State Police, Inspector David Heinke of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Inspector Lauren Fetch of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and John Doe. In an amended complaint filed on July 29, 2020, (Doc. 4), Plaintiff added as a defendant forensic scientist Lauren Force of the Pennsylvania State Police (collectively, with the other named defendants, “Defendants”). Plaintiff raises claims in his amended complaint against select Defendants for false arrest (Count I), malicious prosecution (Count II) conspiracy to commit false arrest, malicious prosecution, and unlawful seizure (Count III), unlawful seizure (Count IV) and Monell liability (Counts V, VIII) under 42 U.S.C. §1983, and claims for false arrest (Count VI), malicious prosecution (Count VII), fraud (Count IX), and civil conspiracy (Count X) under state law.

Pending before the Court are two separate motions filed on behalf of defendants City of Scranton and Jason Gula, (the “City Defendants”), (Doc. 10), and defendants Pennsylvania State Police and Lauren Force, (the “State Police Defendants”), (Doc. 16), to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff raises ten claims against these four defendants, including Counts I, II, and III against defendants Gula and Force, Counts IV, VI, and VII against defendant Gula, Counts IX and X against defendant Force, Count V against defendant City of Scranton, and Count VIII against defendant Pennsylvania State Police.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, the Court will: GRANT the City Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I, II, III, IV, VI, and VII as to defendant Gula; GRANT the City Defendants' motion to dismiss Count V as to defendant City of Scranton; GRANT the State Police Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I, II, III, IX, and X as to defendant Force; and GRANT the State Police Defendants' motion to dismiss Count VIII as to defendant Pennsylvania State Police.^[1]

I. BACKGROUND

Marijuana is a psychoactive drug derived from the cannabis plant and has historically been utilized for both recreational and medical purposes. Hemp, in comparison, though derived from the same species of cannabis plant as marijuana and similarly containing the psychoactive component tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”), represents a distinct strain of the plant with a unique chemical composition. Cannabidiol (“CBD”) is a compound found within cannabis plants and is often extracted from the plants and infused with numerous benign products for consumption or therapeutic uses. The differentiation between marijuana and hemp, as well as the different forms of CBD, though potentially similar in either appearance or smell based on their state, is most often dependent on the level of THC within the substances.

Restrictions concerning marijuana and other substances with varying degrees of THC have shifted and continue to shift as more jurisdictions decriminalize the possession and distribution of such products. Though marijuana is considered a controlled substance in many jurisdictions, including on the federal and Pennsylvania state levels, other substances with lower THC levels, such as hemp and hemp-derived CBD, are legal to possess in most instances. In Pennsylvania, hemp and hemp-derived CBD, which maintain a TCH concentration of less than 0.3 percent, are legal to possess.

Plaintiff Joseph Molitor is a resident of Pennsylvania and owner of the CBD Shop of Northeast Pennsylvania, a “lawful business owned and operated by Plaintiff under Pennsylvania and Federal Law.” In August 2018, Plaintiff attempted to mail several packages from the United States Post Office in the Steamtown Mall in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff alleges that upon inspection of Plaintiff's packages, defendant Fetch, an inspector employed by the U.S. Postal Service, detected a suspicious odor permeating from these packages, and in consideration of this odor, on or about August 7, 2018, defendants Fetch and Heinke “seized the packages and prevented them from being mailed.”

On August 28, 2018, defendant Fetch obtained a search warrant for Plaintiff's packages and several days later, defendant Heinke allegedly executed the search warrant by opening Plaintiff's packages, within which he found 11.3 grams of a “green, leafy substance.” Plaintiff further claims that during this search, along with the green, leafy substance, defendant Heinke also found a certificate of analysis from a licensed CBD and hemp testing center stating that the packages did not contain marijuana but CBD or hemp based on the levels of THC. Nevertheless, defendants Heinke and Fetch “referred this matter to Defendant Gula for prosecution.”

Plaintiff alleges that upon receipt of the substance from defendants Heinke and Fetch, defendant Gula, with defendants Heinke and Fetch, sent the substance to a laboratory operated by defendant Pennsylvania State Police. According to Plaintiff, defendant Force, a forensic scientist employed by the State Police, conducted testing on the substance and reported to defendants Heinke, Fetch, and Gula that the substance “contained marijuana” even though “[d]efendant Lauren Force knew that [her] report was materially false.” Based on the findings of defendant Force's report, defendant Gula filed charges on June 5, 2019, against Plaintiff for felony possession of marijuana and precipitated the arrest of Plaintiff. On February 13, 2020, however, the Lackawanna County District Attorney's Office filed a nolle prosequi, dismissing the pending criminal charges against Plaintiff. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed his complaint against the Defendants arguing that the initial search and seizure of his packages were unconstitutional, while the Defendants lacked probable cause to effectuate his arrest as the substance had legal levels of THC.

On October 30, 2020, the City Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Section 1983 and state-law claims. On December 28, 2020, the State Police Defendants filed a similar motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343, and it can exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1337. Venue is proper in this district. The Court will thus turn to the merits of Plaintiff's claims.

II. STANDARD

The defendants' motions to dismiss are brought pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6). This rule provides for the dismissal of a complaint, in whole or in part, if the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The moving party bears the burden of showing that no claim has been stated, Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005), and dismissal is appropriate only if, accepting all of the facts alleged in the complaint as true, the plaintiff has failed to plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, ” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (abrogating “no set of facts” language found in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). The facts alleged must be sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. This requirement “calls for enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence” of necessary elements of the plaintiff's cause of action. Id. at 556. Furthermore, in order to satisfy federal pleading requirements, the plaintiff must “provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief, ” which “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008) (brackets and quotations marks omitted) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

In considering a motion to dismiss, the court generally relies on the complaint, attached exhibits, and matters of public record. Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2007). The court may also consider “undisputedly authentic documents] that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff's claims are based on the [attached] d ocu ments.” Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993). Moreover, “documents whose contents are alleged in the complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading, may be considered.” Pryor v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 288 F.3d 548, 560 (3d Cir. 2002). The court, however, may not rely on other parts of the record in determining a motion to dismiss. See Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994).^[2]

III. DISCUSSION

The Plaintiff raises ten separate causes of action against defendants City of Scranton, Jason Gula, Pennsylvania State Police, and Lauren Force, including: (I) false arrest under §1983 against defendants Gula and Force; (II) malicious prosecution under §1983 against defendants Gula and Force; (III) conspiracy to commit false arrest, malicious prosecution and unlawful seizure under §1983 against defendants Gula and Force; (IV) unlawful seizure under §1983 against defendants...