NOBLE v. THE CITY OF ERIE, PA et al
Filing
36
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER it is hereby ORDERED that the proceedings in this case are STAYED and this case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pending disposition of the criminal proceedings against Plaintiff, docketed at United States v. Noble, Western Distr ict of Pennsylvania Case No. 1: 17-cr-005. This case may be reopened by the Plaintiffs filing of a Motion to Reopen Case after final disposition of the criminal proceedings, including final disposition of any appellate proceedings and post-conviction matters. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo on 10/15/2018. (dm)
1
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
3
4
ROBERT EARLE NOBLE,
)
5
Plaintiff
6
7
V.
8
9
10
11
12
)
THE CITY OF ERIE, ET AL,
Defendants.
C.A. No. 18-006 Erie
)
)
)
United States Magistrate Judge
Richard A. Lanzillo
)
)
)
)
13
14
15
16
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I.
Introduction
Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff has
18
19
also filed a memorandum in opposition. ECF No. 21. For the reasons that follow, this matter
20
will be ST AYEO pending resolution of the Plaintiffs criminal prosecution in this Court.
21
II.
22
Relevant Procedural History
Plaintiff Robert Earl Noble (Plaintiff or Noble) was initially charged in state court, but
23
those charges were nolle prossed and the United States assumed jurisdiction and initiated
24
prosecution. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 503 Fed. Appx. 174, 176 (3d Cir. 2012). See also
25
ECF No. 4, at 5, ,r19. Noble was indicted by a federal grand jury sitting in this District with one
26
count of unlawful possession with intent to distribute twenty-eight (28) grams or more of crack
27
cocaine, a violation of21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(l) and 841(b)(l)(B)(iii). ECF No. 1. He pleaded not
28
guilty and is currently incarcerated in the Erie County Prison awaiting trial at case number No.
29
1: 17-cr-00005. See also ECF No. 16. With his criminal trial currently pending, Noble filed a
30
prose civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, raising various challenges to his arrest
1
31
by state authorities. 1 Defendants the City of Erie and various officials of its police department
32
("City" or "Defendants", unless individually identified) filed a motion to dismiss, a brief in
33
support of that motion, and other supporting materials on April 11, 2018. 2 ECF No. 18, ECF No.
34
19. Noble responded in opposition to the City's motion on April 25, 2018. ECF No. 21, ECF
35
No. 22. This case was transferred to the docket of United States District Judge Susan Paradise
36
Baxter on September 18, 2018 and referred to the undersigned on September 27, 2018. ECF No.
37
34, ECF No. 35.
38
III.
The Complaint
Noble's federal indictment resulted from the execution of a search warrant at his
39
40
residence that produced the amount of crack cocaine at issue. The factual background of the
41
search has been previously reported and the Court takes judicial notice of the findings of this
42
Court in that matter. United States v. Noble, 2018 WL 4501075 at *1 (W.D. Pa. 2018). See also
43
Jackson v. Davis, 2014 WL 3420462 at *1 n.l (W.D. Pa. 2014) (taking judicial notice of
44
developments and relevant rulings in plaintiffs state criminal proceedings). The warrant
45
authorizing the search of Noble's residence was supported by an affidavit from Defendant Triana
46
describing two controlled purchases of cocaine that occurred between a confidential informant
47
("Cl") and Noble within the previous two weeks. Id. Before each purchase took place, the CI
48
was searched and no money or contraband was detected. Id. Then, the CI was provided an
49
amount of marked money to make the purchase with. Id. Police officers were able to observe
1
Noble initiated his civil rights action with the filing of a Motion for Leave to Proceed in fonna pauperis on January
8, 2018. ECF No. I. This motion was granted on January 11, 2018 and his complaint was docketed on January 12,
2018. ECF No. 3, ECF No. 4.
2
In addition to the City of Erie, Noble named Chief of Police Donald Dacus, Lt. Michael Nolan, Det. Jason Triana,
Det. Steve DeLuca, and Det. Michael Chodubski as Defendants, suing them in both their official and individual
capacities. Dacus is no longer chief of police and Nolan has been promoted to Deputy Chief. See
www.cric.pa. us/po lice/di visions/ officeofechie f!ch icfofpo Iice.asp~.
2
50
both Noble and the CI throughout the transaction, and the marked money was later found on
51
Noble during the execution of the search and he was arrested. Id.
52
Filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Noble's complaint alleges various violations of the Fourth
53
Amendment, including malicious prosecution [ECF No. 4, at 6, ~24], unreasonable search and
54
seizure [ECF No. 4, at 6, ~25], false arrest [ECF No. 4, at 6, ~26], and false imprisonment [ECF
55
No. 4, at 6, ~27]. Noble also raises a broad-based Fourth Amendment claim, arguing that
56
Defendant Triana violated his rights to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure because
57
the search warrant lacked probable cause. ECF No. 4, at 6,
58
claims of excessive bail, in violation of the Eighth Amendment [ECF No. 4, at 7,
59
an allegation of municipal liability based on custom, practice, and deliberate indifference, in
60
addition to liability by operation of a failure to train theory. Noble asks for declaratory,
61
injunctive and monetary relief.
62
~
25. The Complaint further brings
~
28] as well as
Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code creates a private cause of action to
63
redress constitutional wrongs committed by state officials. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute is not
64
a source of substantive rights, but serves as a mechanism for vindicating rights otherwise
65
protected by federal law. Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 284-85 (2002); Kneipp v.
66
Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199, 1204 (3d Cir. 1996). To establish Section 1983 liability, plaintiffs must
67
prove a deprivation of a "right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States ...
68
by a person acting under color of state law." Kneipp, 95 F.3d at 1204 (quoting Mark v. Borough
69
of Hatboro, 51 F.3d 1137, 1141 (3dCir.1995)). TheultimatesuccessofNoble'sclaimsforfalse
70
arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and his general Fourth Amendment claim all
71
require that he show that the Defendants lacked probable cause to arrest him. See, e.g., Groman
72
v. Twp. of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 634 (3d Cir. 1995) (requiring § 1983 plaintiff to demonstrate
3
73
a lack of probable cause to prove false arrest claim); Kassler v. Crisanti, 564 F.3d 181, 186 (3d
74
Cir. 2009) (requiring that§ 1983 plaintiff bringing malicious prosecution claim to show that "the
75
proceeding was initiated without probable cause"). This determination is complicated by the
76
present procedural posture of Noble's criminal prosecution.
In that matter, Noble filed a "Motion Challenging the Veracity and Sufficiency of the
77
78
Search Warrant and Motion to Suppress Evidence." No. 1: 17-cr-005, ECF No. 53. Noble
79
contended that errors and omissions in the affidavit of probable cause rendered his arrest
80
unconstitutional. No. 1:17-cr-005, ECF No. 53, at 3-12. The Government filed a memorandum
81
in opposition. No. 1: 17-cr-005, ECF No. 63. The District Court has not yet ruled on this motion.
82
In some situations, a claim of false arrest, for example, does not necessarily implicate the
83
validityofaconvictionorsentence. See, e.g., Montgomeryv. De Simone, 159F.3d 120, 126(3d
84
Cir. 1998). But, "if a plaintiff files a false arrest claim before he has been convicted ... it is
85
within the power of the district court, and in accord with common practice to stay the civil action
86
until the criminal case ... has ended." Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 (2007). Given the
87
pivotal importance of the question of probable cause in both Noble's criminal prosecution and
88
civil case, the Court will stay these proceedings. 3 Not doing so would cause the Court to
89
inappropriately "speculate about whether [the] prosecution ... will result in a conviction, and
90
whether the impending civil action will impugn that verdict .... " Id. at 393. See also Linh Thi
91
Minh Tran v. Kuehl, et al., 2018 WL49779 (D. Or. Aug. 13, 2018) (noting Wallace applies solely
92
to stays for pre-conviction parallel civil proceedings).
3
Staying this matter is not dispositive of the action because it does not terminate the underlying action. In re Milo's
Kitchen Dog Treats, 2013 WL 6628636 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 17, 2013) ("It is well-settled that a motion to stay is a nondispositive matter and appropriately ruled on by a federal magistrate judge."). See also In re U.S. Healthcare, 159
F.3d 142, 145 (3d Cir. 1998) (holding that a dispositive order is one that "terminates the matter in federal court").
See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(A). Therefore, such an order may be entered by the undersigned, without referral to
a United States District Judge. Id. See also LCvR 72(C).
4
93
IV.
Order
94
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the proceedings in this case are STAYED and
95
this case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED pending disposition of the criminal proceedings
96
against Plaintiff, docketed at United States v. Noble, Western District of Pennsylvania Case No.
97
1: 17-cr-005. This case may be reopened by the Plaintiffs filing of a Motion to Reopen Case
98
after final disposition of the criminal proceedings, including final disposition of any appellate
99
proceedings and post-conviction matters.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff notify the Court in writing concerning the final
100
101
disposition of the criminal charges pending against him in the above cited criminal action.
102
In accordance with the Federal Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), Fed. R.
103
Civ. P. 72(a), and LCvR 72(C)(2), the parties may, within fourteen (14) days from the date of
104
this order, file written objections to this order. Any party opposing the objections shall have
105
fourteen (14) days from the date of service of objections to respond thereto. Failure to file
106
objections will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 63 7 F. 3d 187, 193 n. 7 (3d Cir.
107
2011).
108
109
110
111
112
113
The Honorable Richard A. Lanzillo
United States Magistrate Judge
Date: October /~2018
114
5
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?