Corbin v. French
| Decision Date | 28 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 22-CV-3016 |
| Parties | IAN B. CORBIN, Plaintiff, v. KYLE FRENCH, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Plaintiff Ian B. Corbin, a convicted prisoner currently incarcerated at the Lehigh County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting violations of his constitutional rights and related state law claims arising from his arrest and prosecution on drug charges. Currently before the Court are Corbin's Complaint (“Compl.”) (ECF No. 2) and his Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”) (ECF No 6).[1]Corbin asserts claims against the following Defendants: (1) the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; (2) Lehigh County; (3) the City of Allentown; (4) the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas; Lehigh County Common Pleas Court judges (5) Douglas Reichley and (6) Maria Dantos; (7) Lehigh County District Attorney James Martin; (8) Lehigh County Assistant District Attorney Joseph Stauffer; and Allentown Police Officers (9) Andrew Holveck and (10) Kyle French. (Id. at 2-3.) Reichley, Dantos, Martin, Stauffer and Police Officers Holveck and French are named in their official and individual capacities. For the following reasons, Corbin's claims against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas and individual Defendants Dantos, Reichley, Stauffer, and Martin will be dismissed with prejudice. His official capacity claims and his claims asserting violations of the Thirteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1987, 1988, and 1994 and federal and state criminal statutes will also be dismissed with prejudice. Corbin's claims against the City of Allentown and Lehigh County will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court will abstain from addressing the remainder of Corbin's claims pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and the case will be stayed.
On December 3, 2021, Corbin was convicted on drug charges stemming from an October 8, 2019 arrest. See Commonwealth v. Corbin, CP-39-CR-5062-2019 (C.P. Lehigh). The public docket reflects that Corbin appealed his conviction and is currently awaiting a decision from the Pennsylvania Superior Court. Id. The docket further reflects that Corbin has been denied bail pending appeal. Id. The gravamen of Corbin's Complaint is that the arrest giving rise to the charges against him was conducted in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, and that his continued efforts to obtain release on this basis have been thwarted by the concerted efforts of the Defendants. He claims that, as a result, he has been wrongly convicted and incarcerated. (See Compl.)
Corbin alleges that on October 8, 2019, while walking home, he was detained by Defendant French, who seized Corbin's wrist and accused Corbin of having a dispute with his girlfriend involving a knife. (Id. at 4.) French conducted a search of Corbin but found no knife. Defendant Holveck arrived at the scene and handcuffed Corbin, whereupon Defendant French conducted a further body search, which revealed a small bulge in Corbin's pocket. Defendant French reached into Corbin's pocket and removed a black latex glove, opened the glove, and found a substance that he suspected to be narcotics. (Id. at 4-5.) Defendant French is alleged to have conducted this search without a warrant or probable cause, and absent exigent circumstances. (Id. at 5.)
Upon discovery of the alleged narcotics, Defendant French removed Corbin to the rear of his patrol car and directed Defendant Holveck to investigate the alleged domestic disturbance that precipitated Corbin's detention. (Id.) French assured Corbin that he was not under arrest, merely detained pending an investigation of the domestic disturbance. (Id.) Defendant Holveck proceeded to the domestic complainant's location, where he is alleged to have made defamatory remarks about Corbin, allegedly intended to encourage the complainant to provide an incriminating statement.[3](Id. at 6.) Defendants French and Holveck allegedly agreed that Defendant Holveck would obtain a statement from the complainant to support Defendant French's arrest of Corbin on domestic disturbance charges, intending to support the additional drug charges, which would otherwise be based solely on the evidence obtained as a result of the allegedly illegal search. (Id.) Corbin alleges that the events surrounding his arrest were recorded on body cameras worn by Defendants French and Holveck, and that the footage establishes that the search was performed without probable cause and exceeded the scope of a “Terry search.” (Id.)
Corbin was arrested and charged with one count of possession with intent to deliver, two counts of possession of a controlled substance, and one count of making terroristic threats. (Id.) Following arraignment, he was detained in the Lehigh County Jail in lieu of $25,000 bail. (Id. at 7.) On October 10, 2019, Corbin posted bail and was released. However, he alleges that, as a result of the October 8, 2019 arrest, his bail in an unrelated matter was revoked by Defendant Dantos.[4] (Id.)
Prior to Corbin's December 4, 2019 preliminary hearing, Defendant Stauffer, the Assistant District Attorney representing the Commonwealth in Corbin's case, withdrew the terroristic threats charge; the drug-related charges were bound over for trial. (Id.) On January 16, 2020, Corbin was formally arraigned. (Id.) The criminal information was signed by Defendant Martin as District Attorney and the presiding judge at the arraignment was Defendant Dantos. (Id.)
Corbin alleges that in the course of his criminal proceedings, he unsuccessfully attempted on numerous occasions to expose the illegal nature of the search that resulted in the charges against him. (Id. at 8.) On March 24, 2020, following a hearing at which footage from the body cameras worn by Defendants Holveck and French were introduced into evidence, Defendant Dantos denied Corbin's motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges against him notwithstanding her knowledge that the footage proved the search to be illegal. (Id.) Similarly, on May 25, 2021, following a hearing at which the footage from the body cameras was again introduced into evidence, Defendant Reichley denied Corbin's motion to suppress evidence and dismiss all charges against him for lack of probable cause notwithstanding his knowledge that the footage proved the search to be illegal. (Id. at 9.) Corbin contends that the footage played at both hearings clearly reflected the illegal nature of the search giving rise to the clams against him, and that the denial of his motions to suppress the resulting evidence and to dismiss the charges against him constituted concealment of the misconduct that occurred as part of a concerted effort by all Defendants to advance and protect their own interests. (Id. at 8, 9.)
Corbin's criminal trial commenced on December 3, 2021. (Id. at 10.) Corbin alleges that during the course of the trial, Defendant Reichley, who presided, insinuated to the jury that he had found the search conducted by Holveck and French to be permissible, thereby strengthening Defendant Stauffer's position, and that Defendant Stauffer intimidated a witness for the defense without reprimand by Defendant Reichley, to Corbin's detriment. (Id.) Corbin was found guilty on all charges. (Id.) On February 14, 2022, Corbin was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 66 to 144 months. (Id. at 11.) Corbin's appeal of his conviction remains pending. See Commonwealth v. Corbin, CP-39-CR-5062-2019 (C.P. Lehigh).
In short, Corbin alleges that all of the named Defendants, individually and in concert, have acted illegally to obtain evidence that resulted in the charges against him, and have further acted to conceal the illegal nature of the search, the resulting inadmissibility of the evidence, and the lack of probable cause supporting the charges upon which he was convicted. As a result, he has been prosecuted, incarcerated, suffered damage to his finances and reputation, and experienced mental anguish and emotional distress. (Id. at 10-11.) Based on the foregoing, Corbin asserts claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on violations of his Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Thirteenth,[5]and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Corbin also alleges violations of several federal statutes, including 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1994.[6] (Compl. at 1.) He also asserts violations of unidentified federal and state criminal statutes,[7]the Pennsylvania Constitution,[8]28 U.S.C. § 453,[9]and the Rules of Professional Conduct governing attorneys and the Pennsylvania Judicial Code of Conduct.[10](Id.) He also includes a claim for malicious prosecution against Defendant Stauffer. (Am. Compl. at 1.)
Corbin requests a preliminary injunction in the form of an award of money and an Order from this Court assist him in obtaining materials from the underlying criminal proceedings, a declaratory judgment as to all suitable matters, and an award of compensatory and punitive damages. (Compl. at 23.) He also requests the criminal prosecution of Defendants French, Holveck, Stauffer, Dantos, and Reichley.[11](Id. at 13, 14, 17, 19, 20.)
Corbin was previously granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and his Complaint, as supplemented by his Amended Complaint are now subject to screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). That provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the Court to dismiss the supplemented Complaint if it fails to state a claim.[12] Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard applicable to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial