Batch v. Lauricia

• Decision Date: 16 August 2021
• Docket Number: 2:19-CV-01046-CRE
• Parties: CHRISTOPHER BATCH, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH LAURICIA, CHRISTIANN FLANIGAN, CHRISTOPHER FELICIANI, JOHN PETRUSH, JAMES LAZAR, JASON MORGAN, PETE CARWELLO, Defendants,
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER BATCH, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH LAURICIA, CHRISTIANN FLANIGAN, CHRISTOPHER FELICIANI, JOHN PETRUSH, JAMES LAZAR, JASON MORGAN, PETE CARWELLO, Defendants,

No. 2:19-CV-01046-CRE

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh

August 16, 2021

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Cynthia Reed Eddy Chief United States Magistrate Judge

I. RECOMMENDATION

This civil action was initiated by pro se Plaintiff Christopher Batch against several assistant district attorneys from Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania (Defendants James Lazar John Petrush and Pete Carwello collectively “Westmoreland County ADAs”); Judge Christopher Feliciani of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania and Magisterial District Judge Christiann Flanigan of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania (collectively “Judicial Defendants”); and two Pennsylvania State Police Troopers, Joseph Lauricia and Jason Morgan (collectively “PSP Troopers”) alleging several civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in connection with a traffic stop, arrest and criminal charges brought against him.

Before the court for consideration are:

1. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) by the Westmoreland County ADAs (ECF No. 55);

2. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) by Judge Feliciani, and Magisterial District Judge Flanigan (ECF No. 59); and

3. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) by the PSP Troopers (ECF No. 61).

The court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff's state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. For the reasons below, it is respectfully recommended that:

1. Westmoreland County ADAs motion to dismiss be granted in its entirety and Plaintiff's claims against the Westmoreland County ADAs be dismissed with prejudice;

2. Judicial Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted in its entirety and Plaintiff's claims against the Judicial Defendants be dismissed with prejudice; and

3. PSP Troopers motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. It is respectfully recommended that PSP Troopers' motion be granted related to Plaintiff's Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims, Plaintiff's claims for conspiracy under the Fourth Amendment for false arrest and malicious prosecution, and Plaintiff's constitutional defamation claim which should be dismissed with prejudice and denied related to Plaintiff's claim for First Amendment retaliation, claim for conspiracy under the First Amendment, and claims for common law defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and abuse of process.

II.REPORT

a. Background

Plaintiff alleges on May 9, 2018 he was driving through the City of Greensburg and stopped his vehicle at a stoplight when he noticed a driver in a blue sedan letting go of the brakes and hitting the accelerator of the vehicle trying to get Plaintiff's attention. When the stoplight turned green, the sedan began to follow Plaintiff with its high beams on. Plaintiff sped away in fear of his life and parked in a residential area where he felt safe. He was trying to exit his vehicle when the blue sedan that had been following him placed its police lights on. Trooper Lauricia approached Plaintiff's vehicle and identified himself as a state trooper and flashed his badge and a gun, but Plaintiff alleges that he was not dressed in normal police attire. Trooper Lauricia asked Plaintiff if he owned the car he was driving and told Plaintiff that he did not fit the description of the vehicle owner. Plaintiff informed Trooper Lauricia that he was the owner of the car, gave Trooper Lauricia “paperwork” and Trooper Lauricia went back to his vehicle to run Plaintiff's plates. Trooper Lauricia returned to Plaintiff's vehicle and asked him again who owned the vehicle and Plaintiff stated he owned the vehicle. Trooper Lauricia stated to Plaintiff that the car was not his, asked Plaintiff to step out of the vehicle and placed Plaintiff in handcuffs. Trooper Lauricia then stated that Plaintiff and the vehicle smelled like marijuana and Plaintiff stated he did not have any marijuana on him or in the vehicle. Trooper Lauricia then searched Plaintiff's person and pulled out $20 from Plaintiff's pockets but no marijuana.

Other state troopers arrived and Trooper Lauricia and another unknown trooper searched Plaintiff's car without his consent. The unknown trooper used Plaintiff's keys to unlock Plaintiff's glove compartment. Plaintiff alleges that Trooper Lauricia stated to him that he could either help himself or that his charges would get worse and asked if Plaintiff could get ten or more bricks of heroin. Plaintiff told Trooper Lauricia that he did not know how to get heroin. Plaintiff was then taken to the PSP station and Trooper Lauricia continued to ask Plaintiff to participate in a sting operation by finding someone to sell him heroin and also stated to him that he should help himself or things would get worse. Plaintiff claims that Trooper Morgan was also present and engaged in the same behavior as Trooper Lauricia. Plaintiff alleges that after this, Trooper Morgan fabricated statements made by Plaintiff and included the statements in an affidavit for probable cause in another criminal case to bolster criminal charges against a third party.

Plaintiff was arrested and charged with several drug offenses, several illegal firearms offenses, a receiving stolen property offense and a failure to signal offense. Plaintiff was then arraigned by Magisterial District Judge Flanigan and his bail was set at $400, 000. Plaintiff asked why the bail was set so high for a non-violent offense and Magisterial District Judge Flanigan responded “You want me to make it higher?” and told Plaintiff to get out of her face.

Plaintiff claims that he had $600 in his vehicle and when he received an inventory slip for the car, it stated that he had $274. He also claims that his vehicle was damaged.

On February 15, 2019, Judge Feliciani held a suppression hearing on Plaintiff's criminal charges. Plaintiff claims at the hearing, Trooper Lauricia stated he was off duty when he pulled Plaintiff over and admitted that Plaintiff did not commit any crimes. Judge Feliciani found that Plaintiff faced an invalid investigatory detention and suppressed the evidence found in his car during the search. While the evidence was suppressed, Judge Feliciani kept Plaintiff detained on a $400, 000 bond. Plaintiff claims that his lawyer tried to have Plaintiff released from custody but Judge Feliciani denied this request because he wanted to see what ADA Petrush wanted to do with the criminal charges.

On July 31, 2019, Plaintiff had a hearing to modify his bond in which ADA Lazar opposed and ultimately Judge Feliciani denied his request to modify bond.

On October 22, 2019, Plaintiff claims that ADA Carwello retaliated against Plaintiff by arguing to the court that Plaintiff's bail should not be lowered because he filed a civil suit against ADA Petrush. Plaintiff claims that Judge Feliciani lowered Plaintiff's bail to $75, 000 and Plaintiff claims he spent a year and a half in jail for unsupported criminal charges with no evidentiary basis. Plaintiff was released from custody at some later point.^[1]

Plaintiff started this civil action alleging several civil rights violations under Section 1983 and state law tort claims. Plaintiff asserts his claims in a generalized manner, failing to set forth an exact cause of action against each particular Defendant and instead unloads myriad claims in conclusory fashion at the end of his complaint, some of which state no recognized civil claim. In total, Plaintiff states Section 1983 claims for: “malicious arrest, false imprisonment, emotional distress, defamation, anguish, distress, destructibility, theft, malice, reverse discrimination, negligence, pain [and] suffering, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, civil conspiracy, process rights, substantive rights, 1^st[, ] 4^th[, ] 5^th[, ] 6^th[, ] 8^th[, ] and 14^th amendments[, ] intentional infliction of emotional distress under color of law.” Am. Compl. (ECF No. 24 at 3). He seeks monetary relief against all Defendants and injunctive relief against Judicial Defendants. Id. at 14. All Defendants seek to dismiss each of Plaintiff's claims.

b. Standard of Review

A pro se pleading is held to a less stringent standard than more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). As a result, a pro se complaint under § 1983 must be construed liberally, Hunterson v. DiSabato, 308 F.3d 236, 243 (3d Cir. 2002), so “as to do substantial justice.” Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 234 (3d Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). While pro se litigants are afforded this leniency, they “do not have a right to general legal advice from judges, ” and “courts need not provide substantive legal advice to pro se litigants” because pro se litigants must be treated “the same as any other litigant.” Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245, 58 V.I. 691 (3d Cir. 2013).

The applicable inquiry under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is well settled. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Rule 12(b)(6) provides that a complaint may be dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual...