Deemer v. City of Oil City

• Decision Date: 24 September 2021
• Docket Number: C. A. 1:19-CV-380
• Citation: Deemer v. City of Oil City, C. A. 1:19-CV-380 (W.D. Pa. Sep 24, 2021)
• Parties: JAMES M. DEEMER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF OIL CITY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

JAMES M. DEEMER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF OIL CITY, et al., Defendants.

C. A. No. 1:19-CV-380

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

September 24, 2021

RE Motion to dismiss [17]

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. District Judge.

Introduction

Plaintiff James M. Deemer filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging violations of his civil rights. ECF No. 1. Deemer alleges that his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments were violated. Id., ¶ 2. Pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) by Defendants City of Oil City, Oil City Police Department, Officer Tim Karns Officer Thomas Lawton, and Police Chief Robert Wenner (collectively, “Defendants”). Deemer filed a Response in Opposition to the motion (ECF No. 38). The matter is fully briefed and is ripe for disposition.

Standard of Review

The standard governing the Court's resolution of a motion to dismiss is well known. See, e.g., Larson Texts, Inc. v O'Neil, 2020 WL 5203617 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 1, 2020). Rule 12(b)(6) recognizes a defense based on the Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. at *4. When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion courts “accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.” Wayne Land & Mineral Grp. LLC v. Delaware River Basin Comm'n, 894 F.3d 509, 526-27 (3d Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In order to survive dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “As a general matter, a district court ruling on a motion to dismiss may not consider matters extraneous to the pleadings.” In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997). “However an exception to the general rule is that a document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint may be considered without converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment.” Id. (quotation marks and alterations omitted).

With this standard in mind, the Court now turns the factual allegations and claims as pleaded in Deemer's Complaint.

Background and Factual Allegations

Accepting the factual allegations of the Complaint as true, the foundation of Mr. Deemer's claims are based on an incident that took place on New Year's Day, 2018, the day he was arrested. ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 10-11. In the early morning hours that day, Mr. Deemer was awakened by his doorbell ringing. Id., ¶ 13. When he answered the door, no one was there. Id., ¶ 14. Mr. Deemer was not concerned, however, believing the interruption to the shenanigans of neighborhood children or an attempted visit from a friend. Id., ¶ 14. Mr. Deemer sat on his porch for a few moments and then started to walk up Wyllis Street, intending to visit that same friend who lived nearby. Id., ¶ 15. As he was walking on Wyllis Street, a car approached from the opposite direction and Mr. Deemer stepped onto the sidewalk to avoid the vehicle. Id., ¶ 16. The car passed him, but stopped and the driver exited the vehicle. Id. ¶ 17. The driver, identified in the Complaint as Kenneth Lowrie, then proceeded to confront Mr. Deemer. Id. Mr. Deemer remained silent while the car's passenger, one Jordan Ritchie, exited the vehicle and also confronted the Plaintiff. Id., ¶ 21. The driver then went to a nearby residence (322 Wyllis Street) and began “pounding wildly on the door.” Id., ¶ 22. Mr. Deemer was acquainted with the occupants of that residence-Kait O'Brien, her boyfriend Scotty Peterson, and O'Brien's small children. Id., ¶¶ 23-24.

According to the Complaint, Peterson had invited the vehicle's occupants to the address to fight another man who had gone out with O'Brien that evening. Id., ¶ 25. This other man had an “identical” physical resemblance to Mr. Deemer. Id., ¶ 26.

Mr. Deemer alleges that out of concern for Peterson and the other residents of the home, he inquired several times whether they “were going to be okay.” Id., ¶¶ 31-32. But Peterson responded angrily and told Mr. Deemer to leave. Id., ¶ 32. When Mr. Deemer attempted to leave the scene, walking toward West 4^th Street, he was placed in a chokehold by Ritchie and subsequently attacked by all three men. Id., ¶¶ 40-43. Mr. Deemer began to black out and feared for his life. Id., ¶¶ 44-45.

Mr. Deemer's wife, Lisa, arrived on the scene and announced that she was calling the police. Id., ¶ 48. Things then went from bad to worse when Mr. Deemer, who had managed to break free, grabbed a gun he was carrying in his pocket. Id., ¶ 50. Peterson then attempted to wrestle the gun from his hands. Mr. Deemer overpowered Peterson, and then “chambered a bullet in his gun and kept it pointed toward the ground.” Id., ¶ 52.

Patrolman Larry Drake soon arrived and Mr. Deemer told him that he was carrying a gun. Id., ¶ 57. Next to arrive on the scene was Defendant Officer Karns, who questioned Lowrie and Peterson. Id., ¶ 58. Defendant Karns then turned his attention to Mr. Deemer, telling the Plaintiff to “sit down, ” that his “policing of the neighborhood was over” and that he should “stop whispering.” Id., ¶ 61. Defendant Karns then prepared an investigatory report, the accuracy of which Mr. Deemer challenges in several respects. See id., ¶¶ 64-103. Based on the findings contained in Karns' report, Mr. Deemer was arrested and jailed. Id., ¶¶ 104, 106. He remained in custody for two days, which he alleges interfered with his recovery from undisclosed injuries. Id., ¶ 107.

Mr. Deemer was charged with seven offenses: aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, simple assault, criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, public drunkenness, and making terroristic threats. Id., ¶ 110(a)-(g). The other individuals involved in the January 1^stincident were not arrested. Id., ¶ 112. Mr. Deemer additionally alleges that, subsequent to his arrest, he was subjected to unfavorable media coverage and continued harassment from members of the Defendant Oil City Police Department. Id., ¶ 115-116. The charges against him were dropped and ultimately expunged from his record. Id., ¶ 130. Mr. Deemer alleges that this incident caused him physical and emotional damages in the form of embarrassment, humiliation, alienation from his neighbors, depression, and pecuniary loss stemming from the cancelation of a pre-planned vacation to the Bahamas. Id., ¶¶ 122-131.

Mr. Deemer filed his Complaint on December 19, 2019. ECF No. 1. He raises six counts: unlawful seizure (Count I), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count II), supervisory liability (Count III), inadequate training or supervision (Count IV), inadequate screening (Count V) and loss of consortium (Count VI). He seeks monetary damages in excess of $75, 000.00, as well as attorney's fees.

Discussion and Analysis

Mr. Deemer's Complaint brings claims under both federal and state law. Before turning to the Defendants' arguments in favor of dismissal of those claims on the merits, they contend that the Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety as a sanction based on Mr. Deemer's alleged destruction of evidence. The Court will address that contention first.

Destruction of Evidence

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The Court will begin its analysis of the motion, however with Defendants' argument that Mr. Deemer's Complaint should be dismissed as a sanction because he had his record expunged, which resulted in the destruction of all evidence related to the underlying dispute by the Venango County District Attorney's Office. See ECF No. 18, p. 6. Defendants fault Deemer for using “the state criminal court to obtain an order which directed Defendants to destroy all the evidence in the case.” Id., p. 8.

This argument presents the Court with a legal conundrum. On the one hand, in order to bring a § 1983 case related to an alleged unlawful arrest, the plaintiff must establish that “the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid ...”. Shears v. Clem-Johnston, 2021 WL 3549333, at *5 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2021) quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Thus, in order to bring his civil rights case based on his allegedly unconstitutional arrest, Mr. Deemer must first have had his arrest record expunged. However, the expungement of criminal records can involve the destruction of any evidence relating to the now defunct charge. This, of course, makes it difficult for Defendants to defend themselves against Mr. Deemer's claims. Upon closer inspection, however, Defendants' argument is disingenuous.

First, the Court rejects the Defendants' request to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint as a sanction. Mr. Deemer cannot be punished for pursuing the expungement of his criminal record, which he must do in order to bring a civil rights claim. See Heck, supra.

Second in arguing Mr. Deemer's actions in having his criminal record expunged resulted in the destruction of evidence that might assist Defendants in this case, they raise an evidentiary issue more suited for later resolution, in the event Mr. Deemer's claims survive the motion to dismiss. At this stage of the litigation, Defendants have made no formal requests for discovery. It would be not only premature, but excessively harsh, to dismiss a case on this basis before discovery can demonstrate the significance, if any, of the potential loss. See, e.g., PositranMfg., Inc....