Genco v. Luffey

• Decision Date: 20 December 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 2:21-cv-01518
• Parties: JAMES A. GENCO, III, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTINE LUFFEY, et al, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

JAMES A. GENCO, III, Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTINE LUFFEY, et al, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-01518

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

December 20, 2022

David S. Cercone Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON MOTION TO DISMISS and MOTION TO STRIKE FILED BY DEFENDANTS MONTMENY, BURKE and HARP

ECF No. 28

LISA PUPO LENIHAN United States Magistrate Judge

I. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth below, it is respectfully recommended that the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint filed by Defendants Montmeny, Burke, and Humane Animal Rescue of Pittsburgh (ECF No. 28) be granted in part and denied in part. The Court recommends that the Motion to Dismiss be granted as to Plaintiff's Pennsylvania common law claims of false imprisonment, conspiracy, and respondeat superior liability against Defendants Montmeny, Burke and HARP set forth respectively in Counts V, VI, and VII, and that those claims be dismissed with prejudice as to these Defendants.

The Court further recommends that the Motion to Dismiss be denied as to Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims and federal conspiracy claims against Defendants Montmeny, Burke and HARP set forth in Counts I, II, III, and IV.

It is further recommended that the HARP Defendants' Motion to Strike (also filed at ECF No. 28), be denied.

1

II. REPORT

A. Factual Allegations and Procedural History

In this civil rights action, Plaintiff, James Genco, has brought claims against Defendants Humane Animal Rescue of Pittsburgh (“HARP”), Megan Montmeny, Camille Burke, and John/Jane Doe(s) (collectively referred to as the “HARP Defendants”), as well as against Defendant Christine Luffey, a City of Pittsburgh Police Officer, for violations of his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment, as well as for violations of Pennsylvania common law.^[1]The events giving rise to this lawsuit and relevant factual allegations are summarized as follows.

Plaintiff was employed by the City of Pittsburgh as an animal care and control officer since in or around 1996. Am. Compl. ¶ 13, ECF No. 22. He does not have a past record of any misconduct or abuse in his employment as an animal care and control officer with the City of Pittsburgh. Id. at ¶14.

On or about March 17, 2021, Plaintiff and his partner Officer John Lapp were notified of two dogs in distress that were left unattended, without food or water, inside a vehicle that was parked in the sun, with the windows up, in the Strip District of Pittsburgh. Id. at ¶ 15. After an unsuccessful attempt to locate the owner(s) of the vehicle and dogs, Plaintiff and Officer Lapp removed the dogs from the car with the assistance of City of Police Officers Francis Rende and Eric Churilla. Id. at ¶¶ 16, 18-19. The smaller dog was calm and removed from the vehicle without any issue, but the larger dog was extremely aggressive when removed from the vehicle. Id. at ¶ 20.

2

Due to its extreme aggression, the larger dog suffered multiple cuts and wounds from the broken glass of the vehicle's window. Id. at ¶ 21. Plaintiff placed the larger dog on a control pole due to its aggression. Id. Concerned for his safety and the safety of the other officers, Officer Rende drew his firearm as a direct result of the larger dog's extreme aggression. Id. at ¶ 22. The extreme aggression of the larger dog observed by Plaintiff and the other officers included growling, biting the control pole, pulling and lunging its body onto the ground and towards Plaintiff and other individuals at the scene. Id. at ¶ 23. Due to the larger dog's extreme aggression, Plaintiff was concerned for his safety and the safety of others while handling the larger dog. Id. at ¶ 24. Plaintiff and Officer Lapp then placed both dogs into their animal control vehicle with difficulty due to the extreme aggression of the larger dog. Id. at ¶ 25. When the larger dog was placed into a cage in the animal control vehicle, it began to bite the metal of the cage, causing multiple sections of the cage to bend and become damaged. Id. at ¶ 26. Also, as a result of the biting of the control pole and cage, the larger dog broke multiple teeth. Id. at ¶ 27.

Thereafter, Plaintiff and Officer Lapp transported the two dogs to HARP's garage area for intake. Id. at ¶ 28. The smaller dog was given to individuals working at HARP without any issues or aggressive behavior. Id. at ¶ 29. However, when Plaintiff removed the larger dog from the animal control vehicle, it lunged at Plaintiff, causing him to fall backwards. Id. at ¶ 30. Plaintiff again restrained the larger dog with a control pole and walked the dog into the facility, during which the dog continued to bite the control pole and display extreme aggression. Id. at ¶ 31. The aggressive and erratic behavior of the larger dog required Plaintiff and approximately three veterinary technicians to restrain the dog once Plaintiff brought it to HARP's exam room. Id. at ¶ 32. At that time, one of HARP's veterinary technicians threw the larger dog behind the

3

exam room door and the dog was muzzled and sedated. Id. at ¶ 33. Plaintiff had no further contact with the larger dog and he left HARP's facility. Id. at ¶34.

Sometime thereafter, Defendants Montmeny, Burke and/or Doe(s), in their capacity as employees of HARP, contacted Plaintiff's employer and reported that Plaintiff abused the larger dog while at HARP's facility on March 17, 2021. Id. at ¶ 35. Plaintiff alleges that the accusation of animal cruelty made by Defendants Montmeny, Burke and/or Doe(s) is patently false and defamatory. Id. at ¶¶ 35-36. Plaintiff further alleges that these Defendants knew or should have known that the accusation of animal cruelty lodged against Plaintiff was false and therefore made with the intent to harm him. Id. at ¶ 37. On or about April 1, 2021, Plaintiff was placed on leave by the City of Pittsburgh after it received the accusation of animal abuse made by Defendants Montmeny, Burke and Doe(s). Id.at ¶ 38.

In addition, Defendants Montmeny, Burke and/or Doe(s), in their capacity as employees of HARP, contacted the Pittsburgh Police Department and reported that Plaintiff abused the larger dog while at HARP's facility on March 17, 2021. Id. at ¶39. Plaintiff alleges that this accusation of animal cruelty made by Defendants Montmeny, Burke and/or Doe(s) is patently false. Id.

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Luffey knew or should have known that the accusation of animal cruelty lodged against him was false. Id. at ¶ 40. Defendants Montmeny, Burke and/or Doe(s) provided HARP's security camera footage to Defendant Luffey which showed Plaintiff's interactions with the dog at HARP's facility. Id. at ¶ 41. Plaintiff avers that this security footage did not show any evidence that Plaintiff was abusive toward the dog at any time. Id. at ¶ 42. In addition, Plaintiff and Officers Lapp, Rende, and Churilla provided statements to Defendant Luffey and/or other individuals involved in Luffey's investigation to the

4

effect that Planitiff did not abuse the dog at any time and that the dog's injuries were selfinflicted and a result of its extreme aggression and erratic behavior. Id. at ¶¶ 44-46. At that time, Officer Rende informed Defendant Luffey that when he encountered the dog, he feared for his safety and that of the other individuals present and as a result of the dog's aggression, he drew his firearm. Id. at ¶ 47.

On or about June 10, 2021, Defendant Luffey charged and arrested Plaintiff on a felony grade charge of aggravated cruelty to animals, a misdemeanor charge of cruelty to animals, and summary offense of cruelty to animals. Id. at ¶ 48. Defendant Luffey failed to include exculpatory evidence in her affidavit of probable cause including, but not limited to, statements from Plaintiff and Officers Lapp, Rende, and Churilla. Id. at ¶ 51. At the time of Plaintiff's arrest, Defendant Luffey possessed security camera footage which showed that probable cause did not exist for charging Plaintiff with the above mentioned animal cruelty crimes. Id. at ¶ 52. Defendant Luffey also included false information in her affidavit of probable cause including, but not limited to, falsely stating that the Plaintiff dragged the dog twenty-five to thirty feet and attributing an already existing tail injury to Plaintiff's alleged behavior. Id. at ¶ 53.

Moreover, Defendant Luffey specializes in animal abuse and neglect cases and therefore she knew or should have known that no probable cause existed to charge Plaintiff with the above-mentioned criminal charges. Id. at ¶54. Plaintiff was detained for approximately twenty-two hours in the Allegheny County Jail without any justification. Id. at ¶ 55. On September 21, 2021, all charges against the Plaintiff were dismissed at his preliminary hearing. Id. at ¶ 58.

In the past, Plaintiff reported concerns about HARP's facility regarding issues with HARP's garage and other matters to his supervisor and took pictures of HARP's garage illustrating his concerns at the request of his supervisor. Id. at ¶ 61. Defendant Luffey has a

5

close working and/or personal relationship with HARP and individuals associated with HARP. Id. at ¶ 59. As such, Plaintiff believes that Defendant Luffey and Defendants Montmeny, Burke and/or Doe(s), in their capacity as employees and/or representatives of HARP, conspired to unlawfully arrest, detain and prosecute Plaintiff, without any probable cause, in order to retaliate against him for his reports against HARP. Id. at ¶ 62.

On or about June 11, 2021, Plaintiff was suspended and eventually terminated from his position as animal care and control officer by the City of Pittsburgh. Id. at ¶¶ 56-57. Consequently, Plaintiff was required to withdraw his pension and has suffered and continues to suffer from extreme emotional distress and sleepless nights. Id. at ¶¶66-67.

Plaintiff filed this civil rights lawsuit on October 25, 2021 against the Defendants alleging...