Outlaw v. City of Philadelphia

DONALD MICHAEL OUTLAW, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, JEFFREY PIREE and HOWARD PETERMAN, in their individual capacities, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION No. 21-cv-01290

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

August 6, 2021

MEMORANDUM

CHAD F. KENNEY, JUDGE

Donald Outlaw served nearly sixteen years in prison after he was wrongfully convicted of Jamal Kelly’s September 2000 murder. He brings this action against the City of Philadelphia, and two individuals, the Philadelphia Police Department detectives who investigated Jamal Kelly’s murder, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Pennsylvania law. Mr Outlaw alleges Defendants acted in concert to fabricate evidence, coerce witnesses to provide false statements withhold exculpatory evidence, and other misconduct, leading to his 2004 conviction. Mr. Outlaw maintained his innocence through a lengthy appeals process and subsequent investigation. In January 2019, after the prosecution turned over the Philadelphia Police Department Homicide Unit’s case file, which contained previously withheld exculpatory information, Mr. Outlaw’s conviction was vacated. After sixteen years in prison, Mr. Outlaw was exonerated.

In his six-count complaint, Mr. Outlaw seeks recompense for inter alia, his 25-year loss of freedom, loss of his youth, pain and suffering, deprivation of his familial relationships, and other injuries and damages. Defendants now ask us to partially dismiss Mr. Outlaw’s complaint permitting his remaining claims to proceed to discovery. Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity from liability and that Mr. Outlaw’s Monell omnibus claim fails to the extent it relies on violations of rights we determine were not “clearly established” during the relevant period.

I. BACKGROUND^[1]

Jamal Kelly was shot on September 4, 2000. Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶ 15. Defendants Jeffrey Piree (“Piree”) and Howard Peterman (“Peterman”) (collectively “the Detective Defendants”) were the Homicide Unit detectives assigned to investigate the murder. When the Detective Defendants began their investigation on September 4, 2000, an individual told them that Jamal Kelly said “Shank did it” before he died. Id. ¶¶ 12,13, 15. Piree and Peterman understood “Shank” to refer to Derick (“Shank”) Alston, Kelly’s drug supplier with whom he had a violent dispute before his death. Id. ¶¶ 15, 28. A witness told the Detective Defendants that she saw Kelly and Alston arguing the day of Kelly’s shooting and again moments before gunshots were fired. Id. ¶ 16. Another witness told the Detective Defendants that Plaintiff Donald Outlaw (“Outlaw”) did not commit Jamal Kelly’s murder. Id. ¶ 28.

Piree and Peterman questioned Derick Alston, who told them he did not know the shooter’s identity and that he had been with Charles Paladino at the time of the murder. Id. ¶¶ 17-18. The detectives then questioned Paladino, who told them he did not know the identity of Jamal Kelly’s shooter either. Id. ¶ 18.

When Piree again questioned Paladino in 2001, Paladino gave a different account; he told Piree he had seen Outlaw in front of his house the night of the murder and that another man, Llamar Rodgers, told him Outlaw was Kelly’s killer. Id. ¶ 19. A few months later, the Detective Defendants questioned Paladino again, who for the first time, claimed he saw Outlaw threaten Kelly before the shooting. Id. ¶ 20. The next time the Detective Defendants questioned Paladino, he claimed that Outlaw intimidated him to dissuade him from testifying. Id. ¶ 21.

On September 4, 2003, Outlaw was arrested for Jamal Kelly’s murder. Id. at ¶ 22. At Outlaw’s preliminary hearing, Paladino denied that he was offered leniency in exchange for testimony against Outlaw. Id. ¶ 22-23. The trial went forward based on Paladino’s testimony. Id. ¶ 23.

At trial, several witnesses recanted previous statements implicating Outlaw. Id. ¶ 25. “Shank” Alston testified that he never implicated Outlaw and told the jury that he signed a false statement so the police would stop taking him into custody. Id. Llamar Rodgers testified that he never told police that he overheard Outlaw make any incriminating statements about Kelly’s shooting. Id. He also testified that he signed his statement without reading it after an eight-hour interrogation. Id. Paladino testified that the detectives physically coerced him to fabricate his allegations against Outlaw. Id. Another witness, Eric Lee, testified that previous statements identifying Outlaw as the shooter were false, and that he told prosecutors the statement the detectives took from him was false. Id. All four witnesses’ recanted statements were read to the jury, and Outlaw was convicted of first-degree murder and other offenses. Id. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole. Id. ¶ 26.

A lengthy appellate process and investigation ensued. Id. ¶ 27. In May 2018, the prosecution turned over the Homicide Unit’s file, which contained previously withheld exculpatory information. Id. ¶ 28. Specifically, the file contained the Detective Defendants’ contemporaneous handwritten notes indicating that a man named Jerome Grant had confessed to Jamal Kelly’s murder. Id. The notes also exposed that the detectives knew “Shank” Alston had previously sold Kelly illegal drugs. Id. Finally, the handwritten notes demonstrated that Piree and Peterman knew that “Shank” Alston was the likely owner of a gold Honda Accord seen driving away from the murder scene. Id.

The Homicide Unit’s Kelly file contained further evidence undermining Outlaw’s guilt. It contained a letter Paladino wrote to Peterman revealing that Paladino received a reward for implicating Outlaw and expected to be released from custody. Id. In his letter, Paladino promised he would not testify that he was provided any type of reward or incentive to implicate Outlaw. Id.

On appeal, Paladino testified that the detectives physically coerced him into implicating Outlaw and promised leniency in his own case for testimony against Outlaw. Id. ¶ 29. Peterman instructed Paladino to lie about parts of his statement, threatened that he would be charged with murder, and physically assaulted him to obtain his statements against Outlaw. Id.

On January 29, 2019, based on the revelations that favorable material evidence was withheld in violation of Outlaw’s constitutional rights, the Honorable Diana Anhalt vacated his conviction. Id. ¶ 29. The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office Conviction Integrity Unit then reviewed the case and Outlaw’s claims of innocence, and recommended the court enter a nolle prosequi. On December 29, 2020, Outlaw was exonerated. Id. ¶¶ 32-33.

On March 17, 2021, Outlaw filed his complaint. See ECF No. 1. He alleges he was convicted of Kelly’s murder because of Defendants’ unconstitutional conduct, which included fabricating evidence, coercing witnesses to provide false statements, withholding exculpatory evidence, and other misconduct. Id. ¶ 34. Outlaw further alleges the Philadelphia Police Department (“PPD”) had a pervasive pattern, practice and custom of committing unconstitutional misconduct in homicide investigations, dating back to the 1970s, which resulted in the wrongful convictions of over ten other individuals. Id. ¶¶ 36, 46 (listing 13 convictions later resulting in exonerations). Piree’s misconduct alone resulted in three later exonerations. Id. ¶ 45. Finally, Outlaw alleges the City of Philadelphia was deliberately indifferent to the PPD’s pattern, practice and custom of violating the constitutional rights of criminal suspects and others. Id. ¶ 49.

Outlaw brings a six-count complaint against Defendants asserting the following claims: malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (Count I); due process violations (Count II); civil rights conspiracy (Count III); failure to intervene (Count IV); an omnibus Monell claim (Count V); and malicious prosecution under Pennsylvania law (Count VI). Defendants move to dismiss Counts I, II, and IV based on the detectives’ qualified immunity, and Count V, Outlaw’s Monell claim.^[2] See Def. Br., ECF No. 9. Outlaw filed a response brief on June 7, 2021, and Defendants filed a reply on June 14, 2021.

II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

We have jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint. “To 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.” Zuber v. Boscov’s, 871 F.3d 255, 258 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 128 (3d Cir. 2010)) (internal quotation marks omitted). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

Our Court of Appeals requires us to apply a three-step analysis under a 12(b)(6) motion: (1) we “must ‘tak[e] note of the elements [the] plaintiff must plead to state a claim;’ ” (2) we “should identify allegations that, ‘because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth;’ ” and, (3) “[w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, [the] court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief.” Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675).

We are to permit “a curative amendment unless such an amendment would be inequitable or futile.” Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 245 (3d Cir. 2008).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants move to partially dismiss Outlaw’s complaint. Defendants seek...