Garcia v. Wind Creek Bethlehem, LLC
| Decision Date | 12 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 5:22-cv-00292 |
| Parties | MIGUEL GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. WIND CREEK BETHLEHEM, LLC,; KENT JENKINS; JOHN DOE SECURITY OFFICERS 1-10; TPR. JOHNNY RODRIGUEZ and COL. ROBERT EVANCHICK, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
MIGUEL GARCIA, Plaintiff,
v.
WIND CREEK BETHLEHEM, LLC,; KENT JENKINS; JOHN DOE SECURITY OFFICERS 1-10; TPR. JOHNNY RODRIGUEZ and COL. ROBERT EVANCHICK, Defendants.
No. 5:22-cv-00292
United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
September 12, 2022
Defendants Rodriguez and Evanchick Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 18 - Granted Defendants Wind Creek Bethlehem and Jenkins Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 19 - Granted
OPINION
JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
This case arose after Plaintiff Miguel Garcia was charged for a theft at the Wind Creek casino (“Wind Creek”) in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The charges were subsequently dropped after it was determined that Garcia was misidentified. Garcia filed suit against several Defendants: Wind Creek; Kent Jenkins, a Wind Creek Surveillance Operator; ten unidentified Wind Creek security officers (“John Doe Security Officers”); Trooper Johnny Rodriguez, a Pennsylvania State Trooper stationed at Wind Creek; and Colonel Robert Evanchick, the Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police. Currently pending are motions to dismiss filed by the named Defendants. For the reasons set forth below, the motions will be granted and all claims against the named Defendants will be dismissed. Because Garcia has failed to allege a sufficient basis for the claims against the John Doe Security Officers, they will be dismissed sua sponte and the case will be closed.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Allegations
The factual allegations, taken from the Amended Complaint, see Am. Compl., ECF No. 16, are as follows:
On October 3, 2020, Miguel Garcia, a Hispanic male of Mexican nationality, entered the Wind Creek casino around midnight “mere moments” after a group of males that “appeared to be Hispanic in nature just like Mr. Garcia.” See id. ¶¶ 2, 54-59, 134. Garcia had waited in line behind these Hispanic males so casino security could verify his identification by checking his driver's license. Id. ¶ 57. Inside the casino, Garcia gambled at a slot machine for approximately three hours using his Wind Creek Rewards Member card. Id. ¶¶ 60-61. During his visit, a casino patron (“victim”), who was playing the slot machines in the same area as Garcia and the other Hispanic males whom Garcia entered behind, had his wallet stolen. Id. ¶¶ 62, 134. Casino Surveillance Operator, Kent Jenkins, along with other unidentified casino security employees, created a report regarding the theft. Id. ¶ 77. Jenkins reported that the POI (person of interest in the theft) left the property after the theft, and that he (Jenkins) tracked the POI back on surveillance to identify him and confirmed the POI's identity to be Garcia. Id. The report also noted that Trooper Rodriguez, a Pennsylvania State Police officer stationed at the Wind Creek, responded to take a report from the victim. Id. ¶¶ 77, 88.
On December 10, 2020, Trooper Rodriguez filed a criminal complaint against Garcia, charging him with theft of property lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake pursuant to 18 Pa. C.S. § 3924. Id. ¶ 71. The criminal complaint stated that casino surveillance was able to identify Garcia by the identification he provided upon entering the casino. Id. ¶ 74. Garcia was not arrested on the charges filed by Trooper Rodriguez, but a preliminary hearing was scheduled for
January 21, 2021. Id. ¶ 104. Garcia did not receive notice of the hearing and failed to appear. Id. ¶¶ 104-107. As a result of his nonappearance, a bench warrant was issued for Garcia's arrest. Id. ¶ 108. Garcia was arrested on the bench warrant on February 14, 2021, by the Bethlehem Police Department. Id. ¶¶ 120-121.
On that date, Garcia, unaware of the pending criminal charges or bench warrant, returned to Wind Creek. Id. ¶ 108. After gambling for twenty minutes, Garcia was confronted by a casino security employee and informed that he had been evicted from the casino for stealing another patron's wallet. Id. ¶¶ 110-112. The security employee showed Garcia a picture of the thief from the surveillance video, to which Garcia told the employee that he had been misidentified. Id. ¶¶ 112-114. Garcia called the Bethlehem Police Department to explain that he had been falsely accused of theft, but the responding officer arrested Garcia on the outstanding bench warrant. Id. ¶¶ 118-121. Garcia was then transported to the Bethlehem Police Department and subsequently transferred to Northampton County Prison, where he was held for three days. Id. ¶¶ 123-125.
On February 16, 2021, the Northampton County District Attorney filed a Nolle Prosequi dropping all charges against Garcia due to the misidentification. Id. ¶¶ 129-131. According to Garcia, the casino video surveillance shows that the person who actually stole the victim's wallet was one of the Hispanic males that entered the casino “mere moments before Mr. Garcia.” Id. ¶ 134. The surveillance video shows that Garcia, the Hispanic Male who stole the wallet, and the victim were all in the slot machine area, but that Garcia was seated separately playing the slots. Id. The video shows the victim depart the slot-machine area, leaving his wallet behind. Id. Garcia alleges that the Hispanic Male who stole the wallet is seen in the video casing the victim's wallet, which was laying on an unoccupied slot-machine chair. Id. The surveillance
video shows the Hispanic Male steal the wallet and depart the area, all while Garcia continued to play his slot machine. Id.
B. Procedural History
On January 22, 2022, Garcia brought suit against Wind Creek, Jenkins, John Doe Security Officers, Trooper Rodriguez, and Colonel Evanchick, alleging that Rodriguez, working in tandem with Jenkins and Wind Creek security officers, fabricated probable cause by alleging that the surveillance video confirmed the identity of the Hispanic male that stole the victim's wallet to be Garcia and, also, failed to properly review the video surveillance. See ECF No. 1. The Complaint raised claims: (1) against all Defendants for lost wages and for violations of the Fourth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 related to false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and conspiracy, as well as for violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, and 1985 for discrimination; (2) against Colonel Evanchick for a violation of the Fourth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to supervise and train; (3) against Trooper Rodriguez for a violation of the Fourth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 related to discrimination; (4) against Wind Creek for respondeat superior and negligent failure to train; and (5) against Jenkins, Wind Creek, and John Doe Security Officers for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) under Pennsylvania law. See id. Trooper Rodriguez and Colonel Evanchick filed a motion to dismiss,[1]
as did Jenkins and Wind Creek.[2] See ECF Nos. 10, 12-14. In response, Garcia filed an Amended Complaint on March 30, 2022. See Am. Compl.
The Amended Complaint, which is based on essentially the same facts as the original Complaint, includes all the original counts but not as to all Defendants, and includes three additional state law claims. Specifically, Counts I, II, and III of the Amended Complaint allege violations of the Fourth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Trooper Rodriguez, Jenkins, and John Doe Security Officers for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 159-186. Count IV alleges a conspiracy between Trooper Rodriguez, Jenkins, and John Doe Security Officers to violate Garcia's Fourth Amendment rights under § 1983. Id. ¶¶ 187-193. Counts V and VI allege violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982 for discrimination on the basis of race, color, and/or national origin against Trooper Rodriguez, Jenkins, and John Doe Security Officers. Id. ¶¶ 194-218. Count VII alleges a conspiracy between Trooper Rodriguez, Jenkins, and John Doe Security Officers to intentionally discriminate against Garcia under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Id. ¶¶ 187-193, 216-224. Count VIII alleges a § 1983 claim against Trooper Rodriguez for discrimination on the basis of race, color, and/or national origin. Id. ¶¶ 225-232. Count IX is a claim under § 1983 for failure to train or supervise against Colonel Evanchick for not implementing annual anti-bias training for state troopers, despite recommendations from the State Law Enforcement Citizens Advisory Commission, which was formed by the governor. Id. ¶¶ 35, 223-241. Counts X and XI against Wind Creek allege liability via respondeat superior and negligence for failure to train its employees, respectively. Id. ¶¶ 242-257. Count XII alleges a claim for IIED under Pennsylvania law against
Jenkins, John Doe Security Officers, and Wind Creek. Id. ¶¶ 258-268. Counts XIII, XIV, and XV against Trooper Rodriguez, Jenkins, and John Doe Security Officers bring claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution under Pennsylvania state law, such claims were not in the original Complaint. Id. ¶¶ 269-283. Finally, Count XVI alleges a claim for lost wages against all Defendants. Id. ¶¶ 284-285.
On April 8, 2022, Trooper Rodriguez and Colonel Evanchick filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. See Police Mot., ECF No. 18. In this motion, Trooper Rodriguez and Colonel Evanchick reassert each of the arguments from their motion to dismiss the Complaint, and present two additional arguments: that the policy claims against Colonel Evanchick should be dismissed for lack of factual support and that the state-law claims are barred by sovereign immunity. See id. On April 13, 2022, Jenkins and Wind Creek filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, asserting that it should be dismissed for the same reasons as the Complaint and asserting the following additional arguments: the allegations are insufficient to state any claim under Pennsylvania law and the allegations do not show the existence of...
To continue reading
Request your trial