Brown v. Friel, CIVIL ACTION No. 16-1819

• Decision Date: 26 August 2019
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION No. 16-1819
• Parties: BLANCHE A. BROWN v. POLICE CHIEF JOSEPH FRIEL IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

BLANCHE A. BROWN v. POLICE CHIEF JOSEPH FRIEL IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY, et al.

CIVIL ACTION No. 16-1819

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

August 26, 2019

MEMORANDUM

Juan R. Sánchez, C.J.

This matter stems from an intra-family dispute between pro se Plaintiff Blanche Brown and her estranged half-brother, James Brown, into which the Defendants in this action—Chief of Valley Township Police Joseph Friel, the Valley Township Supervisor, the Valley Township Police Department, and the Valley Township "Governing Board/Supervisors," were ultimately drawn.¹ At its core, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges her civil rights were violated when she was twice cited for—but never convicted of—harassing James. Defendants moved for summary judgment on each of Plaintiff's numerous claims. Because no rational jury could, on the basis of the record before the Court, find in Plaintiff's favor as to any of her claims, the motion will be granted in its entirety.

FACTS²

Although it is not altogether clear how the conflict between Plaintiff and James began, the dispute reached a new level of acrimony when James sent a threatening email to Plaintiff from the email account of his girlfriend, Richelle Solomon, on April 8, 2014. VTWP00073 ("If you send me or Richelle another one of your fucking email[s] then I'm [going to] give you a problem that you can't handle you crazy bitch" (emphasis in original)).³ Shortly thereafter, on April 15, 2014, both Plaintiff and James contacted the Valley Township Police Department about the other's alleged harassment. See VTWP00075 (noting James advised "he had been receiving harassing emails from his sister, Blanche Brown"); Opp'n Ex. 1-C-1 ("I most recently received what I consider to be a threatening email from James Brown"). On April 17, Friel directed both parties to cease contact with one another. VTWP00073 ("If you could[,] please [do] not email, text, call or have any contact with James. I have instructed James of the same."). Friel also invited Plaintiff to contact him if she received additional messages from James. Id.

Notwithstanding Friel's directive, Plaintiff emailed Solomon the following day to request "mediated peace talks" regarding the April 8 email that James sent from Solomon's account, VTWP00077, and made some kind of "appeal" to James (the contents of which do not appear in the record), see VTWP00034 ("My April 18 appeal to James was the best I knew how to try to [defuse] the threatening message that James had sent me." (emphasis in original)). Also on April 18, Friel issued a non-traffic citation to Plaintiff for committing the crime of harassment, in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 2709(a)(3), by "engag[ing] in a course of conduct by emailing the victim [i.e., James Brown] continually when requested to stop having contact with said victim." Pl.'s Ex. 3B. The citation was designated as "Mail Out," presumably indicating it would be mailed to Plaintiff, and was filed with the district court on April 24, 2014, which issued a summons. Id.; see also Pl.'s Ex. 3C.

On April 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Protection From Abuse (PFA) petition against James, citing, inter alia, a threat he allegedly made to Plaintiff's older brother on April 7 that he was going to "bust down Blanche's door" and the email James sent from Solomon's email account on April 8 as evidence in support of her reasonable fear of abuse. VTWP00110-128. On the strength of Plaintiff's allegations, a temporary PFA order was issued to Plaintiff, directing James not to "abuse, harass, stalk or threaten" Plaintiff in any place where she might be found and not to "contact Plaintiff, or any other person protected under this order, by telephone or by any other means, including through third persons." Id.

On April 23, 2014, James went to the Valley Township police station and reported to Friel that he had received a harassing letter from Plaintiff along with a copy of a PFA she filed against him. VTWP00076.⁴ James stated Plaintiff had attempted to disguise the letter to make it appear like it came from Ms. Solomon. According to Friel's Complaint Report, Friel attempted to call Plaintiff about the matter, but when he identified himself, she hung up the phone. VTWP00076. Friel's report further noted that he had previously told Plaintiff not to have contact with James, as had another officer, and indicated Friel would be filing a second harassment citation for Plaintiff in district court. Id. Friel did, in fact, file a second citation, VTWP00017, but Plaintiff contends she never received it, see Pl.'s Ex. 4H ("Plaintiff first received this citation through 'discovery' and it comes 2 and a half years after Chief Friel allegedly wrote it.").

Over the course of the next few weeks, Plaintiff repeatedly contacted Friel regarding her fear that James was trying to harm her. See VTWP00027-28 (April 28, 2014, Fax); VTWP00024-26 (April 28, 2014, Email); VTWP00029-30 (April 30, 2014, Email); VTWP00039-40 (May 1, 2014, Email); VTWP00038-39 (second May 1, 2014, Email); VTWP00032 (third May 1, 2014, Email); VTWP00055 (May 2, 2014, Email). The correspondence reflects her concerns that James cut her telephone lines and fired a gun near her home, as well as her increasing anger with law enforcements' efforts to protect her. For example, she complained to Friel that the Valley Township Police, West Caln Township Police, and West Sadsbury Township Police had each "re-victimized and re-traumatized" her. See VTWP00024. In another email, she complained to Friel that he had "given James permission to come after [her] with intent to kill [her]." VTWP00030. In yet another, she threatened to "do what ever is necessary to protect [herself]," claiming James "pulled the wool over your eyes." VTWP00038.

Plaintiff's accusations notwithstanding, Friel responded by reassuring her that his police department took her concerns seriously and directed her to continue to utilize the legal system to protect herself. See VTWP00024 (April 29, 2014, Email) ("I can assure you that our department treats every person and complaint the same. It does not make a difference as to what economic or ethnic classification a person is."); VTWP00041 (May 1, 2014, Email) ("If you[r] hearing is Monday[,] I suggest that you explain all to the Judge and ask for a PFA that is [permanent]"); VTWP00033 (second May 1, 2014, Email); and VTWP00039 (third May 1, 2014, Email) ("I spoke with James, and I am confident he is not going to do harm to you."). Of particular concern to this litigation, Friel advised Plaintiff that she could not contact James, having obtained a PFA against him. Specifically, he wrote:

You cannot file a PFA against a person and then turn around and contact them. A PFA is an order preventing contact between you and the party that you have named on the PFA. If you file a PFA and then make contact with the party you named on the PFA you are not obeying the ordering Judge who signed the PFA. A PFA does not give you the right to contact the party you have named in the PFA. Please feel free to contact my office. You are much welcomed to come to the office and speak to me directly if you would like.

VTWP00024.

On May 5, 2014, Plaintiff appeared for a PFA hearing. Prior to the hearing, Plaintiff requested that Friel escort her. See VTWP00055. He declined but indicated that he would contact the sheriff's department to ensure that her safety concerns were addressed. See VTWP00054 ("I cannot escort you to the court, but I will be calling the Sheriff's Dept. as to ensure your concerns are addressed."). After the hearing, Plaintiff emailed Friel to inform him that the court had refused to make the initial PFA permanent and to express her belief that the PFA had been dismissed as "an 'ata-boy' to James for having the stamina to 'defend himself' so vigorously." Id. Later that day, Plaintiff sent another email to Friel, complaining that James is a "classic sociopath/psychopath" and that the "presiding judge seems to lower the standard for men of color who are accused of abuse." VTWP00056. A few days later, on May 10, Plaintiff contacted Solomon via Facebook to complain that Solomon's "Pollyanna notions nearly got [Plaintiff] killed (twice!)" by James, and to accuse her of instigating James's purported "plan to stalk" Plaintiff. VTWP00062. The next day, Plaintiff sent an email to James threatening kill herself because of his "abuse and betrayal," stating that her "tormented soul" was "going to haunt" him "to [his] grave." VTWP00057 (emphasis omitted).

Between May 13, 2014, and June 3, 2014, Plaintiff contacted Friel on at least eight separate occasions to report on the threat purportedly posed by James and express her frustration about Friel's failure to adequately respond, which Plaintiff claimed amounted to complicity in the purported plan to kill her. See VTWP0068-69 (May 13, 2014, Fax); Pl.'s Ex. 2-1E (May 19, 2014, Email); VTWP00070-72 (May 21, 2014, Fax); VTWP00094-95 (May 27, 2014, Fax); VTWP00096 (May 28, 2014, Fax);⁵ and VTWP00093 (June 15, 2014, Email). There is no evidence in the record that Friel responded to Brown's attacks.

On June 3, 2014, a summary trial was convened on the April 18 citation. The trial was continued after Magisterial District Judge Grover Koon, the presiding officer, allegedly coerced the Plaintiff into signing a mutual no-contact order by concealing the title of the document ("Alternative Sentencing Contract") with the sleeve of his robes. See Pl.'s Ex. 4G.⁶ On September 10, 2014, both the April 18 and April 24 citations were withdrawn. See Defs.' Ex. B, at 3, 5. The record reflects that, at no time, was Plaintiff ever convicted, punished, or otherwise restricted in any way by virtue of the citations. Id. In point of fact, it appears that Plaintiff never even saw the second citation. see Pl.'s Ex. 4H ("Plaintiff first received this citation through 'discovery' and it comes 2 and a half years after...