Braunstein v. Paws Across Pitsburgh, Case No. 2:18-cv-788
| Decision Date | 02 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:18-cv-788 |
| Parties | JOY BRAUNSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. PAWS ACROSS PITSBURGH, a non-profit organization, and MINDY JAMES, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
This civil rights action arises from the alleged unconstitutional arrest of Plaintiff Joy Braunstein by Defendant Mindy James, who was allegedly acting, at the time, in her capacity as a police officer and board member of Defendant Paws Across Pittsburgh. Plaintiff has brought Fourteenth Amendment claims for malicious prosecution and reckless investigation, as well as a claim for municipal liability under Monell, against Defendants. Finally, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages, in addition to compensatory damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. Currently pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 14). For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Defendants' motion, in part, with prejudice and, in part, without prejudice. Specifically, Plaintiff's § 1983 claim for malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process clause in Count I, and Plaintiff's § 1983 claim for reckless investigation in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process clause in Count II are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's § 1983 Monell claim against Paws and Plaintiff's request for punitive damages are dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff is the principal owner and CEO of Above the Fray Stables, LLC, a specialty equine business that offers boarding care, colt starting and horse training, as well as horsemanship and showmanship instruction to the general public. Am. Compl., ¶8 (ECF No. 11). Through her business, Plaintiff has spent over $100,000 over the last two years rescuing and relocating horses, and can be credited with rescuing dozens of horses. Id. at ¶ 9.
As part of her ongoing business relations, Plaintiff developed a cooperative relationship with Crystal Thornberry, who is the owner of Heart Felt Equine Rescue, a non-profit organization specializing in equine rescue. Id. at ¶ 10. Prior to taking over her own facility in February of 2018, Plaintiff would request rescue facilities, including the one owned by Ms. Thornberry, to take custody of various rescued horses. Id.
In July of 2017, Plaintiff and Ms. Thornberry worked together to place a herd of horses from Mississippi at Ms. Thornberry's facility in Pennsylvania. Id. at ¶ 19. Plaintiff visited a portion of Ms. Thornberry's property only once in or about August 2017, and interacted with the animals on that portion of her property, where she observed that the horses were provided with shade. Id. Plaintiff was also aware that Ms. Thornberry kept the horses separated by fences. Id. In October of 2017, Ms. Thornberry moved to a larger property equipped with stalls, run-ins, and a significant pasture. Id.
From approximately August to November 2017, Plaintiff became aware that three horses died while entrusted to Ms. Thornberry's care. Id. at ¶ 17. Plaintiff contends that to her knowledge, the causes of death of these three horses were not related to a failure to care for the horses or placing the horses in unsafe conditions. Id. As such, Plaintiff alleges that the deaths of these horses did not indicate to her that other animals in Ms. Thornberry's care "were at risk of harm or otherwise illegal conduct." Id.
On or about January 18, 2108, Defendant Mindy James ("Officer James") charged Ms. Thornberry with twelve counts of animal neglect. Id. at ¶ 23. Upon being notified of the charges filed against Ms. Thornberry, Plaintiff took steps to remove all of her personal horses from Ms. Thornberry's farm. Id. at ¶ 24. Plaintiff also contacted Officer James to find out more information regarding the charges and to plan for the removal of her horses, and stayed in contact with Officer James until her horses were completely removed from Ms. Thornberry's custody. Id. During one of her conversations withPlaintiff, Officer James confirmed that all of the horses mentioned in the affidavit of probable cause, for which Plaintiff was responsible, were well taken care of and healthy. Id. at ¶ 25.
Despite her acknowledgement of the well-being of Plaintiff's horses, on or about February 28, 2018, Officer James charged Plaintiff with two misdemeanor counts of neglect of animals for failing to provide horses with adequate food, water and shelter. Id. at ¶¶ 11, 25. Plaintiff alleges that the allegations set forth in the affidavit of probable cause, prepared by Officer James in support of the arrest warrant, are materially false or were fabricated because at all relevant times, all of the horses at issue here and for which Plaintiff was responsible were well taken care of and healthy. Id. at ¶¶ 12, 14. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that she only took actions that were in the best interest of the horses and/or were at the owner's request. Id. at 21. On or about March 28, 2018, all of the charges filed against Plaintiff were withdrawn by the Indiana County Assistant District Attorney due to a lack of evidence. Id. at ¶ 26.
Essentially, Plaintiff disputes the statements contained in the affidavit of probable cause, and maintains that she was and is unaware of any facts that established that Ms. Thornberry mistreated any of the horses in her care, from the Mississippi herd or otherwise, failed to properly care for them at her facility, or placed them in any danger whatsoever. Id. at ¶¶ 16, 20. Plaintiff also contends that the affidavit of probable cause falsely states that she abandoned a horse at Ms. Thornberry's farm, when that horse had been sold to Ms. Thornberry. Id. at ¶ 22. The affidavit of probable cause also falsely claims, according to Plaintiff, that she was responsible for themistreatment of the Mississippi herd, and was aware that Ms. Thornberry's property did not contain any shelter, barn or stalls for the horses, and therefore, intentionally placed the horses in harm's way. Id. at ¶ 18.
Plaintiff alleges that Officer James, in deciding to charge Plaintiff with animal neglect, was influenced by people on social media who harbor animosity towards Plaintiff and who exerted pressure on Officer James to find some wrongdoing by Plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 27. Plaintiff further alleges that Officer James intentionally charged her with serious crimes based on fabricated and/or false information. Id. at ¶ 28.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were not qualified to determine the proper and legal conditions for caring for horses, and Officer James has not been adequately trained by Paws Against Pittsburgh ("Paws") in investigating, charging and prosecuting crimes relating to animal neglect, and horses in particular. Id. at ¶ 13. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that Paws has a duty to properly train, control, discipline and/or supervise its agent, Officer James, and it failed to do so. Id. at ¶¶ 33-34.
In addition, Plaintiff alleges that Paws was aware of Officer James' alleged unlawful conduct. Id. at ¶ 32. At all relevant times, Plaintiff contends that Officer James was a board member of Paws and a policymaker, whose unlawful actions constitute an official policy or custom of Paws.
As a result of Defendants' alleged misconduct, Plaintiff contends that she suffered harm to her reputation, in the form of denial of membership to clubs in her field, and loss of prospective business and employment opportunities, and her credibility has been destroyed in the equine and animal rescue field. Id. at ¶¶ 29-30.Plaintiff also contends that she has suffered severe emotional distress, which lead to a hospitalization and for which she continues to receive medical treatment. Id. at ¶ 31.
On June 15, 2018, Plaintiff instituted this civil rights action and, subsequently, filed an Amended Complaint on September 18, 2018. In response, Defendants filed the pending motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The motion has been fully briefed and therefore is ripe for disposition.
In deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the courts apply the following standard, as recently reiterated by the court of appeals:
A complaint may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." But detailed pleading is not generally required. The Rules demand "only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.' " Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id.; see alsoSheridan v. NGK Metals Corp., 609 F.3d 239, 262 n. 27 (3d Cir.2010). Although the plausibility standard "does not impose a probability requirement," Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955, it does require a pleading to show "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully," Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937.
Connelly v. Lane Constr. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 786-87 (3d Cir. 2016).
Building upon the landmark Supreme Court decisions in Twombly and Iqbal, the court of appeals in Connelly reiterated the three-step process district courts must undertake to determine the sufficiency of a complaint:
First, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial