Deforte v. Borough of Worthington, 2:16-cv-00067
| Decision Date | 06 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | 2:16-cv-00067 |
| Parties | WILLIAM DeFORTE, Plaintiff, v. THE BOROUGH OF WORTHINGTON, KEVIN FEENEY, Individually and as Mayor of the Borough of Worthington; and GERALD RODGERS, Individually and as a police officer of the Borough of Worthington, Jointly and Severally, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
OPINION
In this civil action, Plaintiff William DeForte ("Plaintiff"), a former police officer for the Borough of Worthington, has sued the Borough, Mayor Kevin Feeney, and former fellow police officer Gerald Rodgers for alleged wrongdoing in connection with his prosecution for alleged criminal offenses. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367.
Presently pending for the Court's consideration are the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Complaint (ECF Nos. 11 and 12) and Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the Complaint (ECF No. 21). For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motions will be granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiff's motion to amend the Complaint will be denied.
On July 23, 2009, Plaintiff was hired as a police officer for Worthington Borough, Pennsylvania (hereafter, the "Borough" or "Worthington Borough"). (Compl. ¶8, ECF No. 1.) He was promoted to the position of Assistant Chief of Police in 2009 and was made Chief of Police on March 9, 2010. (Id. ¶¶ 9-10.)
During the course of his tenure with the Borough, Plaintiff often "clashed" with fellow police officer Gerald Rodgers ("Rodgers"), Borough Mayor Kevin Feeney ("Feeney"), and Borough Councilman and Constable Barry Rosen ("Rosen"). (Compl. ¶¶16, 21.) One source of conflict concerned Plaintiff's opposition to Feeney's and Rosen's practice of instructing officers that they had to cover the costs of their salaries and police vehicles by writing tickets and collecting fines. (Id. ¶¶18-19.) Another source of conflict concerned Plaintiff's investigation into Feeney's suspected involvement in the theft of radios that had allegedly been stolen from the Borough's fire hall. (Id. ¶17.) A third source involved Plaintiff's assessment that Rosen had unlawfully used police powers while acting in his capacity as Borough Constable. (Id. ¶¶21-24.) A fourth source involved Rodgers' operation of a logging truck in connection with his private logging business on roads in another township that he was not bonded to use. (Id. ¶¶25-26.)
On September 20, 2011, Feeney signed documentation guaranteeing that any money or equipment donated by officers to the Borough's police department could be retained by the officers as their personal property. (Compl. ¶55.) In reliance on the terms of this document, Plaintiff and fellow officer Evan Townsend ("Townsend") brought furniture, pictures, a television, and various other items to the police department. (Id. ¶56.) They also personally funded the acquisition of five (5) Sig Sauer 556 rifles and a handgun. (Id.) Feeney laterpermitted Plaintiff to exchange one of the Sig Sauer 556 rifles for a rifle of Plaintiff's choosing through a firearms dealer (id. ¶84), and he signed an authorization form acknowledging that Plaintiff could put the new rifle in his own (Plaintiff's) name. (Id. ¶¶85, 86.)
During times relevant to this litigation, Plaintiff also used an AR-15 style rifle (hereafter, "Rifle A") for training purposes, which was built mostly from parts that Plaintiff personally owned. (Compl. ¶30.) Specifically, the upper assembly of Rifle A was purchased and owned by Plaintiff, while the lower assembly was owned by the Worthington Borough police department, having been purchased with police equipment grant funds. (Id. ¶¶30-33.) The lower assembly of Rifle A could not fire or otherwise function as an operational rifle without the upper assembly. (Id. ¶¶36-37.)
Plaintiff also owned a second rifle, an MSAR STG-556 (the "STG-556"), which he used in 2010 and 2011 in connection with his duties as Worthington Borough Police Chief. (Compl. ¶¶40, 43.) At some point prior to April 23, 2011, Rodgers expressed interest in purchasing the STG-556 from Plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 41, 45.) Plaintiff agreed to sell Rodgers the STG-556 for $1,200.00 with the understanding that the sale would take place after Plaintiff became qualified to use Rifle A in lieu of the STG-556. (Id. ¶¶ 42-43.) On or around April 23, 2011, Rodgers ordered an optic sight for the STG-556, which he intended to have installed on the rifle. (Id. ¶45.) Plaintiff subsequently took possession of the optic sight so that he could have it installed and properly aligned prior to transferring the STG-556 to Rodgers. (Id. ¶48.) In mid-May 2011, Plaintiff "zeroed in" the STG-556 with the optic sight. (Id. ¶49.) At that point, the rifle was in perfect functional condition. (Id. ¶50.)
In June of 2011, after qualifying to use Rifle A as his service rifle, Plaintiff transferred the STG-556 to Rodgers. (Compl. ¶¶ 51-52.) In exchange, Rodgers gave Plaintiff a check for $500 and promised to pay the remaining $700 balance. (Id. ¶¶53-54.)
Nearly one year later, in May of 2012, Officer Rodgers expressed to Plaintiff his interest in trading the STG-556 for Rifle A. (Compl. ¶¶57-58.) Plaintiff reminded Rodgers that he still owed a $700 balance for the STG-556. (Id. ¶59.) Plaintiff also advised Rodgers that Feeney would need to approve the transfer of Rife A's lower assembly, since that part of the rifle was owned by the Worthington Borough police department. (Id. ¶60.)
A few days later, Plaintiff spoke with Feeney about Rodger's request. Feeney remarked that Rodgers was a "top producer" in terms of issuing citations and tickets, and he ordered Plaintiff to transfer the lower assembly of Rifle A to Rodgers in order to keep Rodgers happy. (Compl. ¶¶61-65, 67.) Plaintiff subsequently informed Rodgers about his conversation with Feeney and told Rodgers that he did not want the STG-556, but another county official, "Constable Bracken," did. (Id. ¶¶68-69.)
On May 31, 2012, in the presence of Plaintiff and another Borough officer, Feeney signed paperwork approving the transfer of the lower assembly of Rifle A to Rodgers. (Compl. ¶¶70-72.) In reliance on this written authorization, Plaintiff agreed to transfer possession of the Rifle A to Rodgers. (Id. ¶76.) On or about that same day, Constable Bracken took possession of the STG-556. (Id. ¶73.) Upon transferring Rifle A to Rodgers, Plaintiff informed Rodgers that he would have to pay an extra $500 for the "Trijicon optic sight" that was installed on the weapon. (Id. ¶77.) Although Rodgers agreed to do so, he never made this additional payment, nor did he ever pay the $700 balance for the STG-556. (Id. ¶¶ 78, 54.)
At some point during the summer of 2012, Plaintiff discovered that Feeney had used thousands of dollars of police grant money to fund the repair and replacement of the traffic control light system on U.S. Route 422. (Compl. ¶¶89-92.) Plaintiff discussed the matter with Borough Secretary David Conoran, who remarked that many surreptitious practices happened in the Borough all the time. (Id. ¶92.) Following this conversation, Plaintiff opened an investigation into Feeney's suspected misuse of the police grant money. (Id. ¶93.)
Later that summer, the Borough's police department initiated an undercover prostitution sting operation, which resulted in several arrests. (Compl. ¶¶94-95.) The money confiscated from each arrest was placed into an individual evidence envelope, logged according to the arrest record, and placed in the police department's evidence locker. (Id. ¶96.) Once a case was disposed of in court, the corresponding cash envelop was no longer considered evidence; at that point it was transferred from the evidence locker to the gun safe until the money could be returned or recovered through forfeiture proceedings. (Id. ¶97.) Envelopes with cash corresponding to open criminal cases were stored in the evidence locker. (Id. ¶98.)
On October 24, 2012, matters came to a head when Plaintiff confronted Feeney regarding his suspected involvement in the theft of radios from the Borough's fire hall. (Compl. ¶99.) Feeney allegedly acknowledged taking the radios and inquired whether Plaintiff was investigating him. (Id. ¶100.) In the course of this conversation, Plaintiff referenced Feeney's practice of imposing citation quotas and also questioned Feeney about his use of police grant funds to purchase traffic control lights. (Id. ¶¶101-102.)
Two days later, on October 26, 2012, Plaintiff received word that the police department's computers and hard drives were missing. (Compl. ¶¶103-104.) Plaintiff went to the police department and confirmed the items were missing, along with all criminal investigation filesconcerning Feeney and the firearms transfer records that Feeney had signed. (Id. ¶¶105-107.) All of the missing items were taken either from Plaintiff's private desk, without his permission, or from a locked cabinet. (Id. ¶108.)
That evening, Feeney confronted Plaintiff in the Borough Council's room, screaming and appearing as though he might physically attack Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶¶ 110, 112-113.) Feeney acknowledged that he had the missing firearm transfer documents and stated that he was going to turn Plaintiff in to the ATF, suggesting that, without documentation of Feeney's approval of the firearm transfers, Plaintiff would be facing legal trouble. (Id. ¶114.) Feeney then instructed Plaintiff to collect his belongings from the police department and leave. (Id. ¶115.) Plaintiff complied with this directive and removed all of his personal belongings from the department office. (Id. ¶116.)
At this point Evan Townsend, another Worthington Borough police officer, feared that Feeney would terminate him as well, because Townsend had initiated the investigation into Feeney's suspected theft of the radios. (Compl. ¶¶117-118.) Townsend therefore made...
To continue reading
Request your trial