Morgan v. Ctr. Cnty.

1

DALE MORGAN, Plaintiff, v. CENTRE COUNTY, et al., Defendant.

No. 4:23-CV-00872

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

April 18, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MATTHEW W. BRANN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Dale Morgan initiated this § 1983 action in August 2021 with the filing of a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.^[1] In his initial Complaint, Morgan named as Defendants the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State Police, Centre County Pennsylvania, several unidentified law enforcement officers, and Pennsylvania State Police Officer Michael D. Brown.^[2] Morgan filed an Amended Complaint in November 2022,^[3] which the Defendants moved to dismiss.^[4] The Commonwealth, PSP, and Brown also filed a motion to change venue.^[5] The Honorable Eric R. Komitee granted the latter request, transferring the case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and denying the motions to dismiss without prejudice to renew before the transferee court.^[6] Following transfer, Defendants again moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint.^[7] This Court granted those motions, dismissing the claims against the Commonwealth and PSP with prejudice, and granting Morgan leave to amend his claims against Brown, and Centre County.^[8]

Morgan filed a Second Amended Complaint on December 8, 2023.^[9] In addition to Centre County and Brown, Morgan now also names Centre County District Attorney Bernie Cantorna, Centre County prosecutor Mark Smith (“the District Attorneys”), the Spring Township, Pennsylvania Police Department and Spring Township Police Officer Luke Nelson (together “STPD”), an unidentified John Doe PSP officer, and an unidentified John Doe attorney with the Centre County District Attorney's Office.^[10] Morgan asserts three claims for relief: False Arrest and Imprisonment in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments against all Defendants (Count I); Monell claims against Centre County and Spring Township (Count II); and Malicious Prosecution against all Defendants (Count III). All Defendants have filed Motions to Dismiss, which are now fully briefed and ripe for disposition.^[11]

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) authorizes dismissal for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has instructed that, under the standard established by the Supreme Court of the United States in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly^[12] and Ashcroft v. Iqbal,^[13] a court reviewing the sufficiency of a pleading 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 give rise to an entitlement to relief.”^[14]

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND^[15]

On January 2, 2019, Sherica Chambers, a resident of New York, rented a gray 2018 Volkswagen Passat bearing Pennsylvania license plate KRS2315 at John F. Kennedy International Airport.^[16] Two days later, a Pennsylvania State Police Officer conducted a traffic stop of the Passat, which was being driven by Horace Henry, also known as “Metro.”^[17] Henry presented a drivers license with his picture, but Morgan's identifying information.^[18] The officer issued Henry a citation for traffic violations, and allowed him to leave.^[19]

The license bearing Henry's picture and Morgan's identifying information was an element of a larger identity theft enterprise operated by Chambers, Henry, Ian Thompson, and Andrew Herdsman.^[20] They would create fraudulent cell phone accounts with identities stolen from Centre County residents.^[21] They would then use the accounts to order multiple cell phones, which would be delivered to the residences of the identity theft victims.^[22] Once the phones were delivered, Henry and his compatriots would intercept the packages by presenting the delivery person with fraudulent identification bearing the stolen identity, or simply picking the packages up from the residence after they had been delivered.^[23]

Apparently as part of the investigation into the identity theft operation, law enforcement was conducting surveillance of the Volkswagen on January 24, 2019.^[24]The Volkswagen, occupied by Henry and Herdsman, was parked in front of a home in Spring Mills, Centre County, Pennsylvania where the pair waited for a delivery of illegally purchased cell phones.^[25] At about 2:00 p.m., upon delivery by FedEx, Herdsman exited the Volkswagen to retrieve the package.^[26] Defendant Michael Brown and Corporal Thomas Stock pursued and arrested Herdsman.^[27] Meanwhile, Henry fled the scene behind the wheel of the Volkswagen.^[28] Upon arresting Herdsman, police recovered a bag in the area containing a number of fraudulently purchased iPhones and an iPad.^[29] Forensic examination of the iPad revealed pictures and other information identifying Henry.^[30] Meanwhile, Chambers waited outside of a home in Patton Township, Centre County from about 1:45 p.m. to 2:20 p.m.^[31] Half an hour after Chambers left, FedEx delivered a package containing two cell phones to that residence.^[32]

The next day, Brown and an FBI agent interviewed Herdsman at the PSP Rockview Barracks.^[33] During the interview, Herdsman confirmed that Henry, who he knew only as Metro, was driving the Volkswagen.^[34] However, there is no record that law enforcement took any additional steps to confirm Metro's identity.^[35]Herdsman also identified Chambers, who Henry called “Reeks” or “Rika,” and related that she drove a black car with New Jersey license plates.^[36] During an interview with Brown and Defendant Luke Nelson on January 28, 2019, Herdsman said that he had overheard Henry tell Chambers to extend the rental agreement on the Volkswagen.^[37] Chambers had returned the Volkswagen to Avis on January 26, 2019.^[38]

Based on the strength of Herdsman's identification of the driver of the Volkswagen as Metro, and the fact that Morgan had been identified, erroneously, as the driver of the Volkswagen on January 4, Brown applied for an arrest warrant for Morgan.^[39] On February 1, 2019, A Centre County magisterial district judge signed the warrant, which had been drafted with the assistance of and approved by Bernie Cantorna and Mark Smith.^[40]

Even though the Defendants had in their possession surveillance footage, photographs, and other information identifying Henry, no additional steps were taken to confirm the identity of Metro.^[41] Had such attempts been made, it would have been readily apparent that Morgan was not Metro; Morgan is a 6' 1”, 220-pound, dark-skinned, black male, whereas Henry is a 5' 3”, 150-pound, light-skinned, black male.^[42]

Early in the morning of March 5, 2019, Detective Michael Langellotti of the New York Police Department, at Defendants' request, arrested Morgan at his home.^[43] Langellotti confirmed Morgan's identity via his “pedigree information and a photograph” provided by Centre County.^[44] Morgan, a lawful permanent resident who migrated from the West Indies, possessed a valid driver's license issued by the State of New York.^[45] Accordingly, multiple state and federal agencies possessed records, including photographs, which could have been, and presumably were, used to identify Morgan.^[46] Nevertheless, Defendants “confirmed” that Morgan was Metro. Morgan was detained in a Bronx correctional facility for nine days.^[47]

On March 26, 2019, Brown emailed the Queens County District Attorney's Office indicating that further “investigation has led to the withdrawal of all charges against Mr. Dale Morgan.”^[48]

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Local Rule 7.8(a)

“A brief may address only one motion, except in the case of cross motions for summary judgment.”^[49] Here, Morgan filed a single brief opposing the Motions of Brown, the District Attorneys, and STPD.^[50] Following an instruction to refile his oppositions in compliance with Rule 7.8(a), Morgan refiled the three copies of the same brief.^[51] The District Attorneys argue that Morgan's opposition should be stricken for failure to comply with Rule 7.8 and the Court's instruction, rendering the Motions unopposed.^[52] Courts “have discretion to depart from our local rules” and such departure is appropriate where no party has “suffered any unfair prejudice from the violations.”^[53]Though responding to three separate motions with a single brief may be inadvisable, this is not a case with wildly divergent legal standards or issues such that Morgan's omnibus opposition will have a material impact on the “expediency and efficiency [of] the litigation process.”^[54] Accordingly, striking Morgan's opposition, rendering the three relevant Motions to Dismiss unopposed, is too harsh a sanction.^[55]

Nevertheless, the Court takes this opportunity to note that Morgan has, from the beginning of this litigation, struggled to comply with the rules and Orders of both this Court, and the Eastern District of New York. First, Morgan was required to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to timely effect service as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.^[56] Subsequently, despite the Court granting an extension, Morgan was again required to show cause for his continued failure to effect service.^[57] Only then, six months after the filing of his Complaint, did Morgan perfect service. Morgan then failed to comply, despite a docketed notice from the Court,^[58] with the Eastern District of New York's local rule requiring parties to file responses to all requests for pre-motion conferences.^[59]

Upon transfer...