Garland v. Gardner, 20-cv-1823
| Decision Date | 10 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 20-cv-1823,20-cv-1823 |
| Parties | KENDALL GARLAND, Plaintiff, v. DAGE GARDNER, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Currently before the Court is a Complaint filed by plaintiff Kendall Garland, proceeding pro se, raising constitutional claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on time he spent incarcerated in connection with probation violations in 2014 and 2017. Garland seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court will grant Garland leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his Complaint with prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), as barred by res judicata.
Garland's Complaint names the following Defendants in their individual capacities: (1) Dage Gardner, identified as a Probation Officer; (2) Michael Hernandez, identified as a Supervisory Probation Officer; (3) David Knorr, identified as a Probation Officer; (4) Caitlyn McLaughlin, identified as a Supervisory Probation Officer; and (5) the City of Philadelphia. Hechallenges the constitutionality of a 2014 arrest for a probation violation that led to his incarceration, and two arrests in 2017 based on subsequent probation violations, which also led to his incarceration.
Garland was convicted of various criminal offenses in 2002, in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, and sentenced to a term of probation. (Compl. ECF No. 2 at 6.)2 In 2014, during Garland's term of probation, he was told by Officer Gardner, who was his probation officer at the time, that he would be required to take a polygraph examination in connection with his treatment program. (Id. at 7.) Garland took the polygraph and, although he was informed of "issues" with the test, the treatment facilitator allegedly informed him that he would not be discharged from the program on that basis. (Id.)
The next day, on May 6, 2014, Officer Gardner arrested Garland for violating his probation based on a failure to register an email address and because Garland was discharged from his treatment program. (Id.) Garland alleges that neither of these violations occurred. (Id.) Nevertheless, after a hearing, the state court revoked Garland's probation and sentenced him to a one to two-year term of incarceration to be followed by a four-year term of probation (the "revocation sentence"). (Id.) Garland was incarcerated and released in January 2016. (Id.)
In February 2017, a probation detainer was lodged against Garland in connection with an alleged probation violation that was ultimately withdrawn, leading to his release in June 2017. (Id. at 8.) In August 2017, Officer Knorr arrested and incarcerated Garland based on alleged technical violations of the terms of his probation. (Id.) Garland was released in December 2017. (Id.) According to the Complaint, the state court concluded that the conditions Garland allegedlyviolated were unreasonable and released him on that basis. (Id.); see also Garland v. Knorr, E.D. Pa. Civ. A. No. 19-2996 (ECF No. 16 at 6).
Garland filed several petitions for post-conviction relief in state court challenging the 2014 revocation of his probation, his revocation sentence, and his August 2017 detention. (Compl. ECF No. 2 at 8.) On April 6, 2018, the state court vacated Garland's revocation sentence and terminated his probation. (Id.) It appears the state court's decision was based on Garland's argument in a post-conviction petition that the dictates of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, the impetus for the 2014 violations, could not be applied retroactively to Garland. (Id. at 39-43.)
Garland asserts several constitutional challenges to his 2014 arrest, the probation violation and sentence, and incarceration, as well as his 2017 arrests and incarcerations.3 (Id. at 6 & 9.) Garland primarily brings claims for damages under § 1983 "for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, false arrest and imprisonment, emotional injury and distress, and for substantive and procedural due process violations" of the federal and Pennsylvania Constitutions.4 (Id. at 6.) The individual Defendants appear to be named based on their roles in Garland's arrests and related proceedings in 2014 and 2017. Garland alleges that prosecutors from the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office failed to ensure the charges against him werevalid, the City of Philadelphia "did not provide [him] with effective representation in 2014" and that the City "has shown a culture of systemic Constitutional violations . . . and has shown a culture of civil rights violations." (Id. at 8-9.) He seeks millions of dollars in damages. (Id. at 9.)
This is not the first lawsuit Garland has filed about the events underlying his claims. Rather, he has been active in the state and federal courts pursing claims against the named Defendants and others based on matters related to his 2014 and 2017 probation violations and related incarcerations.
In 2016, Garland filed a civil action against Officer Gardner and others based on the revocation of his probation in 2014. Garland alleged that the defendants violated his privilege against self-incrimination by forcing him to submit to a polygraph examination in connection with a treatment program he was participating in as a term of his probation, and by introducing the results of that examination at his 2014 revocation hearing. Garland v. Joseph J. Peters Inst. (JJPI), Civ. A. No. 16-527, 2017 WL 1196639, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2017). The Court dismissed the case in its entirety after concluding that: (1) Garland's claims were not cognizable because they would necessarily imply the invalidity of his probation revocation and sentence; (2) Garland failed to allege a plausible claim for violation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination; and (3) to the extent he was pursuing a substantive due process claim, the claim was not plausible. Id. at *3-*5. However, the dismissal was without prejudice to Garland reasserting his claims in the event his probation revocation was invalidated in the future. Id. at *5.
In July 2018, after his revocation sentence was vacated, Garland filed a lawsuit in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas (the "Common Pleas Action"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Pennsylvania law, against Officers Gardner and Knorr, an unknown officer, the City of Philadelphia, and Benjamin Mallow, who is also a probation officer. Garland v. Gardner, No. 2433 EDA 2018, 2019 WL 517687, at *1 (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 11, 2019). Garland asserted several claims for damages, including malicious prosecution, false arrest and imprisonment, and abuse of process related to his 2014 probation violation and revocation sentence, his related imprisonment, and his subsequent arrests and imprisonments in 2017. Id. at *2 & Attachment ( that Garland's damages claims stemmed "from improper initiation of revocation proceedings, improper sentencing of [Garland], and revocation of [Garland's] probation sentence in 2014; and also for [Garland's] unjustified and unlawful arrest for an alleged violation of probation in August, 2017 by Agent Knorr where there was no basis whatsoever for [Garland's] arrest and detention, and where also Agent Knorr arrested [Garland] in retaliation . . ."). He also pursued due process claims, a retaliation claim based on allegations that the August 2017 arrest was motivated by his success on the prior probation violation, and an Ex Post Facto claim. Id. Garland alleged that the City maintained a culture of indifference to its citizens' civil rights. Id. at Attachment.
The Court of Common Pleas dismissed Garland's complaint pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 240(j), which provides for the dismissal of a frivolous complaint at the outset of the case when the plaintiff has moved to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. at *1. Garland appealed, and the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the dismissal of his claims. Id.
After losing in state court, Garland filed a civil action against the City of Philadelphia, an unknown police officer for the City, and Officer Mallow, who was apparently responsible for having informed the Pennsylvania State Police in 2017 that Garland was in violation of his probation for failure to update his address. Garland v. Bonds, Civ. A. No. 19-1874, 2020 WL 2126330, at *1 (E.D. Pa. May 5, 2020). Garland essentially asserted claims pursuant to § 1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and violation of his due process rights based on his arrest for violating his probation and his related detention in connection with the probation detainer lodged against him in February 2017. Id. at *5-*6.
After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment and the Court granted their motions. Id. at *1. In an opinion filed after Garland initiated the instant lawsuit, the Court concluded that probable cause existed for Garland's arrest and related imprisonment, which was fatal to his Fourth Amendment claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. Id. at *6 ; see also id. at *8 (). Garland's remaining claims under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments also failed. Id. at *9-*10.
Two months after filing his Complaint based on matters related to the February 2017 probation...
To continue reading
Request your trial