Behanna v. Pennsylvania
| Decision Date | 23 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | 2:20-CV-00444-LPL |
| Parties | WALTER BEHANNA, DEBBIE BAXTER BEHANNA, Plaintiffs, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, WASHINGTON COUNTY PROBATION, HEATHER TESTA, PROBATION OFFICER; Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
For the reasons below, it is respectfully recommended that the Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (ECF No. 17), Washington County Probation (ECF No. 20) and Heather Testa (ECF No. 38) be granted.
Plaintiffs Walter Behanna and Debbie Baxter Behanna1 ("Plaintiffs"), pro se, filed their original Complaint on April 28, 2020. ECF No. 2. They bring suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations arising out of interactions with Defendant Heather Testa, aWashington County Probation Officer. Plaintiffs also filed a separate complaint on a separate docket which they later clarified was meant to be the Amended Complaint to this docket. ECF No. 7. That complaint was transferred to this docket as the Amended Complaint. ECF No. 8. Plaintiffs then filed a Second Amended Complaint, docketed on July 9, 2020. ECF No. 9. Defendant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed a Motion to Dismiss on October 2, 2020. ECF No. 17. Defendant Washington County Probation filed a Motion to Dismiss on October 13, 2020. ECF No. 20. Defendant Heather Testa filed a Motion to Dismiss along with exhibits on November 19, 2020. ECF No. 38. Plaintiffs filed Responses in Opposition to both the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 32) as well as to Heather Testa's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 48). Plaintiffs did not submit a Response in Opposition to Washington County Probation's Motion to Dismiss, but their Response at ECF No. 32 is equally applicable to the extent that both Motions argue Eleventh Amendment immunity. On February 16, 2021, Defendant Heather Testa submitted a Reply to Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition, with further exhibits, including court transcripts. ECF No. 53. The Motions are now ripe for disposition.
On June 12, 2018, Plaintiff Walter Behanna pleaded guilty to three criminal counts in the Court of Common Pleas in Washington County, Pennsylvania. ECF No. 38-3, p. 3. These charges arose out of an altercation with his wife, Debbie Behanna, at their home at 282 Shannon Road. ECF No. 53-4, p. 5. Plaintiff was sentenced to, inter alia, probation for five years (with a consecutive two years for one of the charges), the first 23 months of which to be supervised bythe Washington County Veterans Court Program. ECF No. 38-5, p. 1. This court sentencing order ("sentencing order") is referred to in Plaintiff Walter Behanna's Washington County Criminal Docket ("criminal docket") at ECF No. 38-3, p. 5. Plaintiff was ordered to comply with all terms and conditions of the performance contract he signed with Veterans Court ("performance contract"). ECF No. 38-5, p. 2. The terms include submitting to warrantless searches of his property, person, or vehicle by his supervising probation officer, as well as truthfully answering any questions posed to him by a sworn law enforcement entity. ECF No. 38-6, pp.1, 3. During his sentencing hearing, Plaintiff Walter Behanna also agreed to a No Contact Order as to Debbie Behanna. ECF No. 53-4, p. 18.
On January 21, 2020, Plaintiffs allege that Walter Behanna was "detained" by Defendant Testa at 29 West Cherry Ave, Suite 413, Washington, PA 15301, where the Washington County Probation Office is located. ECF No. 9. Mr. Behanna asserts that he was "unable to answer her questions fast enough, given his disabilities of diabetes he is disabled, slow in responses, and a veteran." Id. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Testa, who is a probation officer, asked Mr. Behanna questions regarding his relations with his wife. ECF No. 9. From their meeting, Officer Testa learned that there may be evidence that Debbie Behanna intended harm against Judge DiSalle, who had sentenced Mr. Behanna to probation, for recommending couples' counseling. ECF No. 53-5, pp. 2-3. Walter Behanna also gave an indication that he may have violated the No Contact Order by communicating with his wife. Id. Officer Testa brought Walter Behanna to a hearing before Judge DiSalle and requested permission to search Mr. Behanna's personal effects. Id. During the hearing she testified that Mr. Behanna told her that he had a photo of a hit list of names that Mrs. Behanna made, including that of Judge DiSalle, on his phone, which was in the trailer where he lived. Id. p. 4. Judge DiSalle found good cause to search Mr. Behanna's personaleffects. Id. p. 13. Officer Testa then drove with Mr. Behanna to the trailer where he resided, which is on the same property as the residence at 282 Shannon Road, and conducted a search. ECF Nos. 9, 53-5. A search of the trailer yielded a mobile phone; a search of Mr. Behanna's vehicle yielded several other items which made Officer Testa suspect that Mr. Behanna may be in contact with his wife. ECF No. 53-5, p. 20-21. Officer Testa knocked on the door of the main house, where she suspected Mrs. Behanna lived, but no one answered the door and Testa did not enter. Id. pp. 22-23.
A probation revocation hearing for Mr. Behanna took place on May 12, 2020, before Judge DiSalle. ECF No. 53-6. At the hearing, Judge DiSalle revoked Mr. Behanna's participation in the Veteran's Court Treatment Program, and sentenced him to prison time. Id. p. 51. Mr. Behanna is currently incarcerated at SCI Phoenix.
Plaintiffs make claims of violations of their rights under the Fourth Amendment, based on the search of the trailer; violations of the Fifth Amendment, based on Defendant Testa asking questions which elicited self-incriminating responses; and violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, based on Testa demanding immediate answers during her questioning and incarcerating him without due process. They seek compensatory damages of $500,000, and an injunction "preventing the employees of Washington County from interfering with the marriages of its citizens," or search properties of those citizens who are not on probation. Id.
B. Legal Standard
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit summarized the standard to be applied in deciding motions to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6):
Under the "notice pleading" standard embodied in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff must come forwardwith "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." As explicated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), a claimant must state a "plausible" claim for relief, and "[a] claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Although "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level," Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), a plaintiff "need only put forth allegations that raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary element." Fowler, 578 F.3d at 213 (quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Covington v. Int'l Ass'n of Approved Basketball Officials, 710 F.3d 114, 117-18 (3d Cir. 2013).
Thompson v. Real Estate Mortg. Network, 748 F.3d 142, 147 (3d Cir. 2014).
In addition to the complaint, courts may consider matters of public record and other matters of which a court may take judicial notice, court orders, and exhibits attached to the complaint when adjudicating a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380, 1384 n.2 (3d Cir. 1994) (). A court may also consider indisputably authentic documents. Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 223 (3d Cir. 2004); Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993); Golden v. Cook, 293 F. Supp. 2d 546, 551 (W.D. Pa. 2003) () (citations omitted).
When considering pro se pleadings, a court must employ less stringent standards than when judging the work product of an attorney. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).When presented with a pro se complaint, the court should construe the complaint liberally and draw fair inferences from what is not alleged as well as from what is alleged. Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir. 2003). In a § 1983 action, the court must "apply the applicable law, irrespective of whether the pro se litigant has mentioned it by name." Higgins v. Beyer, 293 F.3d 683, 688 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting Holley v. Dep't of Veteran Affairs, 165 F.3d 244, 247-48 (3d Cir. 1999)). See also Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996) () (quoting Higgins, 293 F.3d at 688). Notwithstanding this liberality, pro se litigants are not relieved of their obligation to allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal claim. See, e.g., Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002); Riddle v. Mondragon, 83 F.3d 1197, 2102 (10th Cir. 1996).
Defendant Commonwealth of...
To continue reading
Request your trial