SCUTELLA v. COUSINS 3RD et al

Filing 17

ORDER: adopting 15 Report and Recommendation. The Court ADOPTS 15 the Report and Recommendation and DENIES 10 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein on September 28, 2016. (smb).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JHEN SCUTELLA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
v.
)
)
)
)
PATROLMAN JAMES COUSINS III,
)
PATROLMAN ROBERT E. WILLIAMS )
& LIEUTENANT WILLIAM GOOZDICH, )
)
Defendants.
)
)
I.

Case No.

1:15-cv-00253-BR-SPB

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION TO
DENY MOTION TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION

Pro se Plaintiff Jhen Scutella brings this civil rights action against Defendants Patrolman
James Cousins III, Patrolman Robert E. Williams, & Lieutenant William Goozdich. Plaintiff
alleges federal claims of First Amendment retaliation and conspiracy, and a state law claim of
intentional infliction of emotional distress. 1 After reviewing the record, the Court ADOPTS
Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report and Recommendation, and DENIES Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss. The Court’s reasoning follows.
II.

BACKGROUND 2

On October 14, 2015, Plaintiff Scutella parked his vehicle at a bar located on 18th and
Liberty Streets around 10:30pm. (Doc. No. 3, ¶¶ 8-10). According to Plaintiff, Defendant

1

Magistrate Judge Baxter correctly notes that “where a particular constitutional amendment (in this case, the
First Amendment), provides explicit protections, those provisions subsume the more general protections of due
process.” (Doc. No. 15, at 6, n.2). Accordingly, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Baxter’s characterization of
Plaintiff’s Complaint as advancing federal claims of First Amendment retaliation and conspiracy and a state law claim
of intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Id. at 6).
2
The Court recognizes that Defendants present a different factual account, yet the Court need not resolve
factual discrepancies at this stage. See, e.g., McTernan v. City of York, Pa., 577 F.3d 521, 526 (3d Cir. 2009)
(explaining that “all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint must be taken as true and interpreted in the light most
favorable to the plaintiffs”).

1

Patrolman James Cousins pulled behind his parked vehicle, and subsequently impounded the
vehicle while Plaintiff was in the bar. (Id. ¶¶ 12-14). Around 1:00am, Plaintiff called the Erie
County Police Department and “asked if they knew where [his] vehicle was or it may have been
stolen.” (Id. ¶¶ 15-16). Dispatcher Defendant Lieutenant William Goozdich sent Defendant
Patrolman Robert Williams to Plaintiff’s residence, and Defendant Williams helped Plaintiff
complete a stolen car affidavit. (Id. ¶¶ 17-18). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Williams spoke to
Defendants Cousins and Goozdich prior to arriving at his home and thus knew that his vehicle was
impounded. (Id. ¶¶ 19-23). As a result of this incident, Defendant Williams charged Plaintiff with
falsification to authorities and false reports. (Doc. No. 10, Ex. A). Plaintiff was found guilty by a
jury of false reports. (Id.).
Plaintiff contends that Defendants had a “meeting of the minds” to mislead him to fill out
a stolen car affidavit and then charge him with falsification to authorities and false reports. (Doc.
No. 3, ¶ 22). According to Plaintiff, Defendants engaged in this conspiracy to retaliate against
Plaintiff for bringing a civil rights action against the Erie County Police Department and certain
officers in 2011. (Id. ¶ 13).
Accordingly, on October 19, 2015, Plaintiff initiated this action. On January 14, 2016,
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 10). On August 19, 2016, Magistrate Judge
Baxter issued the Report and Recommendation concluding this Motion to Dismiss should be
denied. (Doc. No. 15). Defendants object. (Doc. No. 16).
III.

ANALYSIS

Defendants object as follows to Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report and Recommendation:
(1) Magistrate Judge Baxter erroneously concluded that the favorable termination requirement of
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), is inapplicable; (2) Magistrate Judge Baxter

2

incorrectly determined that Plaintiff states a federal conspiracy claim; and (3) Magistrate Judge
Baxter fails to address whether Plaintiff states a claim for intentional infliction of emotional
distress. The Court reviews these objections de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
A. The Favorable Termination Requirement of Heck v. Humphrey.
In Heck v. Humphrey, the United States Supreme Court held that when a “state prisoner
seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the
plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence.” 512 U.S. at 487. If
so, then the district court must dismiss the complaint “unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the
conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” Id.
Magistrate Judge Baxter finds that a judgment in favor of Plaintiff would not necessarily
imply the invalidity of his convictions. (Doc. No. 15, at 6-10). Magistrate Judge Baxter reasons
that Plaintiff’s present claims do not “negate[] or call[] into question any element of the crime of
disorderly conduct or false reports” nor “challenge[] the validity of Plaintiff’s convictions.” (Id.
at 10). In response, Defendants contend that Heck applies because Plaintiff is “factually guilty”
of his criminal charges and because Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim would
necessarily undermine the convictions. (Doc. No. 16, at 2-3, 5).
The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Baxter’s conclusion. Defendants’ interpretation
of Heck is inapposite. Heck does not preclude a state prisoner from bringing a § 1983 action simply
because that prisoner was convicted; rather, Heck provides that a state prisoner may bring a
subsequent civil action as long as a favorable judgment does not “necessarily imply the invalidity
of his conviction.” 512 U.S. at 487. Moreover, the Court not only agrees with Magistrate Judge
Baxter’s interpretation of Heck, but also its application to this case. As set forth in the Report and
Recommendation, a judgment in Plaintiff’s favor would not challenge the validity of his prior

3

convictions, let alone call into question the elements of false reporting. Accordingly, Defendants’
objections are overruled.
B. Plaintiff’s Conspiracy Claim.
“In order to prevail on a conspiracy claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must prove that persons
acting under color of state law conspired to deprive him of a federally protected right.” Ridgewood
Bd. of Educ. v. N.E. ex rel. M.E., 172 F.3d 238, 254 (3d Cir. 1999), superseded by statute on other
grounds as recognized by P.P. v. W. Chester Area Sch. Dist., 585 F.3d 727 (3d Cir. 2009).
Magistrate Judge Baxter finds that Plaintiff’s allegations sufficiently state a legal claim for
federal conspiracy. (Doc. No. 15, at 11). Defendants argue that the Report and Recommendation
fails to address how a federal conspiracy claim does not impugn Plaintiff’s convictions in
contradiction of Heck. (Doc. No. 16, at 5). Defendants additionally aver that Plaintiff fails to
allege that Defendants’ “meeting of the minds” involved retaliation. (Id. at 6).
The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Baxter.

Magistrate Judge Baxter carefully

reviewed the requisite elements for a federal conspiracy claim to conclude that a judgment in
Plaintiff’s favor would not undermine Plaintiff’s prior convictions. Moreover, Magistrate Judge
Baxter specified the factual allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint that adequately support
the elements of a federal conspiracy claim. Defendants’ objections are therefore overruled.
C. Plaintiff’s Claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
There are four elements necessary to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional
distress: “(1) the conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (2) the conduct must be intentional or
reckless; (3) it must cause emotional distress; and (4) the distress must be severe.” Chuy v. Phila.
Eagles Football Club, 595 F.2d 1265, 1273 (3d Cir. 1979).

4

Defendants argue that the Report and Recommendation fails to evaluate the sufficiency of
Plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Doc. No. 16, at 6). The Court
agrees, and now finds that Plaintiff sufficiently pleads enough facts to state such a claim.
Particularly, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Cousins impounded Plaintiff’s vehicle, and conspired
with Defendants Williams and Goozdich to retaliate against him for bringing a civil rights action
in 2011. (Doc. No. 3, ¶¶ 13 & 21-23). Moreover, Plaintiff avers that Defendant Williams spoke
with Defendants Cousins and Goozdich prior to arriving at his residence, and thus knew that
Plaintiff’s vehicle was impounded. (Id. ¶¶ 18-22). Accepting the alleged facts to be true and
drawing all inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, as the Court must do on a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff’s
claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, though extremely tenuous, must proceed.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter is
adopted as the opinion of the Court, and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 28, 2016

BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5