Stoneroad v. Johnson, CIVIL NO: 1:18-CV-02276

DANIEL CLAYTON STONEROAD, Plaintiff v. GREGORY D. JOHNSON, et al., Defendants

CIVIL NO: 1:18-CV-02276

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

April 6, 2020

(Judge Rambo)

(Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. Introduction.

The plaintiff Daniel Clayton Stoneroad claims that the defendants violated his constitutional rights in connection with state proceedings. After screening the complaint, it was concluded that with one exception (a Sixth Amendment claim against the Chief Public Defender of Dauphin County), the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Stoneroad was granted leave to file an amended complaint, and he filed an amended complaint. That amended complaint was not, however, a complete complaint and it did not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Although Stoneroad was given leave to file a second amended complaint, he has not done so. Accordingly, it is recommended that all Stoneroad's claims be dismissed except the Sixth Amendment claim against the Chief Public Defender of Dauphin County.

II. Background and Procedural History.

Stoneroad began this action on November 27, 2018, by filing a complaint naming as defendants: (1) Gregory D. Johnson, a magisterial district judge in Dauphin County; (2) Troy Petry, Deputy Court Administrator for Dauphin County's magisterial district judges; (3) Dauphin County: (4) Bradley Winnick, Chief Public Defender of Dauphin County: (5) Matt Miller, Director of the Dauphin County Work Release Center; (6) an office manager of Magisterial District Court 12-3-02 ("unknown office manager"); and (7) Jaculine Gillardi, an assistant public defender in Dauphin County. Stoneroad names Johnson, Petry, Winnick, the unknown office manager, and Gillardi in both their official and individual capacities. He names Miller in his official capacity only.

It is difficult to discern what Stoneroad is alleging for several reasons. First, there is a page missing from his complaint. That missing page—page 7—appears from the context of the pages before and after it to be the page where Stoneroad would have started the factual allegations that form the basis of his claims. Without those initial factual allegations, it is difficult to piece together what Stoneroad is alleging. Second, Stoneroad failed to comply with the requirementthat "[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). Although Stoneroad used numbered paragraphs in his complaint, those paragraphs are lengthy (some longer than a page) and contain numerous allegations, which make it difficult to discern what he is alleging. Third, it appears that Stoneroad incorrectly assumed that the court is aware of what happened in connection with his state proceedings. Based on those circumstances, it is difficult to discern what exactly Stoneroad is alleging. Nevertheless, from the allegations in the complaint, the exhibits attached to the complaint, and the state court docket sheets, the court has done its best to try to piece together what Stoneroad is alleging.

By an order dated May 6, 2019, the undersigned screened the complaint and set forth the following summary of the state proceedings against Stoneroad:

It appears that Stoneroad's claims concern three charges of driving with a suspended or revoked license—two from 2016 and one from 2018. Judge Johnson found Stoneroad guilty of all three charges. See Commonwealth v. Stoneroad, Docket No. MJ-12302-TR-0000286-2016 (Dauphin Cty.); Commonwealth v. Stoneroad, Docket No. MJ-12302-TR-0002549-2016 (Dauphin Cty.); and Commonwealth v. Stoneroad, Docket No. MJ-12302-TR-0000078-2018 (Dauphin Cty.). In one of the cases—MJ-12302-TR-0000286-2016—Judge Johnson held the trial in Stoneroad's absence. See Doc. 1 at 26 (Order Imposing Sentence) ("THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: On July 13, 2016, your trial on the above charge(s) was held in the Magisterial District Court listed above in your absence pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 455."). In addition to fines and costs, Judge Johnson sentenced Stoneroad in that case to a maximum term of six-months imprisonment in the Dauphin County Prison. Id. As to the other charge from 2016, Stoneroad pleaded guilty and Judge Johnson sentenced him to 90 days confinement. SeeCommonwealth v. Stoneroad, Docket No. MJ-12302-TR-0002549-2016 (Dauphin Cty.). As to the charge from 2018, Judge Johnson found Stoneroad guilty and sentenced him to 90 days confinement. See Commonwealth v. Stoneroad, Docket No. MJ-12302-TR-0000078-2018 (Dauphin Cty.).

In all three cases, Stoneroad appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County for a trial de novo. See Commonwealth v. Stoneroad, Docket No. CP-22-SA-0000221-2016 (Dauphin Cty.) (appealing MJ-12302-TR-0000286-2016); Commonwealth v. Stoneroad, Docket No. CP-22-SA-0000218-2016 (Dauphin Cty.) (appealing MJ-12302-TR-0002549-2016); Commonwealth v. Stoneroad, Docket No. CP-22-MD-0001544-2016 (Dauphin Cty.) (addressing Stoneroad's "Nunc Pro Tunc Request for Sentence Reduction or a New Trial Or Notice of Appeal" apparently as to MJ-12302-TR-0000286-2016 and MJ-12302-TR-0002549-2016); Commonwealth v. Stoneroad, Docket No. CP-22-SA-0000127-2018 (Dauphin Cty.) (appealing MJ-12302-TR-0000078-2018). In the Court of Common Pleas, on November 28, 2016, Judge Clark found Stoneroad not guilty as to the two charges stemming from 2016 and ordered him immediately released from the Dauphin County Prison. See Doc. 1 at 27; see also Commonwealth v. Stoneroad, Docket No. CP-22-SA-0000221-2016 (Dauphin Cty.); Commonwealth v. Stoneroad, Docket No. CP-22-SA-0000218-2016 (Dauphin Cty.); and Commonwealth v. Stoneroad, Docket No. CP-22-MD-0001544-2016 (Dauphin Cty.). As to the 2018 charge, on September 10, 2018, Judge Clark found Stoneroad guilty, gave him credit for 87 days he had served in the Dauphin County Prison and ordered him to serve three days on house arrest. See Commonwealth v. Stoneroad, Docket No. CP-22-SA-0000127-2018 (Dauphin Cty.).

Doc. 6 at 3-5 (footnote omitted).¹

As to the 2016 charges, Stoneroad complains that Judge Johnson sentenced him to six months in jail without holding a hearing on one charge and coerced him to plead guilty to another charge. Given the missing page of Stoneroad's complaint, it is difficult to discern exactly what Stoneroad alleges happened. But it appears that at some point, Stoneroad appeared at Judge Johnson's office where he was put in a meeting room. According to Stoneroad, a few minutes later, Judge Johnson entered the room and told Stoneroad that he had been sentenced to six months in prison. Stoneroad objected saying that he was not served with any paperwork, and he asked for proof that he had been notified by certified mail. Judge Johnson responded that he had no intention of holding a hearing as to the charge that led to the six-month sentence or the other charge then pending against Stoneroad. According to Stoneroad, Judge Johnson said if Stoneroad did not then and there plead guilty to the other charge, he would resolve that case also, and run the sentence consecutive to the six-month sentence already imposed without the opportunity for work release.

Feeling coerced, Stoneroad signed the guilty plea, but he objected that he was going to appeal. Judge Johnson responded that he did not care, that Stoneroad did not deserve a hearing and would not get one on either charge, and that he did not need to hold a hearing because given that Stoneroad had prior convictions, he was guilty. After Stoneroad again told Judge Johnson that he was going to appeal, Judge Johnson ordered Constable Kolva to take Stoneroad to the Dauphin County Prison. According to Stoneroad, Kolva witnessed the entire exchange between Stoneroad and Judge Johnson and will testify on Stoneroad's behalf.

As set forth above, Stoneroad appealed Judge Johnson's decisions to the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas. But according to Stoneroad, he received a hearing before Judge Clark only after he filed a federal habeas corpus action. Stoneroad alleges that during the hearing, Judge Clark said Stoneroad should not have been in jail and that he had no intention of getting caught up in a procedural train wreck. Judge Clark dismissed both 2016 charges against Stoneroad and released him.

Stoneroad alleges that even though he was cleared and released by Judge Clark, he was unable to get back the money that he had paid relating to his stay at the Dauphin County Prison and the work-release center. According to Stoneroad, there was no court order requiring the payment of costs during the period he was illegally incarcerated. Stoneroad contends that although the money was collectedlegally, after his charges were dismissed, he was entitled to the immediate return of the money he had paid. He complains that there is no policy for the return of such money, and he suggests that Dauphin County should bear the costs associated with incarcerating him illegally.

As to the 2018 charge, Stoneroad alleges that on March 6, 2018, he "went to his last pending case." Doc. 1 at 8. He alleges that "[a]gain the notice of hearing was not sent certified mail" and "as before," he attempted to postpone the hearing because he recently had surgery. Id. He suggests that his request to postpone the hearing was denied, but he later suggests that the hearing was postponed.

Stoneroad also complains that Judge Johnson had an ex parte conversation with the arresting officer and the district attorney. According to Stoneroad, the charge against him was amended, but the district attorney never served him with the amended charge. Stoneroad objected to the amendment, and he asserted his right to counsel. He suggests that the hearing was postponed as a result of the district attorney amending the charge but not serving him with the amendment. Stoneroad alleges that although he was "accused of being the one to postpone the hearing," the "extension of time should have been placed on the...