Randolph-Ali v. Steelton Police Department, et al.
Filing
21
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 13 of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick, DISMISSING following claims w/ prejudice... (see Paras 2a-e for specifics), DISMISSING following claims w/out prejudice... (see Paras 3a-d for specifics), STRIKING pltf's demand for reli ef 10 @8 to extent it seeks specific sums certain of money damages in violation of LR 8.1, permittting pltf to proceed on 4th Amend excessive force & state law assault & battery claims against Det. A. Minium, directing Clrk of Ct to TERMINATE s pecific defts (see Para 6), granting pltf leave to file 2nd amended complaint w/in 30 days of date of this order consistent w/ rpt 13 of Magistrate Judge & Paras 2-6 herein, directing that any amended pleading filed... shall be filed to same docket number.. (see Para 8 for specific filing req'mts/instructions) noting in absence of timely-filed 2nd amended complaint action shall proceed on remaining claims id'd in Para 5, & REMANDING matter to Magistrate Judge Mehalchick for fuather proceedings inc. disp of pltf's motion 20 for appt of cnsl. (See order for complete details) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 1/18/17. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SAMIRA RANDOLPH-ALI,
:
:
Plaintiff
:
:
v.
:
:
STEELTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, :
et al.,
:
:
Defendants
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-1625
(Chief Judge Conner)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 18th day of January, 2017, upon consideration of the report
(Doc. 13) of Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick, issued following comprehensive
review of the amended complaint (Doc. 10) of pro se plaintiff Samira Randolph-Ali
(“Randolph-Ali”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), wherein Judge Mehalchick
recommends that the court dismiss the bulk of Randolph-Ali’s federal civil rights
and state law claims without leave to amend, with several noted exceptions, but
allow Randolph-Ali’s federal excessive force and state law assault and battery
claims to proceed against a single defendant, and it appearing that Randolph-Ali
did not object to the report, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), but that the Steelton Borough
defendants did object in part, (Doc. 18), and, following a de novo review of the
contested portions of the report, see Behar v. Pa. Dep’t of Transp., 791 F. Supp. 2d
383, 389 (M.D. Pa. 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d
1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989)), and applying a clear error standard of review to the
uncontested portions, see Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375, 376-78 (M.D. Pa. 1999),
the court finding Judge Mehalchick’s exhaustive analysis to be thorough, well-
reasoned, and fully supported by the record, and finding the Steelton Borough
defendants’ objection to be without merit and fully addressed by the report,1 and, in
addition to our agreement with Judge Mehalchick’s recommended disposition, the
court further observing that Randolph-Ali’s request for sum certain damages (Doc.
10 at 8) must be stricken from the amended complaint for violation of Local Rule
of Court 8.1, see, e.g., Altenbach v. Ianuzzi, No. 3:14-CV-1932, 2015 WL 5688476, at
*5 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 2015); Chen v. Holt, No. 3:12-CV-1817, 2012 WL 360032, at
*2 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 2013); Ortiz v. Prison Bd. Members, No. 3:CV-08-2126, 2011
WL 776195, at *2-3 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2011), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.
The report (Doc. 13) of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick is ADOPTED.
2.
The following claims are DISMISSED with prejudice:
1
The Steelton Borough defendants object to the recommendation that
Randolph-Ali’s First Amendment retaliation claim be dismissed without prejudice.
(Doc. 18 ¶¶ 6-7; Doc. 19). Randolph-Ali avers that the Steelton Borough defendants
targeted her for a child abuse investigation in May 2016 in retaliation for a lawsuit
she filed against Harrisburg police officers and others in 2014. (Doc. 10 at 17-19, 2122). The Steelton Borough defendants assert that, given the lapse between the 2014
lawsuit and the 2016 investigation, no set of facts could establish an inference of
causation. (Doc. 19 at 4-5). The court disagrees. The two-year time lapse is not so
“unduly suggestive” as to independently prove causation, but it does not preclude
Randolph-Ali from alleging that “a pattern of antagonism coupled with timing”
establishes a causal connection. See Lauren W. ex rel. Jean W. v. DeFlaminis, 480
F.3d 259, 267 (3d Cir. 2007). The deficiency emphasized by the Steelton Borough
defendants is factual in nature. Accordingly, Randolph-Ali should be given the
opportunity to amend her pleading. See Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete
Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 251 (3d Cir. 2007); Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp.,
293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).
2
a.
b.
Any claim against Dauphin County Social Services for Children
and Youth caseworker Nicole Carter based on allegedly perjured
testimony during Randolph-Ali’s June 30, 2016 preliminary
hearing on the ground of witness immunity;
c.
All claims against Detective Anthony Minium and Officer Troy
Elhaj for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution,
and invasion of privacy under either federal or state law based on
Randolph-Ali’s August 7, 2014 arrest;
d.
Any claims against Detective William Shaub for invasion of
privacy pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or for defamation under
state law based on Randolph-Ali’s May 26, 2016 arrest; and
e.
3.
All claims against District Attorney Edward Marsico and
Assistant District Attorneys Katie Adams and Chris Jason on
the ground of prosecutorial immunity;
Any claims against Dauphin County Social Services for
Children and Youth caseworker Nicole Carter for illegal seizure
under the Fourth Amendment or a due process violation under
the Fourteenth Amendment based on her involvement in the
child abuse investigation that led to Randolph-Ali’s May 26, 2016
arrest.
The following claims are DISMISSED without prejudice:
a.
Any claims against Dauphin County Social Services for Children
and Youth caseworker Tia Hunt for lack of personal
involvement;
b.
All claims against Detective William Shaub and Officer William
Shaffer for malicious prosecution, and against Detective William
Shaub for false arrest, under either federal or state law, based on
Randolph-Ali’s May 26, 2016 arrest;
c.
Any supervisory liability claim against Detective Anthony
Minium on the basis of his role as acting chief of the Steelton
Police Department at the time of Randolph-Ali’s May 26, 2016
arrest; and
d.
Any First Amendment retaliation claim stemming from
Randolph-Ali’s May 26, 2016 arrest.
3
4.
Randolph-Ali’s demand for relief (Doc. 10 at 8) is STRICKEN to the
extent it seeks specific sums certain of money damages in violation of
Local Rule of Court 8.1.
5.
Randolph-Ali shall be allowed to proceed on her Fourth Amendment
excessive force and state law assault and battery claims against
Detective Anthony Minium.
6.
The Clerk of Court is directed to TERMINATE the following
defendants: District Attorney Edward Marsico; Assistant District
Attorneys Katie Adams and Chris Jason; Officer Troy Elhaj; and
Dauphin County Social Services for Children and Youth caseworker
Nicole Carter.
7.
Randolph-Ali is granted leave to file a second amended complaint
within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, consistent with the
report (Doc. 13) of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick and paragraphs 2
through 6 above.
8.
Any amended pleading filed pursuant to this paragraph shall be filed to
the same docket number as the instant action, shall be entitled “Second
Amended Complaint,” and shall be complete in all respects. It shall be
a new pleading which stands by itself as an adequate complaint under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, without reference to the pleadings
(Docs. 1, 10) previously filed. In the absence of a timely-filed second
amended complaint, the above-captioned action shall proceed on the
remaining claims identified in paragraph 5.
9.
This matter is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Mehalchick for further
proceedings, including disposition of Randolph-Ali’s motion (Doc. 20)
for appointment of counsel filed January 4, 2017.
/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?