Opinion
1:23-CV-220-SPB-RAL
07-12-2024
CAMERON JAMES ZIMMERMAN, Plaintiff v. DANIEL J. LEEK, et al., Defendants
RICHARD A. LANZILLO CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
ECF NO. 18.
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint filed by Defendants Daniel J. Leek, Ryan Bell, Jordan Kitchen, and Michael Cherry [ECF No. 18] be granted and that this action be dismissed.
This matter has been referred to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
II. Report
A. Background
For purposes of this motion, the following factual allegations are accepted as true. On January 24, 2023, Plaintiff Cameron James Zimmerman rode his bicycle to Leisure Time Honda in Corry, Pennsylvania, to purchase a dirt bike rim and tire. ECF No. 6 ¶ 1. After Zimmerman completed his purchase, Defendant Leek, a patrolman for the City of Corry Police Department, pulled into the Leisure Time Honda parking lot and stopped Zimmerman for a “wellness check.” Id. ¶ 2. Observing that Zimmerman looked “high,” Leek placed him in handcuffs and informed him that he was under arrest. Id. Leek then searched Zimmerman's pockets and discovered methamphetamine, heroin, suboxone, and marijuana. Id. ¶ 3.
Following the arrest, Leek took Zimmerman to the Corry Police Department and placed him in a holding cell. Id. ¶ 4. A few hours later, Zimmerman's girlfriend arrived to pick him up. Id. Leek released Zimmerman “without being processed in any way” and stated that Zimmerman “would be receiving a citation in the mail.” Id. Leek kept Zimmerman's backpack but gave him back his bicycle. Id. ¶ 5.
The following day, January 25, 2023, Leek executed a search warrant for Zimmerman's backpack. Id. ¶ 6. That search did not reveal any drugs. Id. Leek then applied for a warrant to search Zimmerman's premises. Id. ¶ 7. In the warrant application, Leek made “random and misleading claims about Plaintiff being armed and dangerous” and falsely claimed that Zimmerman had threatened to flee after being released from the police department the day before. Id.
It appears that Zimmerman was residing at the premises of his girlfriend, Treasa Boardman, at the time of the incident.
On January 26, 2023, Leek and Ryan Bell, another patrolman with the Corry Police Department, arrived at Zimmerman's premises to execute the search warrant. Id. ¶ 9. After yelling “Corry Police! Search Warrant!”, Leek and Bell kicked the door in. Id. Bell arrested Zimmerman and transported him to Corry Memorial Hospital. Id. ¶ 10. At Bell's direction, hospital staff performed a “warrantless manual body cavity search without probable cause despite Plaintiffs protests.” Id. That search did not reveal any drugs. Id. ¶ 11.
After leaving the hospital, Bell transported Zimmerman to the Corry Police Department. Defendant Michael Cherry, the Chief of Police for the Corry Police Department, approached Zimmerman and stated: “This is your last chance, tell us you have drugs or you're gonna get charged for bringing drugs into a institution, we're gonna tell them you have drugs anyways.” Id. ¶ 12. When Zimmerman denied having drugs, Defendant Jordan Kitchen, another officer in the Department, transported him to the Erie County Prison. Id. ¶ 13. Kitchen told staff at the prison that Zimmerman “had drugs on him and to be thorough.” Id. Zimmerman was then placed in a body scanner, strip searched, and sent to a dry cell so that he could defecate three times in a bowl. Id. ¶ 14. No drugs were found. Id. As of the date of this Report, a review of Zimmerman's state criminal dockets indicates that he is still in the Erie County Prison awaiting trial in two criminal cases stemming from his arrest: CP-25-CR-00398-2023, and CP-25-CR-00400-2023.
Based on the foregoing, Zimmerman contends that Defendants violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments by effectuating an unlawful search and seizure and subjecting him to malicious prosecution, false arrest, false imprisonment, and cruel and unusual punishment. He also pleads a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Presently pending is Defendants' motion to dismiss. ECF No. 18. Despite being ordered to file a response to Defendants' motion on or before February 20, 2024, Zimmerman failed to file any response. This matter is ripe for review.
Zimmerman's failure to respond suggests that he may have abandoned his claims. See, e.g., Tambasco v. United States Dept, of Army, 2018 WL 1203466, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 8, 2018) (dismissing claims as unopposed when the plaintiff failed to respond to arguments made by the defendants in support of their motion to dismiss); Lada v. Delaware County Community College, 2009 WL 3217183, at *10 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2009) (“To put it simply: plaintiffs who fail to brief their opposition to portions of motions to dismiss do so at the risk of having those parts of the motions to dismiss granted as uncontested.''). Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, the Court will address his allegations on the merits.
B. Standard of Review
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir. 1993). In deciding a motion to dismiss, the court is not opining on whether the plaintiff will be likely to prevail on the merits; rather, the plaintiff must only present factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007) (citing 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp. 235-236 (3d ed. 2004)). See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)). A complaint should only be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(6) if it fails to allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570 (rejecting the traditional 12 (b)(6) standard established in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). In making this determination, the court must accept as true all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint and views them in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. U.S. Express Lines Ltd. v. Higgins, 281 F.3d 383, 388 (3d Cir. 2002).
While a complaint does not need detailed factual allegations to survive a motion to dismiss, it must provide more than labels and conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Moreover, 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. Employee Ret. Sys. v. The 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 disguised as factual allegations. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Papasan, 478 U.S. at 286). See also McTernan v. City of York, Pennsylvania, 5T1 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.”).
Expounding on the Twombly/Iqhal line of cases, the Third Circuit has articulated the following three-step approach:
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 Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010)). This determination is “a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
Finally, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the allegations of his complaint must be held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521 (1972). If the court can reasonably read a pro se litigant's pleadings to state a valid claim upon which relief can be granted, it must do so despite the litigant's failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax and sentence construction, or unfamiliarity with pleading requirements. Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364 (1982); United States ex rel. Montgomery v. Bierley, 141 F.2d 552, 555 (3d Cir. 1969) (petition prepared by a prisoner may be inartfully drawn and should be read “with a measure of tolerance”).
C. Analysis
1. Younger abstention
Defendants primarily argue that Zimmerman's claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, illegal search and seizure, and malicious prosecution run afoul of the Younger abstention doctrine. Derived from the United States Supreme Court's decision in Younger v. Harris, the Younger doctrine compels federal courts to abstain from exercising jurisdiction where the federal adjudication would disrupt an ongoing state court proceeding. Younger, 401 U.S. 37, 43-44 (1971). Abstention is proper when: 1) the federal proceeding would interfere with an ongoing judicial proceeding; 2) important state interests are implicated in the state action; and 3) the state proceedings offer sufficient opportunity to raise the claims asserted in federal court. Anthony v. Council, 316 F.3d 412, 418 (3d Cir. 2003). Even if all three of these necessary predicates are present, Younger abstention is not appropriate when “(1) the state proceedings are being undertaken in bad faith or for the purposes of harassment or (2) some other extraordinary circumstances exist... such that deference to the state proceeding will present a significant and immediate potential for irreparable harm to the federal interests asserted.” Schall v. Joyce, 885 F.2d 101, 106 (3d Cir. 1989).
A review of the criminal dockets in Zimmerman's state court cases indicates that he is still awaiting trial on each charge. It is beyond dispute that “criminal proceedings implicate the Commonwealth's important interest in bringing to justice those who violate its criminal laws.” Ally v. Myers, 2019 WL 3361269, at *6 (M.D. Pa. June 27, 2019). See also Jaffery v. Atlantic County Prosecutor's Office, 695 Fed.Appx. 38, 40-41 (3d Cir. 2017) (noting that state criminal proceedings “implicate the important state interest in prosecuting criminal behavior”). Moreover, federal courts have universally held that state court proceedings offer a sufficient opportunity to “raise federal constitutional defenses to prosecution.” Jaffery, 695 Fed.Appx. at 41. See also Bryant v. Sleichter, 2013 WL 1811776, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 26, 2013) (state court criminal proceedings “afford [defendants] a full and fair opportunity to litigate” constitutional claims based on false arrest and malicious prosecution). Finally, Zimmerman has not alleged any facts suggesting that the Younger doctrine should not be applied. Schall, 885 F.2d at 106. As such, Zimmerman's false arrest, false imprisonment, illegal search and seizure, and malicious prosecution claims must each be dismissed pursuant to Younger.
2. Cruel and unusual punishment
Zimmerman's Complaint also includes a passing reference to the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. However, the only alleged conduct that conceivably implicates the Eighth Amendment - Zimmerman's strip search and temporary placement in a dry cell - does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation under the facts alleged. See, e.g., Parkell v. Danberg, 833 F.3d 313, 336 (3d Cir. 2016) (strip searches do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment unless “undertaken maliciously or for the purposes of sexually abusing an inmate”) (quoting Crawford v. Cuomo, 796 F.3d 252, 258 (2d Cir. 2015)); Gilblom v. Gillipsie, 435 Fed.Appx. 165, 166 (3d Cir. 2011) (temporary placement in dry cell for the purpose of searching excrement for drugs did not violate the constitution). And, in any event, Zimmerman has not named any of the Erie County Prison officials or employees who effectuated those searches as defendants in this action. For each of these reasons, his cruel and unusual punishment claim should be dismissed.
3. Intentional infliction of emotional distress
Finally, Zimmerman's Complaint purports to bring a state law tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim.
“Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction, and may only decide cases consistent with the authority afforded by the Constitution or statutes of the United States.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994). Thus, “[w]hen the claims over which a district court has original jurisdiction are resolved before trial, the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.” Neelu Pal v. Jersey City Med. Ctr., 658 Fed.Appx. 68, 74 n. 6 (3d Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Yue Yu v. McGrath, 597 Fed. Appx, 62, 68 (3d Cir. 2014) (affirming the district court's decision to dismiss “all of the remaining state and common law claims after awarding summary judgment to [defendants on all of the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction”). "Importantly, pendent jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion, not a plaintiffs right.” Yue Yu, 597 Fed.Appx. at 68.
As Zimmerman's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is entirely grounded in state law, the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. Id. at 68; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (permitting a district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”). Said dismissal should be without prejudice to his refiling the same in state court.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, it is respectfully recommended that Defendants' motion to dismiss [ECF No. 18] be granted. Plaintiffs Complaint should be dismissed, without prejudice pending the outcome of the state court criminal proceedings.
IV. Notice
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, the parties may seek review by the district court by filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of Objections to respond thereto. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of appellate rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 194 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011); Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007).