ZAHNER v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MICHAEL M. BAYLSON ON 6/30/16. 7/1/16 ENTERED AND COPIES EMAILED TO COUNSEL AND COPY TO LEGAL.(jaa, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EMMA ZAHNER
CIVIL ACTION
v.
NO. 16-2635
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al.
MEMORANDUM RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Baylson, J.
I.

June 30, 2016

Introduction
This is a civil rights action in which Plaintiff Emma Zahner alleges that she was

involuntarily and erroneously incarcerated. Presently pending are Motions to Dismiss by: (1)
the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Robert Smith, and Jan Lamper 1 (the “Corrections
Defendants”), ECF 4; and (2) the City of Philadelphia and Terence Clark (the “City
Defendants”), ECF 3.
II.

Factual Allegations
Defendant Clark is the warden of Philadelphia’s Riverside Correctional Facility

(“Riverside”). ECF 1 Def. Ex. A (Pl.’s Am. Compl.) ¶ 7. Defendant Smith is the superintendent
of the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institute – Muncy (“Muncy”). Id. ¶ 9. Defendant Lamper
is the Supervisor of the Intermediate Punishment Program at Muncy. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff alleges
that Lamper possessed the authority to order inmates released from state custody. Id. ¶ 84.
Plaintiff alleges that from March 17, 2015 through July 2, 2015, she was wrongfully
incarcerated.

1

In December 2014, Plaintiff was serving a sentence of telephone reporting

The Corrections Defendants note that Plaintiff misspelled this Defendant’s name as “Lambert.”

1

probation for drug-related offenses. See id. ¶¶ 13-15. 2 On December 23, Plaintiff was arrested
and charged with a violation of 18 Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5121 (West 2016) pertaining
to escape. Id. ¶ 16. The judge hearing that case initially set bail at $50,000, but on March 17,
2015 entered an order changing the bail terms to unsecured bail in the amount of $50,000. Id. ¶¶
17-18.

Despite this modification, Plaintiff remained incarcerated at Riverside (a City of

Philadelphia prison) from March 17 through June 29, 2015 and then at Muncy (a Pennsylvania
state prison) from June 29 through July 2, 2015. Id. ¶¶ 21-23. The Commonwealth “nolle
prossed” the escape charge on August 12, 2015. Id. ¶ 24.
Counts I through V seek redress for alleged violations of Plaintiff’s Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights:
•

In Count I, Plaintiff asserts a claim against the City of Philadelphia pursuant to Monell v.
Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978);

•

In Count II, Plaintiff alleges that Clark is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

•

Count III purports to assert a Monell claim against Pennsylvania’s Department of
Corrections;

•

Count IV asserts a Section 1983 claim against Smith; and

•

Count V asserts a Section 1983 claim against Lamper.

In contrast to the preceding counts, Count VI asserts a claim against Lamper for false
imprisonment under Pennsylvania common law.
2

Plaintiff alleges that on January 5, 2012, she was ordered to serve an intermediate 24-month drug sentence. ECF 1
Def. Ex. A (Pl.’s Am. Compl.) ¶ 12. Purportedly, this sentence was revoked on March 10, 2014 and replaced with a
sentence of eighteen months’ telephone reporting probation. Id. ¶ 13. However, it would seem that the 24-month
sentence would have already been completed by March 2014, and exhibits 1 and 2 to the Amended Complaint
appear to suggest that the only sentence actually imposed was probation. Later in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint,
she alludes to Defendant Lamper’s alleged refusal to abide by the March 2014 order. Id. ¶¶ 86, 88, 93, 96.
Plaintiff’s allegation is confusing, as Plaintiff must necessarily have been out of prison if, as she alleges, she was rearrested in December 2014. Id. ¶ 16. In any event, the gravamen of both Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and her
Oppositions to the Defendants’ Motions is that she was improperly imprisoned from March 2015 to July 2015, and
thus it is on the events giving rise to that detention on which the Court has focused.

2

With the lone exception of Lamper, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not allege that
any of the Defendants were ever informed or aware of the order changing the terms in bail. Nor
does it allege that Clark or Smith had any personal involvement in detaining or refusing to
release Plaintiff in violation of the new bail terms, instead detailing only their roles as
supervisors of Riverside and Muncy. The Amended Complaint conclusorily asserts that the City
of Philadelphia and the Department of Corrections have “with a deliberate indifference [sic]”
failed to train their employees to “implement sentences imposed by court [sic] of competent
jurisdiction” (id. ¶¶ 26, 54) without identifying any specific custom, practice or policy. As to
Lamper, however, the Amended Complaint alleges that Lamper deliberately chose not to follow
the March 17, 2015 order changing the terms of bail even though she had authority to order
Plaintiff’s release. Id. ¶¶ 84, 87, 89.
III.

Analysis
A. Standard of Review
In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court “accept[s] all factual

allegations as true [and] construe[s] the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”
Warren Gen. Hosp. v. Amgen, Inc., 643 F.3d 77, 84 (3d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
B. City Defendants
a. Plaintiff Has Failed to Plead a Monell Claim Against the City
“[W]hen a suit against a municipality is based on § 1983, the municipality can only be
liable when the alleged constitutional transgression implements or executes a policy, regulation,

3

or decision officially adopted by the governing body or informally adopted by custom.”
McTernan v. City of York, Pa., 564 F.3d 636, 657 (3d Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). “[A] failure
to train, discipline or control can only form the basis for section 1983 municipal liability if the
plaintiff can show both contemporaneous knowledge of the offending incident or knowledge of a
prior pattern of similar incidents and circumstances under which the supervisor’s actions or
inaction could be found to have communicated a message of approval to the offending
subordinate.” Montgomery v. De Simone, 159 F.3d 120, 127 (3d Cir. 1998).
In this case, Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled a Monell claim against the City of
Philadelphia. She has not identified any policy or custom that gave rise to her injuries.
McTernan, 564 F.3d at 658 (“To satisfy the pleading standard, McTernan must identify a custom
or policy, and specify what exactly that custom or policy was.”). Her allegations of failure to
train fall short as she has not alleged any contemporaneous knowledge of her false incarceration
by any of the City Defendants or knowledge of a prior pattern of similar incidents. Mulholland
v. Gov’t Cty. of Berks, Pa., 706 F.3d 227, 239 (3d Cir. 2013) (“There is no evidence that
BCCYS employs a policy or has a custom of conducting desultory investigations, and the
District Court correctly declined to subject Berks County to municipal liability for that claim.”).
Furthermore, “[e]qually fatal, the four allegations in the complaint relevant to [Plaintiff’s]
Monell claim fail to allege conduct by a municipal decisionmaker.” McTernan, 564 F.3d at 658.
Plaintiff merely alludes to Clark’s role as Warden of Riverside. Ross v. Project H.O.M.E., Civil
Action No. 13-7561, 2014 WL 2464962, at *3 (E.D. Pa. June 2, 2014) (“A viable Monell claim
requires that a plaintiff allege that a policymaker was involved in the policy or custom at issue in
the case.”); see also Cortlessa v. Cty. of Chester, No. Civ.A. 04-1039, 2006 WL 1490145, at *8

4

(E.D. Pa. May 24, 2006) (“The mere fact that Warden Masters, as part of his duties, supervised
prison officers is, by itself, insufficient to confer ‘policymaker’ status.”).
The Plaintiff’s Monell allegations are simply conclusions of law, and under Iqbal and
Twombly legal conclusions do not satisfy a plaintiff’s obligation to plead facts supporting the
claim. See also Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 132 (3d Cir. 2010) (“[M]ere
restatements of the elements of [] supervisory liability claims [] are not entitled to the assumption
of truth.”) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against the City of Philadelphia are dismissed.
Dismissal shall be without prejudice to refile a Second Amended Complaint in which Plaintiff
may correct these deficiencies, including by pleading more facts as to the City’s alleged custom,
policy or practice and the involvement of a municipal decisionmaker.
b. Plaintiff Has Failed to State a Claim Against Clark, Warden of
Riverside
“A defendant in a civil rights action must have personal involvement in the alleged
wrongs; liability cannot be predicated solely on the operation of respondeat superior. Personal
involvement can be shown through allegations of personal direction or of actual knowledge and
acquiescence. Allegations of participation or actual knowledge and acquiescence, however, must
be made with appropriate particularity.” Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir.
1988) (citations omitted).
In this case, Plaintiff has not pled any facts suggesting that Clark was involved in the
decision to keep her incarcerated. Indeed, Plaintiff has not even pled that Clark was aware of the
court order that purportedly required her release. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against Clark
are dismissed. Dismissal shall be without prejudice to refile a Second Amended Complaint
specifying Clark’s personal involvement, if any, in more detail. If Plaintiff does not have any
evidence of Clark’s personal involvement, Plaintiff is given leave to add one or more individuals
5

who were employed at Riverside and may have had involvement in the decision-making at
Riverside.
C. Corrections Defendants
a. Plaintiff’s Claims Against the Department of Corrections and all
Corrections Defendants in their Official Capacities Fail
“Because the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Department of Corrections is a part of
the executive department of the Commonwealth, it shares in the Commonwealth’s Eleventh
Amendment immunity.” Lavia v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 224 F.3d 190, 195 (3d Cir. 2000) (citations
omitted). Similarly, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages against state
officials acting in their official capacities. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985).
Furthermore, neither the Department of Corrections nor state officials sued in their official
capacities are “persons” amenable to suit under Section 1983. See, e.g., Will v. Mich. Dep’t of
State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).
Both Section 1983 and the Eleventh Amendment preclude all of Plaintiff’s claims against
the Department of Corrections and any Corrections Defendants sued in their official capacities.
All such claims shall be dismissed with prejudice.
b. Plaintiff Has Failed to State a Claim Against Smith in his Personal
Capacity
As noted above, Plaintiff cannot assert a Section 1983 claim against Smith merely
because he is the superintendent of Muncy. Rode, 845 F.2d at 1207. Much like with Clark,
Plaintiff has not pled that Smith was aware of the court order that purportedly required Plaintiff’s
release or was otherwise involved in any way in depriving Plaintiff of her rights. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s claims against Smith are dismissed without prejudice to refile a Second Amended
Complaint specifying Smith’s personal involvement, if any, in more detail.

6

c. Plaintiff Has Stated a Potential Section 1983 Claim for Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment Deprivations Against Lamper in her
Personal Capacity
Count V alleges that Lamper is liable under Section 1983 for violating Plaintiff’s Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
In the context of an Eighth Amendment claim for incarceration without penological
justification, this Court has held that a plaintiff must demonstrate three elements to
establish § 1983 liability against a prison official: (1) a prison official had knowledge of
the prisoner’s problem and thus of the risk that unwarranted punishment was being, or
would be, inflicted; (2) the official either failed to act or took only ineffectual action
under the circumstances, indicating that his response to the problem was a product of
deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s plight; and (3) a causal connection between the
official’s response to the problem and the unjustified detention.
Montanez v. Thompson, 603 F.3d 243, 252 (3d Cir. 2010), as amended (May 25, 2010).
Similarly, a prisoner can assert a Fourteenth Amendment challenge based on confinement in
excess of a release date where “(1) the process [the prisoner] received in connection with the
rejection of his claims was constitutionally inadequate, (2) [the defendant] authorized that
constitutionally inadequate process, and (3) the process authorized by [the defendant] caused [the
prisoner’s] prolonged imprisonment.” Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1114 (3d Cir. 1989).
The Amended Complaint alleges that Lamper deliberately chose not to follow the March
17, 2015 order changing the terms of Plaintiff’s bail even though Lamper purportedly had
authority to order Plaintiff’s release. Id. ¶¶ 84, 87, 89. These allegations, although vague as to
when Lamper was notified of the order’s existence and the specifics of what occurred, 3 suffice
to allege that Lamper declined to exercise her authority to release Plaintiff despite Lamper’s

3

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Correction Defendants’ Motion alleges that Lamper was notified
of the March 2015 order on June 30 (via telephone) and July 1 (via written correspondence), leading to Plaintiff
being released on July 2. ECF 6-2 at 2-3. The Court has not considered these averments, however, and has limited
its review of Defendants’ Motions to the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint.

7

knowledge that Plaintiff was being wrongfully imprisoned when Plaintiff arrived at Muncy. 4
However, assuming that Plaintiff will be filing a Second Amended Complaint to address other
shortcomings in the Amended Complaint, the Court advises Plaintiff that more detail as to her
claims against Lamper would be helpful.
d. Plaintiff’s False Imprisonment Claim Against Lamper Fails
“[A] Commonwealth agency and its employee acting within the scope of his employment
is protected by sovereign immunity from intentional torts.” Watkins v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and
Parole, No 02CV2881, 2002 WL 32182088, at *8 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 2002). Courts have
dismissed false imprisonment claims against prison officials because of this principle. E.g., Beto
v. Barkley, Civil Action No. 14-CV-2522, 2015 WL 619640, at *4-5 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2015);
Bosold v. Warden, SCI-Somerset, Civil Action No. 11-4292, 2011 WL 6812902, at *9-10 (E.D.
Pa. Dec. 28, 2011).
In Count VI of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Lamper committed the
intentional tort of false imprisonment. Plaintiff’s allegations, however, only claim that Lamper
acted within the scope of her employment as Supervisor of the Intermediate Punishment Program
at Muncy. Because there is no basis to conclude that Lamper committed false imprisonment of
Plaintiff outside of Lamper’s role as a prison employee, Plaintiff’s false imprisonment claim fails
and will be dismissed with prejudice.
IV.

Conclusion
Much of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint merely recites boilerplate or conclusory

allegations of supervisory or Monell liability. The Court, however, shall give Plaintiff the

4

In arguing that qualified immunity shields Lamper, ECF 4 at 11-13, the Correction Defendants conflate the concept
of a clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known with
knowledge of the purported court order in this case modifying Plaintiff’s bail.

8

chance to cure these deficiencies with a Second Amended Complaint. Her intentional tort claim
against Lamper and her claims against the Correction Defendants in their official capacities,
however, cannot be salvaged and shall be dismissed with prejudice. To the extent Plaintiff does
not file a Second Amended Complaint, all claims except for Count V against Lamper in her
individual capacity shall be dismissed with prejudice as well.
An appropriate Order follows.

O:\CIVIL 16\16-2635 Zahner v. City of Philadelphia\16cv2635 MTD.docx

9