Madero v. Luffey

• Decision Date: 13 February 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-700
• Citation: 439 F.Supp.3d 493
• Parties: Ronald James MADERO, Plaintiff, v. Officer Christine LUFFEY, et al, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

439 F.Supp.3d 493

Ronald James MADERO, Plaintiff,

v.Officer Christine LUFFEY, et al, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-700

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

Filed February 13, 2020

Jeremy A. Mercer, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP, Amy L. Barrette, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Carolyn Batz McGee, Devin A. Winklosky, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, for Plaintiff.

Julie E. Koren, Michael E. Kennedy, City of Pittsburgh Law Department, Estelle K. McGrath, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Eric G. Soller, Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, Andrew R. Benedict, Bardsley Benedict Cholden, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.

OPINION

WILLIAM S. STICKMAN IV, United States District Judge

Plaintiff, Ronald J. Madero ("Madero"), alleges that he took care of abandoned cats in his neighborhood, giving them food, shelter and occasional medical care. He says that the cats were, in fact, his property. At some point, complaints of neighbors led Pittsburgh Police Officer Christine Luffey ("Officer Luffey") to visit Madero to assess the situation with the cats. Madero claims that Officer Luffey lied about having a warrant in order to secure his consent to search the premises, including an abandoned residence which he could access. The search was conducted by a non-officer volunteer, Mary Kay Gentert ("Gentert"). Madero alleges that Officer Luffey used information from the search to obtain a warrant, which was later executed on his property by Officer Luffey with assistance from Gentert and Tarra Provident ("Provident"), volunteers with Homeless Cat Management Team ("HCMT"). The seized cats were taken to Humane Animal Rescue ("HAR"), a non-profit shelter, where some were euthanized. None of the cats were returned to Madero.

Madero's lengthy Complaint asserts various causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law arising from an allegedly illegal search and wrongful seizure of the cats. Pending before the Court are the Motions to Dismiss of Officer Luffey (ECF No. 50), the HAR Defendants (ECF No. 32), and HCMT and Provident (ECF No. 46). For the reasons set forth herein, Officer Luffey's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 50) is granted in part and denied in part. The HAR Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 32) is granted. HCMT's and Provident's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 46) is granted in part and denied in part.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Madero is a seventy-eight-year-old man who resides at 5221 ½ Lytle Street in the Hazelwood neighborhood of Pittsburgh with his son, Mark Madero ("Mark"). Mark is the owner of the properties at 5221 ½ and 5223 Lytle Street, which form a duplex. 5223 Lytle Street is not occupied, but it is kept under lock and is accessible by Madero and Mark. Madero stores some of his personal belongings in one of the rooms of 5223. Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) ("Compl.") ¶¶ 4, 18-19, 21.

The properties sit on a dead-end street commonly used to dump abandoned cats and kittens. Madero has attempted to help the abandoned cats by working with Animal Friends volunteers to conduct mass spay and neuters for cats in the area. He also provided private veterinary care for sick and injured cats and kittens, as well as food and winter shelter for the cats and kittens. Madero claims to have spent thousands of dollars providing veterinary care to the cats and hundreds of dollars for food and winter shelter. Id. at ¶¶ 24–28.

On or about May 23, 2017, a neighbor of Madero contacted Animal Care and Control ("ACC") and complained about kittens abandoned in front of her residence at 5221 Lytle Street. According to Madero, the neighbor has never visited his properties and she did not complain about cats at 5221 ½ or 5223 Lytle Street. Madero states that ACC supervisor David Madden sent an email to Officer Luffey that a complaint was received about cats being kept inside 5221 ½ Lytle Street. Id. at ¶¶ 29-32.

On or about June 15, 2017, Officer Luffey, who was on duty and wearing her uniform, traveled with Gentert to 5221 ½ Lytle Street. Id. at ¶ 75-77. Gentert, who is affiliated with HCMT, previously cooperated with Officer Luffey in animal related cases. Id. at ¶¶ 45–74, 101-02. When the women encountered Madero, Officer Luffey identified herself and identified Gentert as a member of HCMT. Id. at ¶¶ 84–85. Officer Luffey informed Madero that they wanted to inspect the inside of 5223 and 5221 ½ Lytle Street. Id. at ¶¶ 84–85. When he refused, Madero alleges that Officer Luffey claimed to have a search warrant and said she "could bust down his door," and would "call for back up to break the door down and execute the warrant." Id. at ¶¶ 87-88. Madero also alleges that Officer Luffey misrepresented Gentert's presence and purpose, claiming he was led to believe that Gentert was there to help Madero with his "spay and neuter" services for the cats, and it was concealed to him that Gentert was assisting Officer Luffey with an investigation. Id. at ¶¶ 97, 98, 99, 103-04, 108.

Gentert went into 5223 Lytle Street with Madero while Officer Luffey waited outside. Id. at ¶ 112. Gentert took photographs inside. Id. at ¶ 114. After Gentert looked inside of 5223 Lytle Street, Officer Luffey told Madero that she and Gentert wanted to see the inside of 5221 ½ Lytle Street. Id. at ¶ 118. Madero allowed Gentert to enter the property while Officer Luffey waited outside. Id. at ¶¶ 119–20. Afterwards, Officer Luffey obtained a search warrant, which Madero asserts was the result of the information and photographs gathered by Gentert. Id. at ¶ 137. The warrant identified 5223 Lytle Street as the location to be searched. Id. at ¶ 144.

On June 29, 2017, Madero took five cats to Animal Friends for veterinary care. Id. at ¶ 131. He brought five additional cats to Animal Friends the next day, June 30, 2017, and retrieved the first five cats that had surgery. Id. at ¶¶ 233, 235. Madero arrived home just after the arrival of Officer Luffey, and other police officers, who were executing the search warrant to seize the cats in 5223 Lytle Street. Id. at ¶ 147. Gentert, Provident and volunteers from the ACC were present to assist with the cats that were seized.

A total of forty-two cats were seized and transferred to HAR.¹ Id. at ¶ 184. During the seizure of the cats, Madero contends they "were left for hours on the hot concrete, in the direct sunlight, in 80-degree weather, with no water." Id. at ¶ 164. Madero further asserts that he was not permitted to assist with placing the cats in carriers, and that "Gentert, Provident, and the ACC used snare catch poles to strangle the cats and force them into carriers or traps [...]." Id. at ¶ 168.

Once at HAR, Madero posits that the cats received no veterinary treatment for weeks and were kept in small cages in a windowless room. Id. at ¶¶ 201-02, 233-34, 240, 249, 256-59. Some of the cats were euthanized. Id. at ¶¶ 203-06. According to Madero, this was done without inquiring into the ownership of the cats, without notice to him, and pursuant to a forged surrender document.² Id. at ¶¶ 207-08, 212-18, 221-32, 236-38, 296-307.

On August 7, 2017, Officer Luffey filed a Criminal Complaint against Madero, accusing him of committing five counts of misdemeanor cruelty to animals and thirty-seven summary counts of cruelty to animals. Id. at ¶¶ 261–262. On August 3, 2018, Madero pled nolo contendere to twenty counts of disorderly conduct pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(4) at Criminal Docket Number CP-02-CR-0012086-2017 in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania. He was sentenced to ninety days probation for each count of disorderly conduct, with all twenty sentences to run consecutively.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint.

Kost v. Kozakiewicz , 1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir. 1993). A plaintiff must allege sufficient facts that, if accepted as true, state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). A court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside , 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009) ; see also DiCarlo v. St. Mary Hosp. , 530 F.3d 255, 262-63 (3d Cir. 2008).

The "plausibility" standard required for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss is not akin to a "probability" requirement but asks for more than sheer "possibility." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). In other words, the complaint's factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations are true even if doubtful in fact. Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Facial plausibility is present when a plaintiff pleads factual content that allows a court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendants are liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Even if the complaint's well-pleaded facts give rise to a plausible inference, that inference alone will not entitle a plaintiff to relief. Id. at 682, 129 S.Ct. 1937. The complaint must support the inference with facts to plausibly justify that inferential leap. Id.

"[A] motion to dismiss may be granted only if, accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a court finds that plaintiff's claims lack facial plausibility." Warren Gen. Hosp. v. Amgen Inc. , 643 F.3d 77, 84 (3d Cir. 2011). Although the Court must accept the allegations in the Complaint as true, it is "not compelled to accept unsupported conclusions and unwarranted inferences, or a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation."...