Heyward v. City of Phila.
| Decision Date | 23 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-530 |
| Citation | 509 F.Supp.3d 303 |
| Parties | Joseph HEYWARD v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Joseph Heyward, Marienville, PA, pro se.
Shannon G. Zabel, City of Philadelphia Law Dept., Philadelphia, PA, for City of Philadelphia.
Andrew Pomager, Shannon G. Zabel, City of Philadelphia Law Department, Philadelphia, PA, for Homicide Det. John Harkins, Officer John Taggart.
Long-incarcerated citizen Joseph Heyward pro se sues the City of Philadelphia and two of its police officers claiming they lost a key piece of evidence at an unpleaded time depriving him of the ability to demonstrate his actual innocence of murder and arson convictions through DNA testing of a cigarette lighter used in a 2001 arson killing one person and injuring six others. He allegedly confessed. He pleaded guilty to murder and arson in 2003. He exhausted direct appeals of his guilty plea and lost two rounds of post-conviction relief act petitions in state court. Fifteen years later, he moved the state court to forensically test the DNA on a cigarette lighter used in the arson under an amended Pennsylvania statute. A year later, Philadelphia Police admitted it lost the lighter but do not tell us when. The Pennsylvania Post-Conviction Relief Act court then denied his third petition for post-conviction relief resting on his claim of the lost lighter. Mr. Heyward now sues the City and two of its investigating officers from 2001 arguing their loss of the cigarette lighter violated his procedural due process and equal protection rights to have this inculpatory evidence tested to show his DNA is not on the lighter and thus be able to show his actual innocence warranting his release. The City and its officers move to dismiss. We grant the motion to dismiss the City for supervisory liability and his equal protection claims as not pleaded. We will proceed into discovery on Mr. Heyward's procedural due process claim. The officers are incorrect as to the procedural due process right to DNA test evidence even years after a guilty plea. We are also unable to find the officers are today entitled to qualified immunity since the Supreme Court set clearly established law mandating preservation of evidence, and Pennsylvania regulations and Police Department directives confirmed this preservation obligation during the time the officers may have lost the evidence.
A Philadelphia house fire in October 2001 killed one person and injured six others including a Philadelphia fireman.2 The Philadelphia Fire Department determined arson as the cause of the fire after finding liquid accelerant and a cigarette lighter on the first floor of the house.3 Philadelphia Police Detective John Harkins and Officer John Taggart investigated the fire. Detective Harkins interviewed witnesses who reported seeing Mr. Heyward flicking a lighted cigarette toward the house before leaving the area.4 Mr. Heyward initially admitted "[f]loor debris, carpeting and a cigarette lighter were recovered and submitted for analysis that very same night."5 He does not tell us what type of analysis the police conducted on these items.
Police obtained a warrant for Mr. Heyward's arrest and, while being questioned by police, Mr. Heyward confessed to Detective Harkins, including to using a cigarette lighter to start the fire.6 On May 7, 2003, Mr. Heyward pleaded guilty in state court to murder, arson, risking a catastrophe, and aggravated assault.7 Following his guilty plea, the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas convicted him of second degree murder, arson, and six counts of aggravated assault.8 The state court sentenced Mr. Heyward to life imprisonment without parole.
Pennsylvania's post-conviction DNA testing statute.
The Pennsylvania General Assembly made Pennsylvania's post-conviction DNA testing statute effective on September 9, 2002. The General Assembly provided, among other things, "[a]n individual convicted of a criminal offense in a court of this Commonwealth and serving a term of imprisonment ... may apply by making a written motion to the sentencing court for the performance of forensic DNA testing on specific evidence that is related to the investigation or prosecution that resulted in the judgment of conviction."9
The evidence to be DNA tested "may have been discovered either prior to or after the applicant's conviction" and the General Assembly provided "evidence shall be available for testing as of the date of the motion."10 The General Assembly further provided: "If the evidence was discovered prior to the applicant's conviction, the evidence shall not have been subject to the DNA testing requested because the technology for testing was not in existence at the time of the trial or the applicant's counsel did not seek testing at the time of the trial in a case where a verdict was rendered on or before January 1, 1995, or the applicant's counsel sought funds from the court to pay for the testing because his client was indigent and the court refused the request despite the client's indigency."11
The General Assembly required an applicant "present a prima facie case demonstrating that the: (i) identity of or the participation in the crime by the perpetrator was at issue in the proceedings that resulted in the applicant's conviction and sentencing; and (ii) DNA testing of the specific evidence, assuming exculpatory results, would establish: (A) the applicant's actual innocence of the offense for which the applicant was convicted; ...."12
Pennsylvania courts began to interpret this September 9, 2002 statute as precluding defendants who voluntarily confessed or pleaded guilty to the crime from eligibility for post-conviction DNA testing because the defendant could not show "actual innocence" as required by the statute.13
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the reasoning in this line of cases in its 2011 decision in Commonwealth v. Wright .14 In Wright , the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed whether a convicted person seeking DNA testing under Pennsylvania's statute "is precluded by his confession, which was ruled to be voluntary and admitted into evidence against him at trial, from establishing a prima facie case demonstrating that DNA testing would establish his actual innocence."15 The Supreme Court held a confession, even if adjudicated voluntary, does not constitute a per se bar to establishing a prima facie case for DNA testing under section 9543.1 if he meets all the statute's requirements.16
Seven years later in 2018, Pennsylvania state Senator Stewart J. Greenleaf led the Pennsylvania General Assembly in amending section 9543.1 effective December 24, 2018, to include, among other things, a guilty plea to a crime of violence or confession "shall not prohibit the applicant from asserting actual innocence ... or the court from making a determination and ordering DNA testing ...."17
Mr. Heyward's post-conviction Motion for DNA testing in state court and, during the pendency of the motion, filed a section 1983 action here.
In March 2018, over nine months before Pennsylvania amended its DNA testing statute, Mr. Heyward moved the state court for forensic DNA testing under the previous version of § 9543.l.18 Mr. Heyward intended to demonstrate his actual innocence of the crimes to which he pleaded guilty through DNA testing of the lighter and other physical evidence. Mr. Heyward moved for DNA testing "of any evidence recovered from [his] criminal case, including the cigarette lighter ...."19
On May 20, 2019, Lieutenant Thomas Macartney of the Philadelphia Police Department's Evidence Custodian Unit advised the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office the lighter could not be located: 20
On July 10, 2019, Mr. Heyward's court-appointed Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA")21 attorney advised him the lighter sought to be DNA tested could not be located by the Philadelphia Police Department.22 Mr. Heyward's counsel moved to withdraw, filing a Finley no-merit letter on November 20, 2019.23
In the meantime, Mr. Heywood filed a civil rights action here on October 7, 2019 – before the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas disposed of his motion for DNA testing – alleging he has a "state created liberty interest that only requires him to demonstrate his actual innocence in the context of post-conviction proceedings with appropriate evidence" and the loss of the lighter and other evidence in his criminal case prejudiced his attempt to show his actual innocence.24 He alleged a deprivation of "adequate access to courts" in violation of the Eighth Amendment, a violation of procedural due process, a Brady25 violation, and "government interference and a blatant miscarriage of justice."26
We dismissed Mr. Heyward's pro se complaint on January 8, 2020 seeking to proceed in forma pauperis after screening it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).27 We did not permit Mr. Heyward to file an amended complaint but dismissed his claims without prejudice to him filing a new lawsuit in the event the state court vacated his conviction. We have no record a Pennsylvania state court vacated Mr. Heyward's conviction.
Mr. Heyward then filed this case on January 30, 2020 despite no change in the state court after our January 8, 2020 dismissal Order and the state court had yet to dismiss his PCRA action. Mr. Heyward pro se alleged the City, the Philadelphia Police Department, Detective Harkins, and Officer Taggart deprived him of his due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by losing the lighter used in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial