Reinsmith v. Borough of Bernville, CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-1513 (E.D. Pa. 12/__/2003)

Page 1

ANDREA REINSMITH, and RALPH PALM, JR., Plaintiffs, v. BOROUGH OF BERNVILLE, et al., Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-1513.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

December __, 2003.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LEGROME DAVIS, District Judge.

Presently before the Court is the Motion of Defendants Borough of Bernville, Charles German, Richard Hicks, Borough of Bernville Council, Gene Dinger, Robert Pfromm, Roy Bubbenmoyer, Lawrence Ramberger and Charles Gordon ("Borough of Bernville, Charles German, Richard Hicks, Borough of Bernville Council, Gene Dinger, Robert Pfromm, Roy Bubbenmoyer, Lawrence Ramberger and Charles Gordon" collectively, identified as the "Borough Defendants") to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and, in the alternative, Motion For a More Definite Statement. (Dkt. No. 3).¹ For the reasons that follow, the Borough Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6) is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 10, 2003, Plaintiff, Andrea Reinsmith ("Plaintiff Reinsmith") and Plaintiff, Ralph Palm ("Plaintiff Palm") ("Reinsmith" and "Palm" collectively identified as the "Plaintiffs") filed the instant action against the Borough of Bernville, Charles Gorman, the Borough of Bernville Chief of Police Richard A. Hicks ("Hicks"), Borough of Bernville Council Members Gene R. Dinger, Robert Pfromm, Roy Bubbenmoyer and Lawrence Ramberger (Gene R. Dinger, Robert Pfromm, Roy Bubbenmoyer and Lawrence Ramberger collectively identified as the "Council Member Defendants") and Charles Gordon ("Mr. Gordon") and Linnea Gordon ("Mrs. Gordon") ("Mr. Gordon" and "Mrs. Gordon" collectively identified as the "Gordon Defendants" or the "Gordons") asserting various federal claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as several state law claims. All Defendants, with the exception of Mrs. Gordon, are sued in their official and individual capacities. The Complaint contains the following twelve Counts: (1) Count I asserts a malicious prosecution claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) Count II asserts a state law claim for malicious prosecution; (3) Count III asserts an abuse of process claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (4) Count IV asserts a state law claim for abuse of process against all Defendants; (5) Count V asserts an equal protection claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983; (6) Count VI asserts a claim for a violation of Plaintiff Reinsmith's First Amendment right to run for public office without improper interference from the government; (7) Count VII asserts a claim for violation of Plaintiffs' Substantive Due Process Rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (8) Count VIII asserts a claims for violation of Plaintiffs' Procedural Due Process rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (9) Count IX asserts a state law claim for civil conspiracy; (10) Count X asserts a civil conspiracy claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (11) Count XI asserts a claim for violation of Plaintiffs' First Amendment right to complain against perceived unfair and/or unprofessional conduct by police and municipal government employees without retaliation; and (12) Count XII asserts a state law claim against the Gordons for negligence.

In support of their claims, Plaintiffs' Complaint contains the following factual allegations. In February 1999, Plaintiffs purchased and moved into a home located at 611 North Main Street in the Borough of Bernville, Pennsylvania, which was next door to the Gordons' home. (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 13). Shortly after Plaintiffs moved into their new home, Mr. Gordon was appointed to the Borough Council of Bernville. (Compl. ¶ 14).

At all relevant times, Plaintiffs owned two seventy pound dogs which were housed in a chain linked fence kennel (six feet high and ten feet long and ten feet wide) in Plaintiffs' backyard. (Compl. ¶ 16). Plaintiffs allege while that many other residents of Bernville also own dogs, Plaintiffs have been subjected to harassment by the Gordons and disparate treatment by members of the Borough Council of Bernville and the Bernville Police Department. (Compl. ¶¶ 17-67).

Plaintiffs allege that, while living in the Borough, Mr. Gordon fired paint balls at Plaintiffs' dogs. (Compl. ¶ 18). Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that on five occasions between May and July 1999, Mr. Gordon told them to "do something" about their dogs or face fines (Compl. ¶ 21).

In August 1999, in a separate but related incident, Plaintiffs allege that while Plaintiffs were entertaining guests in their home, Defendant Hicks came to Plaintiffs door requesting to see paperwork relating Plaintiff Palm's vehicle, which was parked in the street in front of the Gordons' home. (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 23). Plaintiffs allege that Plaintiff Palm stated to Defendant Hicks that he would retrieve the requested paperwork and give it to Hicks after his guests departed, but that Hicks cursed at Palm and insisted that he retrieve the paperwork immediately. (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 24). Plaintiff Palm complied with Hicks' request. (Compl. ¶ 26). On August 9, 1999, in response to this incident, Plaintiff Palm then wrote a letter to Borough of Bernville Mayor, Roger Mogel complaining about Hicks' conduct related to his request for the vehicle's paperwork. (Compl. ¶ 26). Plaintiff Palm also filed a formal complaint regarding Defendant Hicks' behavior. (Compl. ¶ 27). On or about September 7, 1999, Plaintiff Palm received written confirmation that Defendant Hicks had received a verbal reprimand for his use of language against Plaintiff Palm. (Compl. ¶ 29)

Plaintiffs allege that, in or about April 2000, Harry Brown of the Berks County Animal Control Office came to their door and told them that they would be fined for the care and treatment of their dogs. (Compl. ¶ 30). Plaintiffs further allege that Brown disclosed that Borough of Bernville Councilman Charles Gordon initiated the complaint, therefore he had no discretion regarding the fine. (Compl. ¶ 31). On or about April 28, 2000, Plaintiffs allege that they received eight citations relating to the care of their dogs, totaling over $2000. (Compl. ¶ 32). At hearing related to the eight citations, District Court Justice Carol Stoudt dismissed six of the eight citations, finding Plaintiffs guilty of only two violations: (i) an expired dog license, and (ii) allowing a dog to run at large.

On or about October 3, 2000, the Borough of Bernville enacted Ordinance 279, which provided that a fine could be issued to any dog owner who permitted a dog to bark continually for fifteen minutes. (Compl. ¶ 35). Plaintiffs claim that Ordinance 279 was enacted principally by Mr. Gordon, with the assistance of the Township Solicitor, and was specifically targeted at Plaintiffs. (Compl. ¶¶ 36, 37). On October 7, 2000, Defendant Hicks came to Plaintiffs' door with a copy of Ordinance 279 and stated "if you don't stop this, you will have a cross burning in your yard." (Compl. ¶ 39). On October 18, 2000, Plaintiff received twelve signed statements from their neighbors stating that their dogs were not a problem. (Compl. ¶ 41).

On October 20, 2000, however, Plaintiffs received three more citations related to the violations of Ordinance 279. Plaintiffs allege that the citations were based on information provided by the Gordons. (Compl. ¶ 42). On November 16, 2000, Defendant Hicks told Plaintiffs that all the Gordons wanted was for the Plaintiffs to bring their dogs in the house at night. (Compl. ¶ 43). Plaintiffs allege that, consequently, they began to house their dogs inside their home at night. (Compl. ¶ 44).

On November 18, 2000, Plaintiffs received two more citations in violation of Ordinance 279 for afternoon barking. (Compl. ¶ 45).

On January 13, 2001, Plaintiff Reinsmith complained to the Borough of Bernville Police Department that Mr. Gordon was tormenting and mistreating her dogs by firing paint balls at them. (Compl. ¶ 48). On or about February 2, 2001, Plaintiff Palm again complained to the police that Mr. Gordon was firing paint balls at the dogs. (Compl. ¶ 49). In response to these complaints, Defendant Hicks ordered Mr. Gordon to remove his paint ball target from his backyard. (Compl. ¶ 50).

In or about January or February 2001, Plaintiff Reinsmith decided to run for Mayor of Bernville. (Compl. ¶ 52).

On March 9, 2001, Defendant Hicks suggested that Plaintiff Reinsmith talk to the Gordons directly in an attempt to end the feuding between the neighbors. (Compl. ¶ 53). At Defendant Hick's suggestion, Plaintiff Reinsmith went to the Gordons' residence as a conciliatory gesture; several minutes after she arrived, however, Defendant Hicks appeared and arrested Reinsmith for trespass, harassment, public drunkenness, simple assault and disorderly conduct. (Compl. ¶ 54). Plaintiffs allege that these charges were false and ultimately terminated in Plaintiff Reinsmith's favor. (Compl. ¶ 56). Plaintiff Reinsmith's arrest, however, led to newspaper, television and radio reports concerning the arrest. (Compl. ¶ 57).

Plaintiffs allege that the Gordons placed copies of the newspaper coverage concerning Plaintiff Reinsmith's arrest over her campaign posters; it is also asserted that Defendant Hicks removed some of Reinsmith's election posters. (Compl. ¶¶ 58, 59). Plaintiffs allege that the publicity surrounding Plaintiff Reinsmith's arrest caused her to lose the primary election for Mayor. (Compl. ¶ 60). Plaintiffs further allege that Plaintiff Reinsmith's opponent in the primary, Ronald Hartington, called her and stated that he was so embarrassed about the manner in which he had won the election, that he would not accept the nomination and would ask that Plaintiff Reinsmith be substituted in his place. (Compl. ¶ 61). Plaintiff Reinsmith, however, was not permitted to be substituted in Mr. Hartington's place because of the charges pending against her as a result of the March 9, 2001 arrest. (Compl. ¶ 62).

In April and May 2001, Plaintiffs...