Stagliano v. Coll

GREGORY STAGLIANO, Plaintiff, v. JUDGE MICHAEL COLL, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 21-4936

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

April 5, 2022

MEMORANDUM

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Pro se Plaintiff Gregory Stagliano (“Plaintiff”) brings claims under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for monetary and injunctive relief against: (1) Mary Mann, the former Assistant District Attorney of Delaware County, (2) Michelle Deery, an investigator of Delaware County's Criminal Investigation Division, (3) Katayoun Copeland, the former District Attorney of Delaware County, (4) William Judge, the former Deputy District Attorney of Delaware County, (5) Judge John Whelan in his capacity as the former Assistant District Attorney of Delaware County, ^[1] (6) the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (7) the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Health and Human Services, (8) Teresa Miller, the current Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, (9) Jessica Keith, the Executive Director of Norristown State Hospital, (10) Patrick Marano, counsel for Norristown State Hospital, (11) Judge Michael Coll, a judge on the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, (12) Judge James Bradley, a judge on the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, (13) the Delaware County Board of Judges, (14) the County of Delaware, and (15) The GEO Group, Inc., ^[2] a corporation that operates George W. Hill Correctional Facility (collectively, “Defendants”).

Defendants have filed several motions to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint.^[3] For the following reasons, Defendants' motions will be granted.

II. BACKGROUND

For over 30 years, Plaintiff was a practicing attorney in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and in New Jersey. Plaintiff alleges that he was diagnosed with reflex sympathetic dystrophy and, as a result, was put on medication that affected his memory and his ability to practice law. The Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board (the “Board”) then filed complaints against Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that the Board's complaints related to issues with Plaintiff's management of client “[t]rust account[s].” Compl. ¶ 19. According to Plaintiff's allegations, the Board eventually placed Plaintiff on medical inactive status, closed his practice, and requested that a conservator oversee Plaintiff's remaining cases. According to Plaintiff, the “prosecutor” from the Board sent letters to the Delaware County District Attorney's Office alleging Plaintiff was a “thief.” Id. at ¶¶ 25, 26.

Public record reveals that the Delaware County District Attorney's Office filed criminal charges against Plaintiff.^[4] The public docket shows Plaintiff was charged in two separate actions. In one action, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Stagliano, CP-23-CR-0000871-2019, Plaintiff was charged with one count of theft by unlawful taking in violation 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3921, two counts of forgery in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4101, and one count of insurance fraud in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4117. In the other action, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Stagliano, CP-23-CR-0005215-2017, Plaintiff was charged with nine counts of unlawful taking in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3921, nine counts of theft by deception in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3922, nine counts of receiving stolen property in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3925, nine counts of theft of services in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3926, nine counts of embezzlement in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3927, and one count of unauthorized practice of law in violation of 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2524. Plaintiff's underlying criminal prosecution is ongoing.

At one point, the criminal actions against Plaintiff were transferred to Judge Coll on the Mental Health Court of Delaware County, who ordered Plaintiff to undergo testing and treatment at Norristown State Hospital to assess Plaintiff's competency to stand trial.

Plaintiff brings this action against several current and former prosecutors of the Office of the District Attorney of Delaware County and two judges challenging rulings in the underlying criminal proceedings. Plaintiff also brings section 1983 claims against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth Department of Human Services, and related individuals regarding the evaluation and treatment Plaintiff received at Norristown State Hospital. Finally, Plaintiff brings section 1983 claims against the Delaware County Board of Judges, the County of Delaware, and the County's prison provider, The GEO Group, Inc., alleging that the prison's conditions violated Plaintiff's rights. Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against them. Defendants' arguments will be addressed herein.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A party may move to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). When reviewing such a motion, the Court is “required to accept as true all allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from [the allegations] after construing them in the light most favorable to the non-movant.” Conard v. Pa. State Police, 902 F.3d 178, 182 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994)).

To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Regardless, the Court has an obligation to liberally construe a pro-se litigant's pleadings. Higgs v. Atty. Gen. of U.S., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011). The Court will “apply the relevant legal principle even when the complaint has failed to name it.” Vogt v. Wetzel, 8 F.4th, 182, 185 (3d Cir. 2021) (citing Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 244-45 (3d Cir. 2013)). The “pro se litigants still must allege sufficient facts in their complaints to support a claim.” Id. (citing Mala, 704 F.3d at 243). An unrepresented litigant, however, “cannot flout procedural rules - they must abide by the same rules that apply to all other litigants.” Id. (citing Mala, 704 F.3d at 243).

IV. DISCUSSION

Motions to dismiss have been filed by Mary Mann, Michelle Deery, Katayoun Copeland, William Judge, and Judge Whelan (collectively, the “Prosecutorial Defendants”), the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, Secretary Teresa D. Miller, Jessica Keith, and Patrick Marano (collectively, the “DHS Defendants”), Judge Michael Coll and Judge James Bradley (collectively, the “Judicial Defendants”), and the Delaware County Board of Judges, the County of Delaware, and The GEO Group, Inc. (collectively, the “County Defendants”). The motions filed by each group of defendants will be addressed in turn.^[5] Though Plaintiff was formally a practicing attorney, he is currently inactive so the Court will apply the pro se standard and liberally construe Plaintiff's allegations.

A. The Prosecutorial Defendants

Plaintiff brings claims pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Katayoun Copeland in her capacity as the former District Attorney of Delaware County (Counts IV, IX, X), Mary Mann in her capacity as the former District Attorney of Delaware County (Count IV, X), William Judge in his capacity as the Delaware County Deputy District Attorney (Counts IV, X), the Honorable John Whelan in his capacity as the former District Attorney of Delaware County (Counts IV, IX, X), and Michelle Deery in her capacity as the investigator for Delaware County's Criminal Investigation Division (Counts IV, X). Defendants Mann and Deery have filed a joint motion separately from Defendants Copeland, Judge, and Whelan. Because Defendants Mann and Deery's arguments overlap with the arguments submitted by the remaining Prosecutorial Defendants, both motions will be addressed herein.

During the course of the underlying criminal proceedings, Plaintiff (as the defendant in those actions) filed motions to be found incompetent to stand trial. The cases were transferred to Judge Coll on Delaware County's Mental Health Court. Judge Coll was designated to determine whether Plaintiff was competent to stand trial. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Copeland, Mann, Judge, and Whelan violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and section 1983^[6] by wrongfully causing Plaintiff's case to be transferred to Judge Coll, by causing Plaintiff to become illegally incarcerated at George W. Hill Correctional Facility, ^[7]and by failing to have Plaintiff treated at the Norristown State Hospital.

Plaintiff specifically alleges that Defendants Copeland and Whelan allowed Plaintiff to be illegally incarcerated, ignored requests from Plaintiff, and allowed improper proceedings to occur before Judge Coll. Compl. ¶¶ 215, 216. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Copeland allowed “rampant illegalities perpetrated upon [Plaintiff] by Defendant Coll” to continue, and that Defendant Copeland “had the ability to put an end to this horrible affair but she failed and refused to do so.” Id. ¶¶ 211-212. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Mann intentionally tried to intimidate witnesses failed to look into the various allegations, exaggerated the amount of money in controversy, directed Plaintiff's case to a Mental Health Court to take advantage of Plaintiff, and encouraged Judge Coll to unethically proceed with a competency hearing, among other conduct. Id. ¶ 228. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Deery pressured “victims” to participate in Plaintiff's prosecution, which resulted in “manipulated allegations that have...