Ruiz-Rivera v. City of Lancaster, Civil Action 21-2105

IVAN RUIZ-RIVERA, Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF LANCASTER; POLICE OFFICER JACOB BINGHAM #316; POLICE OFFICER LAPP Badge Number Unknown; FICTITIOUS DESIGNATION - JOHN DOES #1-25; and FICTITIOUS DESIGNATION - ABC CORPORATIONS #1-25, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 21-2105

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

September 9, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

EDWARD G. SMITH, J.

The plaintiff has filed this action claiming that city police officers violated his constitutional rights and committed state-law torts when one officer followed him onto his property, eventually tased him in the back, and then that officer and other officers tackled the plaintiff and repeatedly punched him. The defendants, which include the officers involved in the incident, the city which employed the officers, and the county, have filed the instant motion to dismiss some of the plaintiff's claims in the operative complaint. More specifically, they have requested that the court dismiss the plaintiff's (1) claims for due process violations, (2) claims for violations of the Pennsylvania Constitution, (3) claim for an unconstitutional conspiracy under the Civil Rights Act, (4) state-law tort claims because they are barred by Pennsylvania's Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, (5) references to declaratory or injunctive relief because the plaintiff lacks standing to seek these forms of relief, and (6) references to the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and equal protection.

As discussed below, the court will grant in part and deny in part the defendants' motion to partially dismiss. The court will dismiss the plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim because his claim is covered more specifically by the Fourth Amendment. The court will also dismiss the plaintiff's due process claim (or any other possible claim) under the Pennsylvania Constitution, to the extent he is seeking money damages, because he may not assert such a cause of action. As for the plaintiff's conspiracy claims, he has failed to include sufficient allegations for the court to reasonably infer that the defendants conspired to violate his constitutional rights, so the court will also dismiss this claim. Regarding the plaintiff's state-law tort claims, which include three intentional torts and a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act bars these claims against the city. And, while this Act would bar the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim against the individual officers, it does not bar the intentional tort claims asserted against them.

Concerning the plaintiff's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, at this early stage the court cannot say that the plaintiff lacks standing to seek these forms of relief against the defendants. Finally, despite issues with the plaintiff's operative pleading which the court describes below, he has seemingly pleaded a viable claim under the First Amendment. However, he has failed to plausibly plead a claim under the Fifth Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause, so the court must dismiss these claims.

I. ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The plaintiff, Ivan Ruiz-Rivera (“Ruiz-Rivera”) commenced this action by filing a complaint against the defendants, City and County of Lancaster, Police Officer Jacob Bingham, Police Officer Lapp, and numerous fictitious individual and entity defendants on May 6, 2021. On May 10 2021, Ruiz-Rivera filed an amended complaint against the same defendants.

In the amended complaint, Ruiz-Rivera alleges that he is a 50-year-old, male Hispanic-American, who lives in the city and county of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Am. Compl. at ¶ 6, Doc. No. 2. Officers Bingham and Lapp are members of the City of Lancaster Police Department. Id. at ¶¶ 8, 9.

On or about December 6, 2019, at 5:04 a.m., Officer Bingham arrived at 33 Belmont Street in the City of Lancaster. Id. at ¶ 14. Officer Bingham claimed that he arrived at this location because he received a dispatch regarding an incident of domestic violence there involving Ruiz-Rivera.^[1] Id. at ¶ 12. The domestic assault was allegedly taking place in or near a red SUV. Id. at ¶ 14.

Upon Officer Bingham's arrival at the scene, a red SUV was parked in front of the residence located at 33 Belmont Street. Id. Officer Bingham exited his police cruiser and approached the red SUV. Id. at ¶ 15. Ruiz-Rivera apparently noticed Officer Bingham's police cruiser and other police vehicles in front of the residence, so he approached Officer Bingham and instructed him to leave his property. Id. Officer Bingham responded by telling Ruiz-Rivera that he was on a public street and not on his property. Id. at ¶ 16.

Ruiz-Rivera continued to instruct Officer Bingham to leave his property and then walked away from him. Id. at ¶ 17. When Ruiz-Rivera began to walk away, Officer Bingham started to “aggressive[ly] follow” him onto his property without his permission to do so. Id. As Officer Bingham followed Ruiz-Rivera, he asked, “Who is here with you?” Id. at ¶ 18. Ruiz-Rivera responded by stating, “None of your business, leave my house.” Id. Officer Bingham did not leave and continued to trespass on Ruiz-Rivera's property and ask him “who is here with you?” Id. At ¶ 19. Ruiz-Rivera continuously asked Officer Bingham to leave the property, but Officer Bingham did not do so. Id. at ¶ 20.

Apparently, in response to one of Officer Bingham's questions about who was with Ruiz-Rivera, Ruiz-Rivera responded by saying, “your mother” and then walked away. Id. at ¶ 21. Officer Bingham then again “aggressively followed” Ruiz-Rivera until telling him to “stop walking away . . . you are gonna get tased.” Id. at ¶ 22. After Ruiz-Rivera walked away anyway, Officer Bingham tased him in the back for several seconds, yelling “get on the ground.”^[2] Id.

Upon being tased, Ruiz-Rivera was screaming in pain and yelling to “leave me alone.” Id. at ¶ 23. At this point, Officer Bingham, Officer Lapp, and other officers tackled Ruiz-Rivera and started to punch him, without provocation. Id. While being struck by the officers, Ruiz-Rivera asked them why they were hitting him and asked them whether he had hit them. Id. at ¶ 24.

The officers eventually handcuffed Ruiz-Rivera. Id. at ¶ 25. After being handcuffed, Ruiz-Rivera continuously asked the officers to leave his property and not allow his children to see what was happening. Id. He also asked if he could turn around on his back, but Officer Bingham said that he needed to “stay like that.” Id. at ¶ 26.

Because of the conduct of the police officer defendants, Ruiz-Rivera “suffered severe injuries to his person, which left him bloody, bruised, battered and mentally affected.” Id. at ¶ 28. He claims he suffered “mental shock, trauma and mental distress.” Id. at ¶ 34.

Ruiz-Rivera claims that the police officers used excessive force and committed battery against him. Id. at ¶ 29. Based on information he has received, Ruiz-Rivera believes that these officers “have committed such brutal acts in the past against innocent victims.” Id. at ¶ 30. He also believes that other complaints have been made against these officers and Internal Affairs has investigated the complaints. Id. at ¶ 31.

With regard to the City of Lancaster and the City of Lancaster Police Department, Ruiz-Rivera alleges that they have a

well-known and documented custom, policy and practice of not taking reasonable steps to properly train its [sic] police officers to not violate the constitutionally protected rights of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. More particularly the residence [sic] of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. This includes, but is not limited to, the unlawful tasing of citizens.

Id. at ¶ 35. He claims that “[e]ach year, hundreds of law-abiding citizens are victims of police brutality by . . . City of Lancaster employees (police officers) that result in their being charged and prosecuted for crimes they are innocent of.” Id. at ¶ 36. He also avers that

[p]olice brutality is rampant in Lancaster. The City of Lancaster and their police department has [sic] a Custom [sic] of condoning alleged instances of police brutality without punishing its [sic] officers. The Defendants has [sic] a history of exonerating officers for allegedly using excessive force against its [sic] citizens. Officers within the police department are secure in knowing that a reported incident will not result in any disciplinary proceeding unless another officer can verify that the force was excessive. The City of Lancaster has permitted and tolerated the practice of unjustified and unreasonable uses of excessive force by its officers under the color of state law.

Id. at ¶ 37.

Based on the aforementioned allegations, Ruiz-Rivera asserts a number of causes of action in the amended complaint. Those causes of action are:

Count I: “Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985 [-] Monell Claim While Acting Under the Color of State Law” against the City of Lancaster

Count II: “Violation of Fourth Amendment Right of United States Constitution and Article 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution Due Process Rights” against all defendants

Count III: “Violation of Civil Rights While Acting Under the Color of Law for Failure to Interven [sic] Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983” against Officer Bingham, Officer Lapp, and John Doe Officers 1-25

Count IV: “Conspiracy to Violate Ruiz-Rivera's Constitutional Civil Rights and Other Rights in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983” against Officer Bingham, Officer Lapp, and John Doe Officers 1-25

Count V: “Violation of Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Rights” against all defendants

Count VI: Assault and Battery against Officer Bingham Officer Lapp, and John Doe Officers 1-25

Count VII: Excessive Force against Officer Bingham, Officer Lapp,

...