Weimer v. Cnty. of Fayette

CRYSTAL DAWN WEIMER, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF FAYETTE, PENNSYLVANIA,OFFICE OF THE FAYETTE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CITY OF CONNELLSVILLE,NANCY VERNON, in her Official and Individual capacities,and RONALD HAGGERTY, JR., THOMAS CESARIO,THOMAS PATTON, and BEVERLY ASHTON,in their individual capacities, Defendants.

Civil No. 17-1265

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

September 14, 2018

Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly

Re: ECF No. 54

OPINION

KELLY, Chief Magistrate Judge

Pending before the Court is the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants County of Fayette, Pennsylvania, Office of the Fayette County District Attorney, and Nancy Vernon, in her official and individual capacities ("Vernon") (collectively the "County Defendants"). ECF No. 54. The County Defendants seek the dismissal with prejudice of all claims filed against them in the Amended Complaint by the plaintiff, Crystal Dawn Weimer ("Plaintiff" or "Weimer").

On April 7, 2006, Weimer was wrongfully convicted of third-degree murder and conspiracy to commit third-degree murder in connection with the murder of Curtis Haith ("Haith"). ECF No. 47 ¶ 11. Haith had been murdered outside of his apartment, brutally beaten and shot in the face. Id. ¶ 21. As a result of this wrongful conviction, Weimer was incarcerated for more than eleven years before she was fully exonerated of all charges. Id. ¶ 11. The individually named defendants in this matter are: (1) Vernon, during the relevant time period the District Attorney for Fayette County; (2) Thomas Cesario ("Cesario"), the lead investigator of Haith murder for the Connellsville Police Department until his retirement; (3) Ronald Haggerty ("Haggerty"), a sergeant in the Connellsville Police Department who took over as lead investigator of Haith's murder once Cesario retired; (4) Thomas Patton ("Patton"), a corporal in the Connellsville Police Department who led the investigation of Haith's murder after Weimer's convictions were vacated in 2015; and (5) Beverly Ashton ("Ashton"), a corporal in the Pennsylvania State Police Cold Case Unit, who was the lead officer for the state police's investigation of Haith's murder that led to Weimer's conviction. Id. ¶¶ 15-19.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Weimer filed her original Complaint against the defendants, County of Fayette, Pennsylvania ("Fayette County"), Office of the Fayette County District Attorney, Connellsville Township,¹ City of Connellsville ("Connellsville"), Vernon, in her official and individual capacities, and Haggerty, Cesario, Patton, and Ashton in their individual capacities on September 28, 2017. ECF No. 1. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the original complaint. ECF Nos. 23, 29, 32, and 35, and Weimer filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. ECF No. 45. The Court granted the Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. ECF No. 46. On January 30, 2018, Weimer filed her Amended Complaint. ECF No. 47. The County Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and supporting brief. ECF Nos. 55-56. Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to the County Defendants' motion to dismiss. ECF No. 66.The County Defendants filed a reply brief in response to Weimer's opposition brief. ECF No. 67. The County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is ripe for review.²

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and all the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007). A complaint must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) if it does not allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (rejecting the traditional 12(b)(6) standard set forth in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (specifically applying Twombly analysis beyond the context of the Sherman Act).

A court need not accept inferences drawn by a plaintiff if they are unsupported by the facts as set forth in the complaint. See California Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Chubb Corp., 394 F.3d 126, 143 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997)). Nor must the Court accept legal conclusions set forth as factual allegations. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). See also McTernan v. City of York, Penn., 577 F.3d 521, 531 (3d Cir. 2009) ("The tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions."). A plaintiff's factual allegations "must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 (citing 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed. 2004)). Although the United States SupremeCourt does "not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, [the Court does require] enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570.

In other words, at the motion to dismiss stage, a plaintiff is "required to make a 'showing' rather than a blanket assertion of an entitlement to relief." Smith v. Sullivan, Civ. No. 07-528, 2008 WL 482469, at *1 (D. Del. Feb. 19, 2008) (quoting Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008)). "This 'does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage,' but instead 'simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary element." Phillips, 515 F.3d at 234 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 n. 3).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit expounded on the Twombly/Iqbal line of cases:

To determine the sufficiency of a complaint under Twombly and Iqbal, we must take the following three steps:

First, the court must 'tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim.' Second, the court should identify allegations that, 'because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.' Finally, 'where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief.'

Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212, 221 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Santiago v. Warminster Tp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010)).

"The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the sufficiency of a complaint, not to resolve disputed facts or decide the merits of the case." Tracinda Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler AG, 197 F. Supp. 2d 42, 53 (D. Del. 2002) (citing Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir. 1993)). Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has held that a complaint is properly dismissed under Rule 12(b) where it does not allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausibleon its face," Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, or where the factual content does not allow the court "to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The question is not whether the plaintiff will prevail in the end but, rather, whether the plaintiff is entitled to offer evidence in support of his or her claims. Swope v. City of Pittsburgh, 90 F. Supp.3d 400, 405 (W.D. Pa. 2015) (citing Oatway v. American Intern. Group, Inc., 325 F.3d 184, 187 (3d Cir. 2003)).

III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

In her Amended Complaint, Weimer alleges the following conduct relevant to the County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

Curtis Haith was murdered in the early morning hours on January 27, 2001, outside of his apartment. ECF No. 47 ¶ 21. He was beaten and shot in the face. Id. Connellsville police learned that Haith had been at two parties the evening of January 26, 2001, and morning of January 27, 2001, one in Uniontown and one in Connellsville. Id. ¶ 24. Weimer had attended the first party, in Uniontown, and had been in the car that drove Haith to the second party, in Connellsville. Id. ¶ 26. Along with interviewing other party goers, Connellsville police officers and co-defendants Cesario and Haggerty interviewed Weimer at her house the same day Haith was murdered. Id. ¶ 25.

When Cesario and Haggerty arrived at Weimer's house, she had been sleeping and was dressed in the same clothes she had worn the night before. Id. They observed what appeared to be mud and blood on Weimer's clothes. Id. Weimer also had injuries to her face and foot. Id.

In light of the mud and blood on her clothes and her injuries, the police, including Cesario and Haggerty, asked Weimer to come with them down to the Connellsville Police Department. Id. Weimer voluntarily accompanied the officers to the police station and readilyprovided her clothing for forensic testing. Id. At the police station, Weimer told the police she had been at a party with Haith and others in Uniontown, that she, her cousin, Doug Giles ("Giles"), and her minor daughter, Rose, had driven Haith from Uniontown to the Arch Cafe, a bar in Connellsville, left him there, and then returned to Uniontown where she spent the rest of the night at the housing community where her mother and sisters resided. Id. ¶¶ 26-27. Weimer's location in Uniontown for the rest of the evening after dropping off Haith was corroborated by multiple witnesses. Id. ¶ 27.

In response to questioning about her injuries, Weimer explained to the police, including Cesario and Haggerty, that her foot injury had been caused by horseplay with Michael Gibson ("Gibson"), Weimer's then boyfriend, a few days before, and that the blood on her clothes and injury to her eye had been caused by a fight with Gibson the prior evening (i.e., on January 26, 2001), during which she had bit his thumb, causing Gibson to bleed on her clothing and strike her in the eye. Id. ¶ 28.

DNA testing of items collected from the crime scene as well as from...