Thomas v. Larson, CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-999 (E.D. Pa. 2/27/2001)

Page 1

CURTIS THOMAS v. SANDI LARSON et al.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-999.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

February 27, 2001.

MEMORANDUM

DALZELL, Judge.

Curtis Thomas claims that his former probation officer, his former counselor, and an individual who provided him with a drug test all violated his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We here consider those defendants' motions for summary judgment.

I. Background

A. Facts¹

On July 7, 1997, Curtis Thomas appeared before the Honorable Thomas G. Gavin, a Judge of the Court of Common Pleas for Chester County, Pennsylvania. Judge Gavin found that Thomas had violated his parole², and revoked it. Judge Gavin immediately re-paroled Thomas, placing him on the "Intensive Supervision Program", Ex. I, Larson's Mot. for Summ. J. (Judge Gavin's orders dated July 7, 1997). Defendant Sandi³ Larson, then a Chester County probation/parole officer, was responsible for supervising Thomas. On July 7, 1997, Thomas signed a document setting forth the "General Rules for Probationers and Parolees", as well as the required fees, Ex. D, Larson's Mot. for Summ. J. The document stated that "[i]n the event that [the parolee] violate[s] any of these conditions, [the Chester County Adult Probation and Parole Department] has the authority to arrest you and to detain you". Thomas also signed an "Agreement by Probationer/Parolee" that he understood the conditions, agreed to abide by them, and understood the penalties involved, Ex. D, Larson's Mot. for Summ. J.

On February 19, 1998, Judge Gavin held another parole violation hearing for Thomas, on the ground that Thomas had continued to use illegal drugs, Ex. H, Larson's Mot. for Summ. J. (Tr. of Feb. 19, 1998 hr'g) at 1-4 (hereinafter "Tr. of Feb. 19, 1998 hr'g"). In that hearing, at which Sandi Larson testified, Thomas represented to the court, through counsel, that he had a "terrible problem", and that he was asking for "one more opportunity," Tr. of Feb. 19, 1998 hr'g at 5, and he also represented that about a week before the hearing he had entered an intensive outpatient program with "HELP Counseling" in West Chester, Tr. of Feb. 19, 1998 hr'g at 4. Notwithstanding these representations, Judge Gavin said that he would revoke the outstanding paroles and recommit Thomas for the balance of his sentences⁴. After Judge Gavin made this statement, however, at Thomas's request the court engaged in a colloquy with him. Following this colloquy⁵, Judge Gavin reconsidered his previously-stated decision to recommit Thomas, and said:

You got your choice of taking your medicine today and going to prison today and participating in some programs and doing TAP and maybe getting out in four or five months time.

Or, I'll accept your story one more time. You go and you finish this program that you're in, which means you finish in six weeks. If you come up dirty one time during the six weeks, if you miss one class during the six weeks, and if you don't go to work every day that your employer wants you to come, you will come back here and do every single day of the seventeen months; no parole, no nothing.

Tr. of Feb. 19, 1998 hr'g at 11-12.

Judge Gavin then declared a brief recess for Thomas to consider his options. After that recess, Thomas, through counsel, expressed concern that if a urine sample was taken from him that day — as Larson evidently wanted — it would come up positive for marijuana, as he had used marijuana the previous Sunday⁶; in subsequent colloquy with the court, Thomas admitted to that drug use, Tr. of Feb. 19, 1998 hr'g at 13-14. Despite this admission, Judge Gavin permitted Thomas to take the proffered deal, reiterating that this was conditioned on "No dirty urines, doesn't miss one class with the counseling service, doesn't miss one eligible hour of work, and if he does fails [sic] to do any of these things he does every single day of the balance," Tr. of Feb. 19, 1998 hr'g at 14. Judge Gavin also required that Thomas report to Larson twice a week, on which occasions he would be tested for drug use, Tr. of Feb. 19, 1998 hr'g at 15. On February 19, 1998, Thomas and his counsel signed a document agreeing to the terms that Judge Gavin had orally imposed, Ex. C, Larson's Mot. for Summ. J.

The events of Monday, March 2, 1998 form the primary basis for this action. On that day, slightly less than two weeks after the February 19 hearing, Thomas reported to Larson at the Chester County probation department satellite office in Coatesville at about 3:00 p.m. Thomas provided a urine sample, which was physically witnessed by Probation Officer Anthony Venditti. Just after Thomas provided the urine sample, there was a commotion outside the probation office, and Thomas ran outside to see what had happened. Larson remained inside. When Thomas returned to the office, Larson told him that his urine had tested⁷ positive for cocaine.⁸ Thomas immediately denied that this was possible, contending that he had not used any drugs.⁹ Larson told Thomas that his positive test was in violation of the February 19 agreement, and that she would schedule a violation hearing with Judge Gavin. She then called the courthouse and got a hearing time for Thursday, March 5.

Thomas then left the probation office, and determined that he would seek another drug test that would show that he had not, in fact, been using cocaine. Using a pay phone and the Yellow Pages,¹⁰ he determined that he could obtain a urine test at defendant Riverside/Brandywine¹¹, an entity located in Coatesville with which Thomas was familiar because he had been there for counseling some years before, Dep. of Curtis Thomas at 78-85. Thomas proceeded to Riverside/Brandywine on foot, stopping on the way at his cousin's house to borrow some money to pay for the anticipated $25 fee for the drug test, Dep. of Curtis Thomas at 78-81.¹² At Riverside/Brandywine, Thomas provided a urine sample that was witnessed by defendant Art Caron¹³, a therapist at Riverside/Brandywine.¹⁴ After the sample was taken, it was sealed and placed in a plastic bag, and Riverside/Brandywine personnel told Thomas that the results would be back from the lab in a week, Dep. of Curtis Thomas at 94-96.¹⁵ Beverly Little, then the receptionist/secretary at Riverside/Brandywine, says she recalls Curtis Thomas coming to Riverside/Brandywine during the "late winter or early spring of 1998", demanding a drug test, Ex. G, Caron's Mot. for Summ. J. (Aff. of Beverly Little) ¶ 8 (hereinafter "Aft. of Beverly Little"). Little adds that Thomas "was loud and boisterous and accused Sandy Larson of the Chester County Probation Department of falsifying his drug test with her," Aff. of Beverly Little ¶ 9.

Thomas then caught a ride with a friend to West Chester, because he had a 5:00 p.m. appointment at the Help Counseling Center. When he arrived, he went to see defendant Valerie Shinbaum¹⁶, his counselor, for a one-on-one session. Thomas had evidently commenced his treatment at the Help Counseling Center on February 12, 1998, Ex. I, Shinbaum's Mot. for Summ. J. ("consent to treatment" form signed by Thomas dated "2/12/98"), and Help Counseling Center, Inc.¹⁷ is a "division of Northwestern Human Services in Chester County," Ex. C, Pl.'s Resp. to Shinbaum's Mot. for Summ. J. at 9.¹⁸ When Thomas began treatment on February 12, 1998, he signed a "General Consent Form and Re-Disclosure Statement," Ex. I, Shinbaum's Mot. for Summ. J., which authorized the release of certain information to "CC Probation Sandy Larson", to include "Presence in Treatment", "Prognosis", "Nature of the Project", "Progress in Treatment".

During his one-on-one session with Shinbaum on March 2, Thomas told her, inter alia, that Larson had told him that his urine was positive for cocaine and that Larson had scheduled a violation hearing. Thomas told Shinbaum that he felt that it wasn't fair, Dep. of Curtis Thomas at 104-07.¹⁹ Shinbaum's treatment notes dated March 2, 1998 read:

["D" circled] Curtis upset today, violated @ PO, gave hot urine, will probably go to jail, per deal w/ PO & judge which he agreed to. Trying to be defensive, trying to get around going to jail. Worried, angry, anxious, sad. Reframing jail as opportunity for recovery if he wants to be serious about it.

["A" circled] Trying to accept his consequences. Reported use over weekend.

["P" circled] Client will come to group and share about his consequences.

Ex. J, Shinbaum's Mot. for Summ. J.

After his one-on-one session with Shinbaum, Thomas left Help Counseling without attending the group session scheduled for that evening. He did not attend the group session scheduled for March 3, 1998, nor did he attend the individual and group appointments scheduled for the next day.²⁰

On March 4, 1998, probation officer Candy Whitehead received a phone call from Valerie Shinbaum, Ex. E, Larson's Mot. for Summ. J. ("Supplemental Information Sheet" dated "3/4/98" detailing phone call). In this call, Shinbaum related that while Thomas had shown up for his individual session on March 2, he had left without attending his scheduled group session, and that he had failed to show up for his group session on March 3. Shinbaum further related that Thomas "claimed he went to Riverside on Monday & gave a urine because P.O. is conspiring against [him]," Ex. E, Larson's Mot. for Summ. J. On the same "Supplemental Information Sheet" relating this call, Candy Whitehead also wrote "[Telephone call] to Riverside — I spoke w/ Bev [Little, the receptionist at Riverside/Brandywine] — she didn't see Curt in there on Monday." Ex. E, Larson's Mot. for Summ. J. Shinbaum does recall making a call to the probation office to report that Thomas had missed a group session, Dep. of Valerie Shinbaum at 52, but she does not recall making a report about any "conspiracy" or Thomas's obtaining a drug test at Riverside/Brandywine, Dep. of Valerie Shinbaum at 52-54. In any event, Candy Whitehead relayed the information from the phone...