Conte v. Rios

• Decision Date: 27 August 2015
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-225
• Citation: Conte v. Rios, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-225 (W.D. Pa. Aug 27, 2015)
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
• Parties: MATTHEW CONTE, Plaintiff, v. JOSE R. RIOS, RANDY RUEDIGER, MIDDLESEX TOWNSHIP, DAVID WELLINGTON, MARS BOROUGH, OFFICER ANDRA SCHMID, ADAMS TOWNSHIP, Defendants.

MATTHEW CONTE, Plaintiff, v. JOSE R. RIOS, RANDY RUEDIGER, MIDDLESEX TOWNSHIP, DAVID WELLINGTON,MARS BOROUGH, OFFICER ANDRA SCHMID, ADAMS TOWNSHIP, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-225

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

August 27, 2015

JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I.Introduction

This civil rights action arises from the injuries Plaintiff sustained after DefendantJose Rios' vehicle collided with Plaintiff's vehicle during a high-speed police pursuit.Plaintiff has asserted various civil rights claims against Defendants, alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, as well as state law claims.Presently before the Court are Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and motions to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).(ECF Nos. 7, 30, 32, 34)¹Having reviewed the motions and briefs, along with the applicable law, and for the reasons explained below, Defendants' motions to dismiss at ECF Nos. 7, 30, and 32are DENIED, and Defendants' motion to dismiss at ECF No. 34 is GRANTED.However, Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint as set forth in the Order.

II.Jurisdiction

The Court has jurisdiction over the federal constitutional claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1343(a)(3) and (4), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

III.Background

This case involves injuries Plaintiff sustained after Defendant Rios' vehicle collided with his vehicle.The following facts are alleged in the amended complaint, which the Court will accept as true for the sole purpose of deciding the pending motions.

On June 17, 2013, Defendant Ruediger of the Middlesex Township Police Department encountered Defendant Rios sitting inside his vehicle, which was stationary along a public street.(ECF No. 26 ¶¶ 15-16.)For reasons unknown to Plaintiff, Defendant Ruediger initiated contact with Defendant Rios and falsely suggested he was a criminal suspect.(Id.¶¶ 18-19.)Defendant Rios fled in his vehicle, and Defendant Ruediger initiated a pursuit.(Id.¶¶ 20-21.)DefendantWellington of Mars Borough Police Department and Defendant Schmid of Adams Township Police Department joined the pursuit, with Defendant Ruediger primarily in the lead position and Defendant Wellington occasionally assuming the lead position.(Id.¶¶ 22, 24.)Upon Plaintiff'sinformation and belief, none of the officers had reason to believe Defendant Rios had committed a crime or was a danger to others.(Id.¶ 23.)

The pursuit, which began in Middlesex Township, continued through Adams Township and Richland Township before ending in a collision in Gibsonia.(Id.¶ 25.)The pursuit was conducted at high rates of speed in residential and commercial areas.(Id.¶ 26.)According to police records, the pursuit reached speeds of 110-120 miles per hour, and Defendant Ruediger considered terminating it.(Id.¶¶ 26-27.)Defendants continued the pursuit through a heavily trafficked shopping area, and Defendant Rios' vehicle struck Plaintiff's vehicle while he was stopped at a red light in a commercial area with a speed limit of 45 miles per hour.(Id.¶¶ 28-30.)Plaintiff's left leg was nearly severed, and he sustained multiple broken bones, deep tissue wounds, and bone loss.(Id.¶ 61.)Plaintiff underwent extensive surgeries, bone grafts, and rehabilitative therapy.(Id.¶ 62.)

Defendant Middlesex Township's policies provide that a high-speed pursuit should be terminated if it exposes any officer, member of the public, or suspect to unnecessary risks, especially if heavy traffic, highly congested areas, or erratic driving is involved.(Id.¶¶ 39-40.)Defendant Mars Borough's policies provide that each officer has the authority to terminate a pursuit based on danger and that an officer should terminate a chase when "the hazards of exposing the officer and the public to unnecessary dangers are higher than the degree of crime committed by the pursued."(Id.¶¶ 42-44.)Defendant Adams Township's policies provide that pursuits are disfavored for minor incidents and limits the use of pursuits to the most serious of circumstances.(Id.¶¶ 46-47.)

Defendant Rios was charged with and convicted of aggravated assault by a motor vehicle, and he was sentenced to three to six years of incarceration in state prison.(Id.¶ 34.)All charges relating to Defendant Rios' alleged acts of fleeing or eluding the police were dismissed.(Id.¶ 35.)

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a six-count complaint on October 20, 2014, which he amended on December 15, 2014.(ECF Nos. 1, 26.)Count I asserts a claim against Defendants Ruediger, Wellington, and Schmid for violating Plaintiff's rights to bodily integrity and to be free from injury by law enforcement under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.(ECF No. 26 ¶¶ 64-74.)Count II asserts a claim against Defendant Middlesex Township for failure to train Defendant Ruediger.(Id.¶¶ 75-79.)Count III asserts a claim against Defendant Mars Borough for failure to train Defendant Wellington.(Id.¶¶ 80-85.)Count IV asserts a claim against Defendant Adams Township for failure to train Defendant Schmid.(Id.¶¶ 86-90.)Count V asserts a state law claim for negligence against Defendants Ruediger, Middlesex Township, Wellington, Mars Borough, Schmid, and Adams Township.(Id.¶¶ 91-97.)Count VI asserts a state law claim for negligence against Defendant Rios.(Id.¶¶ 98-102.)

Defendants Ruediger, Middlesex Township, Wellington, Mars Borough, Schmid, and Adams Township now move to dismiss the complaint and amended complaint.(ECF Nos. 7, 30, 32, 34.)The parties have fully briefed the Court on the pending motions (seeECF Nos. 8, 31, 33, 35, 38, 43, and 44), and this matter is now ripe for adjudication.

IV.Standard of Review

Defendants move to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint 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) allows a party to seek dismissal of a complaint or any portion of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.Although the federal pleading standard has been "in the forefront of jurisprudence in recent years," the standard of review for a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge is now well established.Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F. 3d 203, 209(3d Cir.2009).

In determining the sufficiency of a complaint, a district court must conduct a two-part analysis.First, the court must separate the factual matters averred from the legal conclusions asserted.SeeFowler, 578 F. 3d at 210.Second, the court must determine whether the factual matters averred are sufficient to show that plaintiff has a "'plausible claim for relief.'"Id. at 211(quotingAshcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679(2009)).The complaint need not include "'detailed factual allegations.'"Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F. 3d 224, 231(3d Cir.2008)(quotingBell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555(2007)).

Moreover, the court must construe the alleged facts, and draw all inferences gleaned therefrom, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.Seeid. at 228(citingWorldcom, Inc. v. Graphnet, Inc., 343 F. 3d 651, 653(3d Cir.2003)).However, "legal conclusions" and "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action . . . do not suffice."Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.Rather, the complaint must present sufficient "'factualcontent that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.'"Sheridan v. NGK Metals Corp., 609 F. 3d 239, 262 n.27(3d Cir.2010)(quotingIqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).

Ultimately, whether a plaintiff has shown a "plausible claim for relief" is a "context-specific" inquiry that requires the district court to "draw on its judicial experience and common sense."Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.The relevant record under consideration includes the complaint and any "document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint."U.S. Express Lines, Ltd. v. Higgins, 281 F. 3d 383, 388(3d Cir.2002)(citingIn re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F. 3d 1410, 1426(3d Cir.1997)).If a complaint is vulnerable to dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the district court must permit a curative amendment, irrespective of whether a plaintiff seeks leave to amend, unless such amendment would be inequitable or futile.Phillips, 515 F. 3d at 236;see alsoShane v. Fauver, 213 F. 3d 113, 115(3d Cir.2000).

V.Discussion

As discussed above, Plaintiff filed his complaint on October 20, 2014, which he amended on December 15, 2014.(ECF Nos. 1, 26.)Defendants Ruediger and Middlesex Township filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's initial complaint on November 12, 2014.(ECF No. 7.)Because Plaintiff has since amended his complaint, the Court will deny Defendants Ruediger and Middlesex Township's first motion to dismiss as moot.

Defendants Ruediger, Middlesex Township, Wellington, Mars Borough, Schmid, and Adams Township have filed three motions to dismiss the amended complaint, eacharguing that Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts supporting a plausible claim that Defendants intended to injure Plaintiff; that Defendants Ruediger, Wellington, and Schmid are entitled to qualified immunity; that Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support his failure-to-train claims against Defendants Middlesex Township, Mars Borough, and Adams Township; and that any claims for punitive damages against Defendants Middlesex Township, Mars Borough, and Adams Township must be dismissed.Defendants Ruediger, Middlesex Township, Schmid, and...