Onyiah v. City of Phila.

660 F.Supp.3d 407

Obina ONYIAH v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 22-1556

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Signed March 10, 2023

Teri B. Himebaugh, Law Office Teri B. Himebaugh, Philadelphia, PA, Alan E. Denenberg, Abramson & Denenberg, Philadelphia, PA, for Obina Onyiah.

Danielle E. Walsh, City of Philadelphia Law Dept., Philadelphia, PA, for City of Philadelphia, Former Commissioner Charles Ramsey, Former Detective James Pitts, Detective Ohmarr Jenkins, Detective Thurston Lucke.

James Pitts, Philadelphia, PA, Pro Se.

MEMORANDUM

Padova, District Judge

Plaintiff Obina Onyiah commenced this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant the City of Philadelphia (the "City"), former Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, and several individual detectives/police officers after Plaintiff was sentenced to life in prison without parole and spent over eleven years in prison in connection with a murder for which he was subsequently exonerated.¹ Plaintiff alleges that his conviction was based on a coerced confession, false testimony, and the withholding of exculpatory evidence. Presently before the Court is a Partial Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed by the City and Defendants Detective Ohmarr Jenkins, Detective Thurston Lucke, and former Commissioner Ramsey (collectively, the "City Defendants"). For the reasons that follow, the Motion is dismissed as moot in part, granted in part, and denied in part.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Amended Complaint alleges the following facts. On October 21, 2010, Kevin Turner and one accomplice attempted to rob a jewelry store in Philadelphia. During the attempted robbery, Turner and the store owner, William Glatz, were shot and killed. The accomplice survived and fled the scene. Three witnesses present at the time of the robbery described the accomplice as younger and shorter than Turner who was 6'1". They each described the accomplice as approximately 5'8".

Following the attempted robbery, Defendant Detective Lucke obtained surveillance video from the store and extracted stills of the accomplice's profile from the video. Two days later, on October 23, 2010, a tip led investigators to Donte Waters, who is 5'9", has a 2008 robbery conviction, and was not incarcerated on the date of the attempted robbery. When presented with a photo array of suspects including Waters, two of the eyewitnesses identified Waters as the accomplice. As a result, on October 24, 2010, Lucke, Jenkins, and Defendant former Detective James Pitts (together, the "Named Detectives") searched Waters's residence and found clothing and a hat consistent with descriptions of the accomplice. Despite the evidence against him, however, the Named Detectives never interviewed Waters.

On October 25, 2010, Donnell Cheek, who was then incarcerated at a federal detention center and saw the surveillance video on television, identified Plaintiff as the accomplice. Plaintiff is 6'3". On November 8, 2010, the Named Detectives searched Plaintiff's mother's home and found no relevant evidence, yet they took Plaintiff's sister to the Homicide Detectives' Unit for an interview. Defendants Pitts and Jenkins wrote a summary of the interview, which stated that Plaintiff's sister had identified Plaintiff as the accomplice from the surveillance video. Plaintiff's sister denies ever identifying her brother as the accomplice.

As a result of Plaintiff's sister's alleged identification, the Named Detectives took Plaintiff into custody, transported him to the Homicide Detectives' Unit, placed him in an interrogation room, handcuffed him to a table, and left him alone. The Named Detectives then searched the home of Plaintiff's then-girlfriend, Katherine Cardona. Cardona was present at the time of the search, as was her friend, Robert Iezzi, Jr., and her landlord, Anthony Brown. The Named Detectives found no relevant evidence in Cardona's home. Nevertheless, upon completion of the search, the Named Detectives transported Cardona, Iezzi, and Brown to the Homicide Detectives' Unit.

The Named Detectives brought Cardona into an interrogation room where they told her that Plaintiff was wanted for murder and threatened that her children would be removed from her custody if she lied for Plaintiff. They then showed Cardona a still from the surveillance video and asked her to identify Plaintiff as the accomplice. Cardona stated that Plaintiff was not the man in the photograph. In response, the Named Detectives called Cardona "a fucking whore" and placed her on a bench approximately 30 feet away from the room where Plaintiff was held. (Am. Compl. ¶ 70.) Meanwhile, the Named Detectives handcuffed Iezzi and placed him in an interrogation room next to the room where Plaintiff was held.

The Named Detectives then began interrogating Plaintiff, who at that point had been handcuffed to a table for 7.5 hours. The Named Detectives stated that they knew that Plaintiff and Turner had murdered Glatz while attempting to rob the jewelry store. Plaintiff denied having any knowledge of either the crime or Turner. In response, Defendant Pitts yelled aggressively at Plaintiff, spit in his face, and punched him three times in the chest and twice in the shoulders. Defendants Jenkins and Lucke watched Pitts assault Plaintiff and failed to intervene. Eventually, to stop the assault, Plaintiff falsely confessed that he was the accomplice. The Named Detectives then asked Plaintiff to identify certain individuals from photographs. When Plaintiff stated that he did not know the individuals, Pitts, in full view of Jenkins and Lucke, grabbed the back of Plaintiff's neck and forced his head between his legs. Plaintiff screamed, but neither Jenkins nor Lucke intervened. Once again, in order to stop the assault, Plaintiff falsely stated that he knew the men in the photographs.

Both Cardona and Iezzi heard the sounds of punches and Plaintiff's screams. Cardona also heard the Named Detectives say, "stop f'ing around and tell us the truth," and Plaintiff reply, "yo man I ain't do nothing." (Id. ¶ 86.) At one point, a detective exited the interrogation room and said something to the effect of, "I can't do this anymore . . . . this is not our guy." (Id. ¶ 87.)

As a result of Plaintiff's coerced confession on November 8, 2010, he was charged with the attempted robbery and related offenses two days later, on November 10, 2010. On May 10, 2013, Plaintiff's defense attorney moved to suppress Plaintiff's coerced confession. Cardona testified at the suppression hearing, but because the Named Detectives did not record Cardona's name in the daily Homicide Unit Logbook, the court did not believe her testimony and subsequently denied Plaintiff's motion to suppress.² On May 31, 2013, a jury convicted Plaintiff of second-degree murder, three counts of robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, and violation of the Uniform Firearms Act.

On May 9, 2016, after Plaintiff's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, Plaintiff filed a timely pro se Post-Conviction Relief Act petition, raising claims including actual innocence and a coerced confession. The District Attorney's Office Conviction Integrity Unit investigated Plaintiff's case and filed joint stipulations of fact with Plaintiff. On May 4, 2021, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge Tracy Brandeis-Roman vacated Plaintiff's conviction and approved the dismissal of the charges against him.

The Amended Complaint contains seven Counts, all of which are grounded in 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Count I asserts a claim against the Named Detectives for using threats and physical violence to coerce a false confession from Plaintiff in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Pennsylvania Constitution. Count II asserts a claim against the Named Detectives for malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Count III asserts a claim against the Named Detectives for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence relating to the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff's false confession in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and/or Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972). Count IV asserts a claim against the Named Detectives for a failure to intervene to prevent violations of Plaintiff's rights to be free from malicious prosecution and coerced confessions in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Count V asserts a civil rights conspiracy claim against the Named Detectives.³ Count VI asserts a supervisory liability claim against John Doe Police Captain/Lieutenants. Count VII asserts a municipal liability claim against the City and former Commissioner Ramsey pursuant to Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).

The City Defendants move to dismiss several aspects of the Amended Complaint, including Count IV as against Jenkins and Lucke and Count VII. In response, Plaintiff concedes that the Amended Complaint is subject to dismissal in certain respects and requests to withdraw the following: (1) Count I to the extent it seeks monetary damages under the Pennsylvania Constitution; (2) Count II insofar as it asserts a malicious prosecution claim under the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) Count VII as against former Commissioner Ramsey. Thus, those portions of the Amended Complaint are withdrawn and the Motion is dismissed as moot insofar as it seeks dismissal of the withdrawn claims. Plaintiff, however, opposes the Motion insofar as it seeks dismissal of (1) Count IV against Jenkins and Lucke, and (2) Count VII against the City.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

When deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), we "consider only the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, [and] matters of public record, as well as undisputedly authentic documents if the complainant's claims are based...