Opinion
No. 1804 C.D. 2014
07-06-2015
Deborah Hughes, Appellant v. Rush Township Police Department, Bradley J. Hess and Duane Frederick
BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE LEADBETTER
Deborah Hughes appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County that sustained the preliminary objections of the Rush Township Police Department, Officer Bradley J. Hess and Sergeant Duane Frederick (Rush Township defendants) and dismissed her complaint. In this case, we consider whether common pleas erred in holding that there is no cause of action for monetary damages under Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution based on injury to reputation. In accordance with our opinion in Balletta v. Spadoni, 47 A.3d 183, 193 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012), we affirm.
The facts, as pled by Hughes, are as follows. In August 2012, Hughes was served with a criminal complaint charging her with two counts of retail theft and one count of receiving stolen property based on video surveillance from Wal-Mart allegedly depicting her shoplifting several big-screen television sets. Upon receipt, she called the police station and asked to speak with Officer Hess, who had signed the affidavit of probable cause. Another individual informed her that she was charged with those crimes because she was identified on the video. Later that same day, Hughes spoke with Officer Hess, who confirmed the video identification and advised her that she should direct any further questions to Sergeant Frederick. The next day, she spoke with Sergeant Frederick and apprised him that she did not commit the crimes. He responded that, without a doubt, it was her on the video, that "her friends from Wilkes Barre had ratted her out" and that she should come to the station to discuss the charges. Hughes' July 3, 2014 Complaint, ¶¶ 12 and 13. Later that day, Sergeant Frederick called Hughes at her office and left a message with a coworker. When she returned his call, he advised her that she no longer had to come to the station, that the police department had determined that it was not her on the video and that he was sorry. Id., ¶ 22. Although the charges were withdrawn, the docket sheet was still accessible on the AOPC website as of July 3, 2014. Id., Exhibit B.
When an appellate court considers whether preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer were properly sustained, the standard of review is plenary. Mazur v. Trinity Area Sch. Dist., 961 A.2d 96, 101 (Pa. 2008). An appellate court may affirm a grant of preliminary objections only when, based on the facts pled, it is clear and free from doubt that the plaintiff will be unable to prove facts legally sufficient to establish a right to relief. Id. For purposes of evaluating the legal sufficiency of the challenged pleading, we must accept as true all well-pled, material and relevant facts alleged in the complaint and every inference that is fairly deducible from those facts. Id.
In July 2014, Hughes filed a three-count complaint against the Rush Township defendants, with all three counts alleging a violation of Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The first count was against Officer Hess, the second against the police department and the third against Sergeant Frederick. She alleged that, as a result of defendants' filing criminal charges against her without probable cause, she sustained serious and long-lasting damage to her reputation and suffered fear, humiliation, loss of dignity and embarrassment. Accordingly, she requested monetary damages in excess of $50,000.
In August 2014, the Rush Township defendants filed the following preliminary objections: 1) a motion to strike pursuant to Rule 1028(a)(2) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Pa. R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(2), for failure to conform to a rule of law (no right to monetary damages under the state constitution); 2) a demurrer pursuant to Rule 1028(a)(4), Pa. R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(4), for failure to state a cause of action (failure to allege facts that demonstrate denial of due process); 3) immunity pursuant to Sections 8541 - 8542 of the Judicial Code; and 4) a failure to plead separate causes of action against Rush Township or the individual defendants and a failure to aver facts sufficient to establish municipal liability. Common pleas sustained the preliminary objections and ordered that the complaint be stricken, citing Balletta and its holding that there is no cause of action for monetary damages based on an alleged violation of the state constitutional right to reputation. In so ruling, it concluded that permitting an amendment to the pleading would not cure the deficiency because the prima facie elements of such a claim could not be established. Further, it determined that the remaining preliminary objections were moot. Hughes' timely appeal followed.
42 Pa. C.S. §§ 8541 - 8542.
Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the inherent rights of mankind provision, states: "All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness." PA. CONST. art. I, § 1 (emphasis added). Article I, Section 11, the open courts provision, in pertinent part, states: "All courts shall be open; and every man for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay." Id., art. I, § 11 (emphasis added).
In the present case, Hughes emphasizes that our state constitution affords an inherent and fundamental right to reputation and that the right is self-executing. Balletta, 47 A.3d at 192-93 [citing Erdman v. Mitchell, 56 A. 327, 331 (Pa. 1903)]. In other words, the right needs no affirmative legislation for its enforcement. Hunter v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cty., 419 A.2d 631, 636 n.6 (Pa. Super. 1980). She suggests that the cases holding that the right is self-executing stand for the proposition that individuals who experience violations of that right must have the appropriate recourse, i.e., a remedy of monetary damages. She argues that it is unfathomable that the drafters of our state constitution would enumerate such a right without providing recourse to citizens to enforce it, thereby making it illusory and with no practical utility.
Contrary to Hughes' suggestion, just because a constitutional provision is self-executing does not mean that a corresponding, self-executing monetary remedy exists. In interpreting the open courts provision, we have observed that it does not require a particular remedy for every right. Jones v. City of Phila., 890 A.2d 1188, 1216 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) [citing Jonathan M. Hoffman, By the Due Course of Law: The Origins of the Open Courts Clause of State Constitutions, 74 Or. L.Rev. 1279, 1317 (1995)]. That, of course, does not necessarily render a plaintiff without remedy. A plaintiff can pursue declaratory or prospective injunctive relief under the Pennsylvania Constitution. Id. As we have noted: "While such remedies might not provide . . . 'complete relief,' they are, nonetheless, remedies under the Pennsylvania Constitution." Id. (citation omitted).
See, e.g., Hatchard v. Westinghouse Broad. Co., 532 A.2d 346, 350 (Pa. 1987) (awarded discovery order); Erdman, 56 A. at 331 (awarded prospective injunction). --------
In conclusion, this Court has clearly rejected claims for monetary damages for alleged violations of state constitutional rights, including claims under Article I, Section 1. Balletta, 47 A.3d at 193; R.H.S. v. Allegheny Cty. Dep't of Human Servs., 936 A.2d 1218, 1225-26 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007); Weaver v. Franklin Cty., 918 A.2d 194, 202 n.9 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). We reiterate, therefore, that the open courts provision does not, standing alone, create a cause of action for monetary damages based on an alleged violation of the state constitutional right to reputation. Accordingly, we affirm.
/s/_________
BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of July, 2015, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County is hereby AFFIRMED.
/s/_________
BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
Judge