Jiang v. Porter

• Decision Date: 28 December 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 4:15-CV-1008 (CEJ)
• Citation: 156 F.Supp.3d 996
• Parties: Rev. Xiu Hui “Joseph” Jiang, Plaintiff, v. Tonya Levette Porter, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

156 F.Supp.3d 996

Rev. Xiu Hui “Joseph” Jiang, Plaintiff,

v.Tonya Levette Porter, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 4:15-CV-1008 (CEJ)

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

Signed December 28, 2015

Dean John Sauer, Michael Charles Martinich-Sauter, James Otis Law Group, LLC, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff.

J. Brent Dulle, Rory Patrick O'Sullivan, St. Louis City Counselor's Office, Kenneth M. Chackes, Nicole Elizabeth Gorovsky, Chackes And Carlson, Amy J. Lorenz-Moser, Daniel J. Carpenter, Carpenter Moser, LLC, St. Louis, IL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CAROL E. JACKSON

, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the motion of defendants Tonya Levette Porter, Jaimie Pitterle, and the City of St. Louis to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)

. Plaintiff has responded in opposition, and the issues are fully briefed.

I. Background

Plaintiff Reverend Xiu Hui “Joseph” Jiang is a Chinese-born ordained Catholic priest in the Archdiocese of St. Louis. Jiang asserts that defendants A.M. and N.M. falsely accused him of sexually abusing their minor son for the purpose of monetary gain. Jiang also asserts that defendants Jaimie D. Pitterle and Tonya Levette Porter, officers of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, conducted an inadequate investigation of the abuse allegations and targeted plaintiff for prosecution because of his religion and ethnicity. He alleges that defendant City of St. Louis failed to properly train the officers and that the officers' conduct was the result of the city's unconstitutional policies and practices. Jiang further asserts that defendants Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, its executive director David Clohessy, and its registered agent in Missouri Barbara Dorris (the “SNAP defendants”) led a public smear campaign against him which included making false accusations of child molestation in the media. The criminal case against Jiang remained pending in state court from April 17, 2014 until June 17, 2015, when it was voluntarily dismissed shortly before trial.

The fifteen-count complaint consists of the following claims: religious discrimination, selective enforcement and prosecution based on religion, race and national origin, and conduct shocking the conscience, all in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

, against defendants Porter and Pitterle (Counts I–VI); conspiracy to violate civil rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985, against defendants except the City of St. Louis (Count VII); willful, malicious and reckless official acts in violation of Missouri law against defendants Porter and Pitterle (VIII); vicarious liability and Monell claims for unconstitutional policy and practice and failure to train and supervise against defendant City of St. Louis (Counts IX–XI); abuse of process against defendants Porter, Pitterle, A.M. and N.M. (Count XII); intentional infliction of emotional distress against all defendants except the City of St. Louis (Count XIII); and defamation against A.M., N.M., and the SNAP defendants (Counts XIV–XV). Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief.

II. Legal Standard

The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)

is to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The factual allegations of a complaint are assumed true and construed in favor of the plaintiff, “even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable.”

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)

(citing Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A. , 534 U.S. 506, 508 n. 1, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) ); Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (“Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance...dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations.”); Scheuer v. Rhodes , 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974) (stating that a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears “that a recovery is very remote and unlikely”). The issue is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether the plaintiff is entitled to present evidence in support of his claim. Scheuer , 416 U.S. at 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683. A viable complaint must include “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly , 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ; see id. at 563, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (stating that the “no set of facts” language in Conley v. Gibson , 355 U.S. 41, 45–46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957), “has earned its retirement”); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678–84, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (holding that the pleading standard set forth in Twombly applies to all civil actions). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955.

II. Discussion

A. Qualified Immunity

Defendants Porter and Pitterle first contend that plaintiff's claims against them in Counts I to VI should be dismissed, because they were shielded by qualified immunity at all times relevant to this action. “[Q]ualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known’.” Pearson v. Callahan , 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009)

(quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) ). Dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity “is inappropriate unless it appears beyond doubt [that the plaintiff] can prove no set of facts in support of [his] constitutional claims which would entitle [him] to relief.” Central Airlines, Inc. v. United States , 138 F.3d 333, 334 (8th Cir.1998) (internal quotations omitted); see also Weaver v. Clarke , 45 F.3d 1253, 1255 (8th Cir.1995) (stating that qualified immunity “will be upheld on a 12(b)(6) motion only when the immunity is established on the face of the complaint”).

To overcome defendants' qualified immunity claims, plaintiff must show that: “(1) the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the [him], demonstrate the deprivation of a constitutional right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” Baribeau v. City of Minneapolis , 596 F.3d 465, 474 (8th Cir.2010)

(internal quotations omitted). “The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Coleman v. Parkman , 349 F.3d 534, 538 (8th Cir.2003) (quoting Saucier v. Katz , 533 U.S. 194, 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) ). Courts are allowed “to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand.” Pearson , 555 U.S. at 236, 129 S.Ct. 808.

In Counts I through V, plaintiff asserts claims of discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. In Count VI, plaintiff asserts a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim. The gravamen of plaintiff's equal protection claims is that the police defendants treated him less favorably in their investigation and prosecution because of his religion, his status as an ordained minister, and his race or national origin. Plaintiff's substantive due process claim is based on the allegation that the police defendants' pursued the criminal prosecution against him, even though they had evidence that the accusation of sexual abuse was false and they knew that plaintiff had passed a polygraph test.

Defendants contend that the complaint describes the conduct of objectively reasonable police officers responding to and investigating allegations of child sexual abuse. Also, defendants assert that plaintiff has not alleged that the failure to offer or act upon a polygraph examination violated his clearly established constitutional rights.

Prosecutorial discretion may not be “deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification, including the exercise of protected statutory and constitutional rights.” Wayte v. United States , 470 U.S. 598, 608, 105 S.Ct. 1524, 84 L.Ed.2d 547 (1985)

(internal quotations and citations omitted). Selective prosecution and selective enforcement claims are judged according to ordinary equal protection standards. Id. These claims require a plaintiff to show both a discriminatory effect and that the state actors were motivated by a discriminatory purpose. Id. at 608–09, 105 S.Ct. 1524 ; see also United States v. Armstrong , 517 U.S. 456, 465, 116 S.Ct. 1480, 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996). To establish a discriminatory effect, a plaintiff must show that similarly situated individuals were not prosecuted. Armstrong , 517 U.S. at 465, 116 S.Ct. 1480. Discriminatory purpose “implies that the decisionmaker selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.” Wayte , 470 U.S. at 610, 105 S.Ct. 1524 (internal quotations omitted).

According to the complaint, defendants Porter and Pitterle conducted only a minimal investigation of the abuse accusations. Had they conducted a more thorough investigation, they would have learned that the minor child had made unfounded claims of sexual abuse in the past and that he was mentally and emotionally troubled; that defendants A.M. and N.M. had a history of making unfounded allegations against the Catholic Church for financial gain; and that there were circumstances that made it impossible for plaintiff to have committed the abuse as alleged. It is further alleged that none of the child's accusations could be...