Bartol v. Dauphin Cnty.

• Decision Date: 27 June 2022
• Docket Number: 1:21-cv-00180
• Parties: KATHERINE BARTOL, Plaintiff v. DAUPHIN COUNTY d/b/a DAUPHIN COUNTY JUDICIAL CENTER BOOKING FACILITY PRISON, et al., Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

KATHERINE BARTOL, Plaintiff
v.
DAUPHIN COUNTY d/b/a DAUPHIN COUNTY JUDICIAL CENTER BOOKING FACILITY PRISON, et al., Defendants

No. 1:21-cv-00180

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

June 27, 2022

MEMORANDUM

Yvette Kane, District Judge.

Plaintiff Katherine Bartol (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action in February 2021. (Doc. No. 1.) In her operative, first amended complaint, Plaintiff asserts due process, excessive force, and related claims against Dauphin County d/b/a Dauphin County Judicial Center Booking Facility Prison (“Booking Center”) and Correctional Officers Pamela Arbogast, Andrew Burkins, and Scott Grieb (“CO Defendants”) (Doc. No. 27). Before the Court are two motions: (1) a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Burkins and Grieb (“Moving Defendants”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Doc. No. 35); and (2) Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a surreply in opposition to the Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 40). For the following reasons, the Court will grant in part the Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 35) to the extent of dismissing Count II without prejudice and Count IV with prejudice. The Court will deny Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a surreply. (Doc. No. 40.)

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's allegations, which the Court must assume are true for purposes of resolving the Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss, see Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217, 221 n.3 (3d Cir. 2004), establish the following facts. Late one night in April 2019, local police officers initiated a traffic stop of Plaintiff's vehicle because “she was driving without headlights.” (Doc. No. 27 ¶ 10.)

1

The officers directed Plaintiff to exit her vehicle and walk a straight line, although Plaintiff was not intoxicated, and then requested that she submit to a breathalyzer test. (Id. ¶¶ 11-13.) Plaintiff had “facial and dental injuries (including a plastic plate in her mouth) from [her prior] car accident that made it difficult.” (Id. ¶ 13.) The officers arrested and handcuffed Plaintiff on “minor charges, including DUI,” and transported her to the Booking Center for the purpose of obtaining a blood sample. (Id. ¶¶ 14-16.)

Plaintiff arrived at the Booking Center without her purse or eyeglasses. (Id. ¶ 17.) The officers cuffed her ankles, while the CO Defendants “put [her] up against a wall,” searched her, and “punched and hit her,” bruising her legs and hip. (Id. ¶¶ 18-20.) After directing Plaintiff to sit at a table, the CO Defendants “rifled through her coat pockets,” removing personal items, including prayer cards and religious medals for which they mocked her, stating, “[o]ooo what's this?” (Id. ¶¶ 21-22.) The CO Defendants also found two “alprazolam pills that were prescribed to [a] gravely ill person for whom Plaintiff had been caring.” (Id. ¶ 23.) The CO Defendants “laughed at Plaintiff and accused her of dealing drugs,” disbelieved that the pills were for her friend, and stated, “Book her!” (Id. ¶¶ 24-25.) When Plaintiff informed the CO Defendants of her head injuries and the fact that she suffered from severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”), they yelled, “[s]hut up and do what you're told.” (Id. ¶ 26.) Defendant Arbogast had Plaintiff sign a blood-test refusal form. (Id. ¶ 27.) Although Plaintiff was confused, the CO Defendants refused to read the form aloud a second time or to let her read the form herself. (Id. ¶¶ 27-29.) Plaintiff alleges that one CO Defendant began “chanting and yelling, ‘absolutely not, that is a refusal.'” (Id. ¶ 30.)

The CO Defendants eventually placed Plaintiff in a cell. (Id. ¶ 31.) At that point, the CO Defendants began to subject Plaintiff to a course of degrading, threatening, and abusive physical

2

and verbal conduct, during which conduct she was panic-stricken and crying, the pain in her legs intensifying from the CO Defendants' punches. (Id. ¶¶ 35-36.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Arbogast: (1) ordered her to remove her shirt and lift up her bra, stating, “[p]eople like you hide drugs in their bras and I want to make sure you're not hiding any”; (2) directed her to “put on a paper shirt so that she ‘didn't hang' herself”; (3) stated, with another CO Defendant, “[t]he pretty ones always get off by the judge,” and “[s]he makes me sick”; (4) laughed and told her that they were holding her because she did not answer their questions, stating, in chorus with the other CO Defendants, “[s]ee, you don't know”; (5) forcefully “grabbed [her] hand and severely twisted it to take [her] fingerprints”; (6) directed her not to open her bag to check her personal items; and (7) upon her release, “threw [her] shirt at her and told her to change outside[.]” (Id. ¶¶ 32-34, 37, 42-43, 49-52.)

Plaintiff further alleges that the CO Defendants refused to allow her to make a phone call, “chant[ed] that [she] was the most uncooperative one they had at the Booking Center,” and yelled, “[t]hank God I didn't have a freak like her for a teacher.” (Id. ¶¶ 38, 45, 48.) One CO Defendant “began making growling sounds outside Plaintiff's cell,” stating, “Katherine, you're a fucking whiner,” adding, “go to hell, you fucking bitch.” (Id. ¶ 40.) Another or the same CO Defendant yelled, “[w]e hate people like you here,” exclaiming “[s]hut the fuck up or I swear I'll beat the hell out of you and you'll never get out of here.” (Id. ¶ 41.) At about 4 a.m., a male CO Defendant “entered Plaintiff's cell and repeatedly yelled ‘Sit' to Plaintiff, as though [she] were a dog,” and either the same or the other male CO Defendant told her, “[y]ou will come out and do what you're told and cooperate if you want to get out of here.” (Id. ¶¶ 46-47.) Plaintiff alleges that because of the CO Defendants' conduct, she suffered severe emotional distress, sustained severe injuries including bruises on her legs and hip, and “suffered and continues to suffer

3

injuries and damages.” (Id. ¶¶ 69-70, 75, 81, 89, 99, 107, 114, 118-19.)

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts against the CO Defendants (i.e. Arbogast and the Moving Defendants) three causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for due process (Count I), excessive force (Count II), and equal protection (Count III) violations, a federal conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(c) (Count IV), and two state law claims for battery (Count VI) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) (Count VII). (Id. ¶¶ 53-99, 108-119.) She seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees, and litigation costs. (Id. at 17.) The Moving Defendants filed their motion to dismiss and a brief in support on January 31, 2022 (Doc. Nos. 35-36), Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition on February 14, 2022 (Doc. No. 37), and the Moving Defendants filed a reply brief on February 18, 2022 (Doc. No. 39). Plaintiff filed her motion for leave to file a surreply on February 25, 2022 (Doc. No. 40), the Moving Defendants filed a response and brief in opposition to that motion on March 2, 2022 (Doc. Nos. 41-42), and the time for filing a reply brief has expired. Accordingly, both motions are ripe for disposition.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal notice and pleading rules require the complaint to provide the defendant notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests. See Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 232 (3d Cir. 2008). When reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint pursuant to a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all material allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 618 F.3d 300, 314 (3d Cir. 2010). However, the Court need...