Fields v. Blake

• Decision Date: 20 December 2004
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 03-2150.
• Citation: 349 F.Supp.2d 910
• Parties: Patricia A. FIELDS, Plaintiff, v. J.C. BLAKE, Captain; Bernard Schaffer; Horsham Township Police Department; John Clark and Department of the Navy, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

349 F.Supp.2d 910

Patricia A. FIELDS, Plaintiff, v. J.C. BLAKE, Captain; Bernard Schaffer; Horsham Township Police Department; John Clark and Department of the Navy, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 03-2150.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

December 20, 2004.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Patricia A. Fields, Philadelphia, PA, pro se.

Joan K. Garner, U.S. Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, PA, Joseph J. Santarone, Jr., Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Norristown, PA, for Defendants.

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM ORDER

DUBOIS, District Judge.

AND NOW, this 20th day of December, 2004, upon consideration of Federal Defendants'¹ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended and Amended Second Amended Complaint, or in the alternative, for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 41, filed 5/7/04), pro se plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion of 7 May 04 (Doc. No. 45, filed 5/14/04 filed), and the related submissions of the parties, for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum, IT IS ORDERED that Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended and Amended Second Amended Complaint, or in the alternative, for Summary Judgment is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART, as follows:

(1) Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended and Amended Second Amended Complaint is DENIED on the ground that the parties presented evidence beyond the Second Amended Complaint and Amended Second Amended Complaint; and,

(2) Federal Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of the case is AMENDED so as to remove the federal defendants, Captain J.C. Blake and Petty Officer John Clark, as defendants. Because the United States was substituted for the Department of the Navy as a defendant and thereafter pro se plaintiff's claims against the United States were dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff's right to present her claims to an appropriate agency, the Department of the Navy, within 60 days by Order dated January 21, 2004, the caption of the case is further AMENDED so as to remove the Department of the Navy and the United States as defendants.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, with respect to the remaining defendants, a Preliminary Pretrial Conference will be scheduled in due course.

MEMORANDUM

Presently before the Court is Federal Defendants' (Captain J.C. Blake and Petty Officer John Clark)² Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended and Amended Second Amended Complaint, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. As the parties to this action have submitted evidence beyond the complaints, the Court will deny the Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on April 3, 2003, which was denied without prejudice on April 15, 2003. An Amended Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis was filed on May 1, 2003. By Order dated May 8, 2003, the Court granted the Amended Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis but dismissed plaintiff's claims against the defendants named in the original Complaint and the Amended Complaint, the Department of the Navy and Captain Blake in his official capacity, on sovereign immunity grounds.

By Order dated January 21, 2004, plaintiff's Motion to Add Parties was granted, and the Horsham Township Police Department, Sergeant Bernard Schaffer, and Petty Officer John Clark were added as defendants. The Court directed plaintiff to file a second amended complaint against all defendants, which would supercede plaintiff's initial Complaint, Amended Complaint, and her letters to the Court including, but not limited to, the letters of September 18, 2003, November 5, 2003, and January 7, 2004.

In addition, the Court vacated its May 8, 2003 Order dismissing the Department of the Navy and reinstated the Navy as a party to the action on the ground that, although not specifically plead, plaintiff's allegations raised issues under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2674.³ Because the proper defendant in an action under the FTCA is the United States, not the Department of the Navy, the United States was substituted for the Navy as a defendant pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c). The Court then dismissed plaintiff's claims against the United States without prejudice on the ground that plaintiff had not exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2675.

Before deciding the pending motion, the Court issued an Order on November 12, 2004, giving plaintiff a final opportunity to present any additional evidence to the Court on or before December 3, 2004. Plaintiff responded to the Order by letter dated December 13, 2004. Although plaintiff missed the December 3rd deadline, the Court will nevertheless consider all statements contained in plaintiff's December 13, 2004 letter as evidence in deciding this motion. Furthermore, the Court will treat all allegations in the Second Amended Complaint and Amended Second Amended Complaint (hereinafter collectively, "Second Amended Complaints") against Captain Blake and Petty Officer Clark as evidence.

B. Factual History

This action arises out of events that took place on April 17, 2001, when plaintiff, Patricia A. Fields, and her daughter were lodged at the Bachelor's Enlisted Quarters ("BEQ") at the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove, Pennsylvania ("NAS Willow Grove"). On that day, the BEQ manager informed the base legal officer at NAS Willow Grove, Petty Officer John Clark ("Petty Officer Clark"), that plaintiff had an outstanding bill for lodging and dining at the base facilities and a $300 bill which she had not paid from the previous year. According to plaintiff, she had never been to NAS Willow Grove before April 17, 2001, and was a victim of mistaken identity.

After receiving the report of unpaid bills, Petty Officer Clark asked to speak with plaintiff about the matter. Plaintiff went to Petty Officer Clark's office and, according to moving defendants, became agitated and evasive. Plaintiff's behavior led Petty Officer Clark to request a criminal background check on plaintiff from the Horsham Township Police Department. In response, Petty Officer Clark was told by the Horsham Township police that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for plaintiff and that they were en route to arrest her.

The Horsham Township police arrived at NAS Willow Grove, arrested plaintiff, and searched her. During the search and arrest, plaintiff alleges that she was physically and verbally assaulted. After the arrest, Petty Officer Clark briefed Captain J.C. Blake ("Captain Blake"), the Commanding Officer of NAS Willow Grove, on the situation. Captain Blake thereafter signed and distributed a letter to the base administrator and law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction on the base barring plaintiff from NAS Willow Grove.

On February 3rd and February 9th, 2004, Plaintiff submitted the Second Amended Complaints⁴ against the Department of the Navy, Captain Blake, Petty Officer Clark, the Horsham Township Police Department, and Sergeant Bernard Schaffer, head of Criminal Investigations Division of the Horsham Township Police Department, claiming that her civil rights were violated when she was escorted off NAS Willow Grove with a "forged warrant," and allegedly drugged, verbally and physically assaulted, searched, convicted, and imprisoned.⁵

With respect to Captain Blake, Fields alleges that her rights were violated when Captain Blake wrote and distributed a letter to the Horsham Township Police Department and Navy personnel which barred her from reentering the base. Fields also claims that Petty Officer Clark "ran around and [spread] false information" about her and her daughter and involved the Horsham Township Police Department in a "military problem." Plaintiff's allegations with respect to Petty Officer Clark's actions after the Horsham Township police arrived is conflicting. In her Second Amended Complaints, she states that when the police arrived, Petty Officer Clark "vanished." In the submission received by the Court on December 12, 2004, plaintiff states that Petty Officer Clark "stated he witnessed the abusive activity" of the police.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW — SUMMARY JUDGMENT

"[I]f the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law[,]" summary judgment should be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The Supreme Court describes the summary judgment determination as "the threshold inquiry of determining whether there is the need for a trial-whether, in other words, there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Therefore, "a motion for summary judgment must be granted unless the party opposing the motion can adduce evidence which, when considered in light of that party's burden of proof at trial, could be the basis for a jury finding in that party's favor." J.E. Mamiye & Sons, Inc. v. Fidelity Bank, 813 F.2d 610, 618 (3d Cir.1987).

"[O]n summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts ... must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587-88, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (quoting United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962)). The nonmoving party, however, cannot rely merely upon bare assertions, conclusory allegations, or suspicions to support its claim. Fireman's Ins. Co. v. DuFresne, 676 F.2d 965, 969 (3d Cir.1982). When the movant files a properly supported motion...