Chapolini v. Capodanno, CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-2629
| Decision Date | 05 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-2629 |
| Parties | VINCENT AIENNE CHAPOLINI, Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY CAPODANNO #0119, KEVIN DONOHUE #0026, JAMES FLORES #0125, WALTER MCDONALD (Station Security), GLENN GAMBER (Shift Supervisor), THOMAS JOHNSON (Captain) #0815, individually and in their official capacities, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
The pro se plaintiff went to a township police station to report a crime. Instead of reporting that crime, police officers ultimately arrested him after discovering that there were outstanding warrants for his arrest. Although the plaintiff acknowledges attempting to flee after an officer told him that he was under arrest, he alleges that the arresting officers used excessive force when they slammed his head into the ground while arresting him. After the arrest, the plaintiff claims an officer asked him questions without first reading Miranda warnings, and the same officer placed him in a jail cell and aggressively strip-searched him.
The plaintiff brings official and individual capacity claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights against the officers who arrested him and allegedly used excessive force, the officer who conducted the strip search and who questioned him without first giving him Miranda warnings, the officer who ran a search for active warrants instead of taking his report of a crime, a supervisor who approved of an incident report indicating that the police did not read Miranda warnings to the plaintiff, and a supervisor who failed to supervise his apprehension (and the excessive force and strip search).
The named officers have moved to dismiss the operative complaint. They argue that (1) the court should dismiss any official capacity claims because those claims are properly against the township; (2) the plaintiff cannot maintain any claim related to the failure to read Miranda warnings because he does not allege that any statements were used against him at trial; (3) the court should dismiss any claims against the supervisors because there is no liability for respondeat superior in a section 1983 claim and he does not allege personal involvement by them; (4) the plaintiff failed to state a claim pertaining to the strip search; (5) the plaintiff cannot assert negligence/failure to protect claims relating to the force used to effect his arrest; (6) the plaintiff failed to state an equal protection claim because he failed to allege that he was treated differently from other similarly situated persons; (7) the court should strike any claim for declaratory relief because the plaintiff is only attempting to adjudicate past conduct; and (8) the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity insofar as the plaintiff has failed to state any claim for relief.
As discussed below, the court will grant in part and deny in part the motion to dismiss. The defendants' argument for dismissing the official capacity claims lacks merit because the plaintiff has not named the township as a defendant; nonetheless, the court must dismiss the claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because he has failed to properly plead official capacity claims under Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). The court denies the motion to the extent it seeks dismissal of claims relating to the strip search because the defendants have not satisfied their burden to show the plaintiff has failed to plead a plausible claim and the plaintiff included sufficient allegations to maintain a supervisoryindividual liability claim against two supervisors. Except as to a supervising officer and another officer for whom the plaintiff has failed to plead personal involvement, the court also denies the motion to the extent it seeks dismissal of an excessive force claim because (1) there is no indication that the plaintiff is seeking to maintain a state law claim, and (2) the fact that it appears that the plaintiff has pleaded guilty to resisting arrest does not necessarily preclude the claim at this stage. The court grants the motion insofar as the defendants seek dismissal of a claim for the failure to provide Miranda warnings because the plaintiff did not allege that he made any statements in response to the questions or that such statements were used against him at trial. The court also grants the motion to the extent it seeks dismissal of the equal protection claim because the plaintiff has not alleged that the defendant officer treated him differently than another similarly situated individual. The court further grants the motion to the extent the defendants ask the court to strike the claim for a declaratory judgment insofar as the plaintiff is seeking only a remedy for past conduct. Finally, the court will deny the motion to the extent that it seeks dismissal based on qualified immunity for the reasons already stated and because the court is providing the plaintiff with leave to file another amended complaint to possibly plead facts that would affect this court's qualified immunity analysis.
The pro se plaintiff, Vincent Aienne Chapolini ("Chapolini"), filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (the "IFP Application"), a prisoner trust fund account statement, and a complaint that the clerk of court docketed on June 21, 2018. Doc. Nos. 1-3. The complaint named Anthony Capodanno ("Officer Capodanno"), Thomas Johnson ("Captain Johnson"), Kevin Donohue ("Officer Donahue"), and the Upper Darby Police Department("UDPD") as defendants. Compl. at 1-3, Doc. No. 3. This court entered an order on June 26, 2018, which, inter alia, granted the IFP Application. Doc. No. 5.
Chapolini filed an application for the appointment of counsel and a motion for a default judgment, which the clerk of court docketed on July 27, 2018, and July 30, 2018, respectively. Doc. Nos. 13, 14. The court entered an order denying the motion for a default judgment on July 31, 2018. Doc. No. 15.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on August 15, 2018. Doc. No. 18. Chapolini, after receiving an extension of time to file a response to the motion to dismiss, filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint that the clerk of court docketed on September 10, 2018. Doc. Nos. 19-23. The court granted the motion for leave to file an amended complaint on September 17, 2018, and Chapolini filed an amended complaint on October 2, 2018. Doc. Nos. 24, 25.
Chapolini filed an amended complaint on September 25, 2018.1 Doc. No. 25. In the amended complaint, Chapolini removed the UDPD as a defendant and added James Flores ("Officer Flores"), Walter McDonald ("Officer McDonald"), and Glenn Gamber ("Officer Gamber") as defendants. Am. Compl. at 1. As for his allegations, Chapolini alleges the UDPD employed all defendants as police officers on March 1, 2018. Id. at ¶¶ 4-9. On that date, Chapolini entered the UDPD to "file a report a[bout] a fraud crime that was committed against [him], with [his] information and without [his] permission." Id. at ¶ 13. Chapolini then encountered Officer McDonald, who was acting as station security. Id. at ¶¶ 7, 13.
Officer McDonald was "very rude" to Chapolini and pretended to take his fraud report while he was checking Chapolini's personal information for any active warrants. Id. at ¶ 14. Chapolini waited for 15 minutes for a receipt of his fraud report, but Officer McDonald had determined that there were two active warrants for him pertaining to parole and probation violations. Id. at ¶ 15. At this point, Officer McDonald "ignored/neglected [Chapolini's] right to receive assistance from the [UDPD] and made [Chapolini] the target." Id.
While Chapolini was waiting, he began to talk on his cellphone and decided to "get some air." Id. at ¶ 16. He headed through the lobby door into the vestibule, when Officer Capodanno confronted him and told him that he was under arrest but did not tell him why he was under arrest. Id. Chapolini claims that he was unaware of the active warrants for his arrest and out of a fear for his wellbeing, ran (or tried to run), into the view of his employer, who had driven him to the police station so he could file the report, "in case anything wrong was to happen." Id. at ¶ 17.
After Chapolini reached the bottom of the vestibule steps, Officer Capodanno, Officer Donahue, and Captain Johnson "grabbed" him. Id. at ¶ 18. One of the officers grabbed Chapolini's left arm, another grabbed his right arm, and the last one grabbed his head. Id. One of these defendants "excessively slammed" Chapolini's head into the vestibule floor. Id. Chapolini suffered a "minor" injury to his head, left wrist, and left hand, and a "major" injury to his left rear shoulder. Id.
Officer Capodanno then moved Chapolini into a cell. Id. at ¶ 19. With the other defendants and UDPD employees watching through the cell window, Officer Capodanno began to strip search Chapolini down to his boxers. Id. Officer Capodanno "aggressively grabb[ed] [Chapolini's] testicles and between his anus [sic]." Id. The entire search occurred on an open circuit station security camera. Id.
Later, Chapolini repeatedly complained about the severe pain from his injuries, and medics came to examine him. Id. at ¶ 20. The medics determined that Chapolini needed immediate medical attention and he was transported to the Delaware Memorial Hospital for treatment. Id. After being treated there, he was released back to UDPD custody. Id. Once he was returned to the UDPD, Officer Capodanno informed him that the police were charging him with resisting arrest. Id. at ¶ 21. Chapolini requested an attorney, but Officer Capodanno said that Chapolini "had no rights." Id. Officer Capodanno also stated that he did not have to read Miranda warnings to Chapolini, and he proceeded to question him. Id.
Apparently, Chapolini is awaiting trial for a "retaliatory accusation of resisting arrest,...
To continue reading
Request your trial